Republicans Pushing Mandates on State Courts

House Rules Committee: “Violate Your Oath No Matter How You Vote!”

It’s a stunning betrayal of all those hardworking, pro-Constitution Americans who gave U.S. House Republicans their majority.

Republicans controlling the House Rules Committee have added sweeping new mandates on the states to a bill repealing part of Obamacare. The result is revised H.R. 5.

Just on good government grounds, those two very different items do not belong in one bill. But what is particularly thuggish is how it forces conscientious members of Congress to violate their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution. If you vote “aye,” you get the unconstitutional mandates. If you vote “no,” then you vote to retain an unconstitutional part of Obamacare.

It’s really true.


THE FIRST PART of revised H.R. 5 is a resurrected zombie that was the original H.R. 5. Although promoted as “medical malpractice reform,” the measure is actually a big step toward federal control of state court systems. Essentially, it’s a lengthy set of mandates telling state and federal judges how to run their own courts whenever they deal with any health-care-related personal injury cases. I’ve written on this subject before, so only a short take is necessary here.


The Rule of Law

by Scott Strzelczyk

In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.  While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise.  A general misconception is a law is constitutional if; Congress passes a bill and the President signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality.  Not only is this wrong, it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of mans’ natural rights and liberty.

The Rule of Law is defined as “Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals” [i].  In other words, nobody is above the law nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law.  The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men).  Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.