Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You”

By on February 11, 2013 in Press Releases
  • Share on Tumblr

david-longFor Immediate Release: Feb. 11, 2013

On Jan. 7, Indiana Sen. Phil Boots introduced SB0230. The proposed legislation finds “the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States,” and would make enforcement of Obamacare in Indiana a felony.

It appears Indiana State Senator David Long remains resolute and will allow a bill that would stop the implementation of the unpopular Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in Indiana to die of neglect, despite strong support for the bill in both legislative chambers and a public outcry in favor of the legislation.

During the Montgomery County Lincoln Day Dinner Friday night, Boots reportedly told a constituent Long will not budge and there is no way he’ll allow SB230 to have a hearing.

Long insists the bill is unreasonable and unconstitutional.

“Let me get this straight,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “He doesn’t think the people, or their representatives, have the ability to determine if something is constitutional, but he alone has the ability to unilaterally make that determination and keep the issue from even coming up for debate. Nice. I wonder what he will do if the feds come after guns? I suppose he will make sure the state of Indiana doesn’t stand in in their way. The feds are supreme in all things,after all. David Long, like the Obama administration he’s protecting, is dangerous.”

Long and like-minded “legal experts” insist the Indiana legislature cannot nullify the PPACA because of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Boldin says they ignore the key phrase in the clause. Only acts “in pursuance of” the Constitution stand up as supreme.

“Long’s version of the supremacy clause reads like most liberals – laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution, and whatever the hell else Congress wants to pass, are supreme,” Boldin said. “He should move out here to California where his statements on the Constitution would be right at home with all the other big government types.”

Long insists the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the insurance mandate in the PPACA constitutional makes it the law of the land and that it cannot be challenged by the state. John Hill, a constitutional law professor at the Robert H. McKinney School of Law at Indiana University in Indianapolis backs Long up, calling the idea that the Supreme Court isn’t the final arbiter “bizarre.”

“Yeah, Long and his cronies take the same position on the Supreme Court as Harry Reid. ‘I’m not here to give everyone my limited knowledge of constitutional law. I am here to say that the law has been upheld,’” Boldin said, quoting the Senate majority leader.

He went on to point out that mandate or not, no enumerated power exists for the federal government to run a national health care system.

“Thomas Jefferson said when the federal government oversteps its constitutionally delegated powers, nullification is the rightful remedy. He and James Madison both insisted that the Supreme Court does not make the final determination on the extent of federal power. Long is basically saying that the federal government gets the final say – well – because the federal government says it gets the final say. There’s some lawyer talk for you!” Boldin said. “So, if it’s going to come down to a debate between Long and some dude who teaches a few law classes in Indianapolis, against James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, I think I’m just going to go with the ‘Father of the Constitution’ and the author of the Declaration of Independence.”

Contact: Mike Maharrey
Communications director
O: 213.935.0553
media@tenthamendmentcenter.com
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

###

The Tenth Amendment Center exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism.

About Tenth Amendment

View all posts by Tenth Amendment →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
5 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
KennethLou
KennethLou

+++Will somebody knock this defiant wind bag out?Especially the wind.

cptbanjo
cptbanjo

The author fails to mention Federalist No. 78, which fully supports the concept of judicial review:

 

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

 

The Supreme Court cannot enforce its own decisions but must rely on the Executive Branch to do so.  Its appellate jurisdiction can be limited by Congress.  Its decisions can be overridden by constitutional amendments.  So what's the problem?

Monorprise
Monorprise

As long as we have men like Indiana Sen. Phil Boots, willing to fight for the preservation(reservation) of our rights freedom might still have a chance in this federation.

Watchdog1
Watchdog1

I have played James Madison and now will play the role of Thomas Jefferson in Florida's Patriot Camps and Liberty Schools where we teach children 8-12 the vital history of our founding and Founding Fathers, as MANDATED for (but largely ignored by) Florida public schools. Their position was that, of the 3 branches of the Federal Government, the branch that SHOULD RIGHTFULLY be the final determiner of the Constitutionality of any law is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.... NOT the Supreme Court, and their logic is sound. The Supreme Court is comprised of a handful of APPOINTEES, all too often of questionable backgrounds and people to whom much was owed by politicians. Being accountable to no one, their agenda is THEIR OWN. The legislature is comprised of HUNDREDS OF ELECTED officials, elected by THE GOVERNED, not appointed by the few privileged. And, since the process of IMPEACHMENT... the only way to remove "Justices" from office shy of retirement or natural (or externally-imposed) death, has proven impractical, it makes the case for the Legislative determination all the greater.  Bill Peterseim

Monorprise
Monorprise

 @Watchdog1 

 

I think vesting that kind of power in any one branch of Government is foolish as it robs the people of the effect of those limits which apply to all braches.

 

It is the core printable of divided & checked power that no man or group of men should be trusted to limit themselves.  It is the printable of American power that ultimately all legitimate power derives directly from the consent of the individual people, as was practically expressed thou their more local organizational units.

 

Following that model I do not believe Federal legislator could ever have the right to define for itself its own Constitutional limits any more than the Federal employees in black robes.  These limits must be defined by the other branches and where they fail in conspiracy amongst themselves (As was obviously the case over the last 200 years) the final responsibility to correct this evil falls to the States & their people.

 

This is why the emphases must be on level of government with the lower & closer to the people being the higher due not only to the aforementioned attributes but due to the most critical check of all, our ability to vote with our feet.

 

I nonetheless salute your efforts as noble and brave, every little step towards liberty helps us find our way back there.

 

Trackbacks

  1. Anonymous says:
    February 11, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    [...] than you" card. This tool needs to be recalled. Unfortunately, that's a no go in Indiana. Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You” – Tent… __________________ [...]