Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers wants to propose a State Constitutional Amendment to GA voters so, if passed, residents don’t have to participate in government-run health care

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

Many opponents of national health care say that it’s unconstitutional, and that the 10th Amendment reserves such power to the States, or the People themselves.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan.  And in July, a similar proposal was introduced in Florida.

Today, a group of Georgia State Senators announced a plan to introduce a State Constitutional Amendment “Giving Georgians the right to choose whether they want to enroll in any health insurance plan and prohibiting governments from punishing those who decide not to participate.”

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that more than ten other states may see such proposals introduced in the coming legislative session.

Nullification?

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Recent nullification efforts have seen success.  In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the Bush-era Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional.  Well over a dozen other states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.   And, thirteen states now have medical marijuana laws that are in direct opposition to federal laws, which consider the plant illegal in virtually all circumstances.

Recognizing the potentially overwhelming task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, the Obama administration recently announced that it would not only stop federal marijuana raids in those 13 states, but also, that it was looking to “repeal and replace” Real ID.

Some consider this to be a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.  Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Let the People Decide

George Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, in an interview with the Atlanta Business Chronicle said, “Proposals to deny or limit access to the purchase of private health care are simply unacceptable. Our basic freedoms are at risk with the government-run health care proposals coming out of Washington.”

Supporters say that the best way to deal with important issues like health care coverage is on a state level, and that the voice of the people in each state should be heard.  In November, 2010, Georgia voters may get that chance.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

David Clark looks pretty normal.  His smile is soft, his eyes are friendly, his voice is measured and his goatee is trimmed.

He may be a radical but he certainly isn’t wide-eyed.

The Sugar Hill lawyer is the Georgia face of a growing national movement to make marijuana legal.  And if he can’t make it legal, then at least wants it viewed as no worse than breaking the speed limit.

And while many Georgians may view that as the latest example of liberalism run amuck, for Clark and his allies, it is the marijuana laws that are crazy.

I think we would be a lot better off if marijuana was the drug of choice rather than alcohol,” he said.  “There would be a lot less violence, a lot fewer traffic fatalities and people wouldn’t be ruining their lives…  .  Marijuana is a wonderful drug.”

Clark, 49, is the executive director of the state chapter of NORML — The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws — which was incorporated last month to make state laws more bud friendly.  The organization is officially against minors smoking pot.

He notes that national polls show growing support for legalization and a majority of Americans support making marijuana available for medical treatment.  Last week, California Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger urged a study on legalizing pot.

Look, we have a black president and gay marriage is legal in Iowa,” Clark said.  “Anything is possible.”

Clark doesn’t see the legislature legalizing recreational use — “This is Georgia” — but he does hold out hope for medicinal use and for decreasing the penalties, which could lead to wider legalization.

At least 13 states — from Alaska to Vermont — have legalized marijuana for medical use, which is still a violation of federal law, although some people are skeptical if it is being prescribed legitimately.

Jack Killorin, director of a federally funded task force that targets drug trafficking in the Atlanta area, said many of the prescriptions for marijuana — said to be helpful in treating glaucoma and for increasing the appetite of AIDS patients — were suspect.

There seems to be a great deal of chicanery going on — I’ve got a hang nail, you need about eight grams a day,” said Killorin.

Atlanta Police Sgt.  Scott Krehir said officers often turn a blind eye to marijuana use unless it creates a problem in public.  Officers often view it as largely harmless and see more problems with alcohol, he said.

Officers are given discretion,” said Krehir, a police union chapter president.  “It is like if you stopped somebody who was walking to a Braves game with a beer in his hand.  That is illegal but do I put that person in jail?”

But people do go to jail for simple possession, either for a misdemeanor or for a felony, if the amount is more than a ounce.  Clark said the current laws only underscore the unfairness and hypocrisy of a public policy that largely tolerates marijuana use but sends some people to jail while others are let go.

Right now, fines for marijuana possession can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars.  In some jurisdictions, possessing relatively small amounts can lead to jail time, said Bruce Harvey, a defense lawyer who handles many drug cases.

If a person is arrested with more than an ounce, it will mean an felony indictment, the lawyer said.

I think those attitudes are changing,” Harvey said.  “A lot of the jurors I have experienced even in rural counties say they don’t believe small amounts of marijuana should be illegal.”

That may be because so many people have smoked marijuana — or know people who have smoked it.  A 2007 U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services study found that 4.6 million Americans 35 and older said they had used the drug in the past month while 62 million said they used it in their lifetime.

Rick Malone, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council of Georgia, said few prosecutors would oppose decriminalization but suspected few legislators would want to take on the issue.

You’re not going to get anyone to repeal the marijuana laws because they don’t want the political heat but if you got them in a back room and asked about their use in their youth, you might be surprised at the result,” Malone said.  “When I was a district attorney in South Georgia, I asked job applicants about their past use of controlled substances.  I soon quit asking that question.  I wasn’t going to find too many people who had gone through high school, college and law school who hadn’t puffed on a marijuana cigarette.”

The most recent state controversy about marijuana came last month at the University of Georgia, when a student chapter of NORML was placed on probation for selling shirts bearing the image of a bulldog smoking a joint while reading a book on human rights.

The university claimed copyright infringement.  The student group is appealing.

So far the state chapter is small — just over 50 people — but Clark claims it growing each week just by word of mouth.  Meanwhile, he said, he will continue to respect Georgia laws and reserve his cannabis indulgence for trips to the Netherlands, where it is legal, or to the Caribbean, where police seldom make arrests.

I started smoking pot as a teenager, when I was 14 years old,” Clark said.  “I don’t smoke marijuana very much today.  I just feel strongly that there shouldn’t be laws against it.”

Thousands of discontented Georgians lined the streets around our state Capitol on April 15 to protest excessive Washington spending and an increasingly burdensome tax code. In response to a federal government that thinks it knows how to spend your money better than you do, and continues to grow nearly unchecked, the Georgia Senate voted to reaffirm our rights as a sovereign state to prevent the federal government from continuing to expand.

As a country governed by a written Constitution, the right to keep government in check is vested in “we the people.” That means that we, the people of this country, cannot be forced to accept an oppressive and intrusive federal government. Under Senate Resolution 632, the Georgia Senate expressed bipartisan support for the principles of Jeffersonian democracy.

This resolution has been severely misrepresented in the media. In his opinion column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (“Georgia Senate endorses radical idea,” @issue, April 16, 2009), Jay Bookman tries to play constitutionalist by expressing views that are disingenuous for the sole purpose of provoking fear.

He argues that the resolution will likely lead Georgia to secede from and disband the United States. This extreme view is a loose interpretation of the measure’s language. Most of the text of the resolution is based on the words of those two well-known “extremists,” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The idea of limited government and state sovereignty is far from a radical idea —- it is common sense and the basis of our Constitution. The assumption that dangerous criminals would be set free under this resolution is utterly false.

The language in the resolution related to crimes, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was written well before subsequent amendments to the Constitution expanding Congress’ authority in certain areas. This resolution is designed to reinforce the principle of limited government that protects all of us from an ever-expanding federal government.

Under the Constitution, the federal government is given a clear purpose: to protect the safety and rights of its people.

When that government oversteps its bounds, citizens have every responsibility to bring the federal government back to its foundation principles. This can occur through elections and judicial opinions.

But the Georgia Senate decided to weigh in on a national movement to return to the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Our Founding Fathers included this constitutional guarantee because they knew only too well that a small, limited government works best. These principles affirm that states did not unite under the practice of unlimited submission to their federal government.

The resolution includes a list of items that demonstrate what the Senate considers federal overreaching. Most Georgians would agree with most of the list, which includes the federal government establishing martial law, limiting political speech or the press, or limiting the right to keep and bear arms.

Georgia is just one of many states involved in a movement to limit the continuing growth of the federal government. Over 30 other states are introducing sovereignty resolutions of their own, many with bipartisan support, and our Georgia congressional delegation has also done an excellent job of working to limit the growth of federal spending and taxes.

Additionally, such nationally known groups as the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council support these principles.

We must ensure that government continues to work for the people, not the other way around. Americans are not willing to let their government dictate every area of their lives, a fact made evident by the thousands who gathered in Atlanta for one of the biggest anti-tax rallies this country has seen since the Boston Tea Party more than 235 years ago.

As Washington continues to add to the more than $11 trillion our country already owes, it is apparent that the federal government is having a hard enough time managing its own affairs and should not meddle in that of the states. It is time to bring back common sense and put an end to the runaway growth of government. SR 632 is a reaffirmation of the principles of our nation’s founders.

Sen. Chip Pearson (R-Dawsonville) represents Georgia’s 51st state Senate District.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is at it again. Recently, an editorial by Jay Bookman, Georgia Senate endorses radical idea, was published in response to the state senate passing SR 632. Bookman’s commentary is full of slander, not only of the resolution, but of our senate itself. In short, he equates this resolution to nearly firing on Fort Sumter!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bookman questions the resolution’s intent of the Federal government defining laws. According to the resolution, the Federal government can only punish treason, piracy, and slavery, but Bookman questions the validity of this claim. He really should read our Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ability to define and punish piracy and counterfeiting money. Article III Section 3 gives Congress the power to declare the punishment for treason. And, the ratification of the 13^th Amendment banned slavery. So, the resolution is correct by stating that these are the only crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

What the resolution is saying by this is the state governments are responsible for all other crimes. So, contrary to his belief, Madoff should be under the jurisdiction of New York, Michael Vick should be under the jurisdiction of Virginia, and the same applies to the inmates in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

The editor then turns to the nullification clause and its role in the Civil War and Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s-60’s. While it may have had a role in the Civil War, the debate of Civil Rights in the 50’s and 60’s didn’t include nullification, but instead the theory of Interposition, which claimed that a state has the right to interpose its sovereignty against the encroachment upon the reserved powers of the state.

Nullification, on the other hand, is the legal theory that states have the right to invalidate any federal law it deems unconstitutional – this is done to keep Congress in line with its enumerated power.

Bookman then goes on to question the part of the resolution which states that if the Federal government oversteps its bounds, the Constitution is null and void. Since we are governed by law, who is to make sure that the ones we elect obey the Constitution?

The Constitution does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, that power was assumed with the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803. Thomas Jefferson was greatly disturbed by this decision because it placed so much power in the hands of the Courts.

It does seem a bit foolish to believe the Federal government can be trusted to keep itself in check. Remember, it is made up of humans and humans are so easily corruptible, especially those in the pursuit of power.

The question becomes this: Who is to protect the people from the Federal government?. If this duty is placed in the hands of the people, riots and violence may occur, resulting in a further infringement of liberties. If placed in the hands of the people’s agents in the state governments, it can provide a means of peaceful debate over these infringements.

Moving forward, Mr. Bookman then makes the absurd claim that, in his opinion, the only reason this resolution passed was because no one had time to read it. Actually, the resolution is only 4 1/2 pages and took me about 10 minutes to read. (click here to read it yourself)

To say that no one had time to read it is very humorous as I suppose we are to drop to our knees and thank God Almighty for the wisdom of our Federal government for passing a “stimulus” bill that no one was allowed to read. He shows great logic in that assessment, doesn’t he?

But this resolution wasn’t “snuck” in, it was read twice, referred to committee, read again, and then adopted by the senate with a vote of 43-1. In my opinion, that’s the fact that shocks him the most.

It appears to shock him so much that he slanders the Senators that sponsored the resolution by saying they used “deception.” He then equates this to being part of a radical right wing conspiracy, because no one in their right mind could possibly condone such a stand against actions of the Federal government. You would have to be crazy to question this government, right?

I honestly wasn’t aware that believing in our founding principles was so radical. I find great logic in listening to the wise words of Great Americans that risked everything to establish our republic. Why should they be vilified and slandered in such a way?

I believe its is the better patriot who questions and demands the best out of his government than the one is blindly loyal and assumes the government is looking out for his best interest.

The editor then goes to declare this resolution legally meaningless. This is something else that I wasn’t aware of, resolutions in the Georgia Senate can now be nullified by a newspaper editor…talk about the Power of the Press!

Bookman finishes his rant by claiming that we “have to question the judgment of those who would have any truck whatsoever with such nonsense…”

But, in reality, his editorial proves one thing that the rest of Georgia has known for decades – that the AJC, as well as much of Atlanta itself, has lost touch with the rest of Georgia. Seems to me that its quest to be the New York of the South is nearly complete.

Justin D. Lowry [send him email] is editor of Georgia Conservative Weekly.

Read the full text of the legislation below:

WHEREAS, the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and the Tenth Amendment states “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that this body reaffirms the principles of government expressed by Thomas Jefferson in a resolution written for the Kentucky legislature in 1798 stating that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress.