The Health Care Compact: A Trojan Horse?

When battling the enormous monster that our federal government has become, Tea Party and liberty groups are always looking for the next way to push back the federal government.  Some of these may work and others won’t.  The latest idea to surface and being touted as a type of nullification is interstate compacts, found in Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

While it’s possible to form well defined limited interstate compacts with specific goals, interstate compacts can also be dangerous to liberty and we must answer several questions before jumping on the bandwagon of interstate compacts as a solution to federal tyranny.

ObamaCare is the primary reason that many tea parties want to form and interstate compact.  It’s an admirable goal, but can it be done and are we jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

What Exactly Are We Trying to Stop and How Far Do You Want to Go Back to the Origin of the Problem?

The federal government’s control of health care and insurance goes back much further than ObamaCare.  There were approximately 133,000 pages of regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regulating health care and health insurance prior to ObamaCare. 


Feds Issue Threat: No Fly Zone for Texas?

by Connor Boyack, with Brian Roberts and Michael Boldin

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice upped the ante in a high-stakes political game of chicken. Lobbying against pending legislation in the Texas legislature which would criminalize any searches conducted without probable cause, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy sent a letter to a few high-ranking members of Texas’ government warning against promoting the bill and threatening a complete closure of all flights to and from the state.

“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

No doubt written with the threatening intent one reads into it, Murphy added: “We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote.”

Previous to the federal government’s threat, the Texas legislature had considered the ramifications of the bill. More importantly, they were responding to a clear need to uphold the Fourth Amendment and ensure that each person enjoys the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” — a right which the U.S. Constitution mandates “shall not be violated.”

Repeated TSA violations of the Fourth Amendment

That need has demonstrated itself in great abundance in past months, as the TSA has aggressively pursued its new policy of invasive searches and seizures at the nation’s airports.