Will healthcare bill give Tenth Amendment drive momentum?

Michael Boldin is founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He believes 2010 may be the 'Year of the 10th.'Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin believes 2010 may be the “Year of the 10th,” with the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution underpinning the drive’s momentum. Boldin said, "With people looking to resist D.C. through state laws on everything from national health care to medical marijuana, the 10th Amendment appears ready to be front and center in the national debate this year." In a statement from the Center Boldin cited examples of states disagreeing with federal laws on gun control, the Bush-era Real I.D. Act and medical marijuana laws, among others.

"Already, over a dozen states are considering laws or state constitutional amendments that would effectively ban, or nullify, any proposed national health care plan in their state, and we expect that number to reach at least twenty in 2010," he said.

Click to read more ...

States’ rights heat up blogs and branded media as ‘Tenthers’ battle ‘Bloaters’

by Kay B. Day

Branded media and blogs are talking about the powers of the federal government in relation to the states, a topic The US Report has covered for months. Fans of Big Government who are equally fond of labels, call those who believe in state sovereignty ‘tenthers.’ To apply labels of our own, we observe neoliberals writing in various statist publications who, perhaps wishfully, call the sovereignty movement a “fringe constitutional theory.” The ‘tenther’ label refers to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights acknowledging 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.” A responsive label for Big Government fans is ‘Bloaters.’ If any entity in the country needs a diet, that would be the federal government whose BMI is flatly off the charts. [Article continues after photo.]

Charles T. Dazey’s play ‘The War of Wealth’ debuted in February, 1895. The New York Times gave it rave reviews, noting “200 people on the stage.” Judging by the review, the production explored good vs. evil described by The Times as an “interesting topic of a war of wealth pitted against wealth…” The play seems appropriate considering various bailouts taxpayers have funded more than a century after the play’s premiere. [Strobridge & Co. Lith., the US Library of Congress. No known restrictions on publication.]

Click to read more ...

As Constitution Day approaches, states mull options to limit Washington

By Kay B. Day

The Library of Congress said James Madison came to be known as the "Father of our Constitution...among the most influential delegates at the Constitutional Convention" in 1787.[Lithograph after a painting by Gilbert Stuart, circa 1828, from the digital collection at the LOC.] September 17 is Constitution Day, so it seems appropriate that states are rallying in an effort to combat a federal government expanding beyond its historically legal powers. Two bills, HR 2454 and healthcare legislation in progress, will affect the daily lives of every American. A columnist at The Tenth Amendment Center said the states have a ‘nuclear option’ on healthcare—nullification.

The Tenth Amendment Center is calling attention to September 17 because on that day in 1787, members of the Constitutional Convention signed the draft of the document that is the keystone for liberty. As Congress attempts to expand the powers of the federal government to historic levels, the Center’s founder Michael Boldin said in a news release, “This year seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Laws passed by states include nullification of some federal firearms regulations. Boldin added, “[T]hree states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt out of any future national healthcare plan.”

More than 2 dozen states have passed or are in the process of trying to pass state sovereignty resolutions.

In a column at the Center website, Josh Eboch addresses the means some in Congress have threatened to use to ram healthcare legislation through with a simple majority, a process rather ridiculously called ‘reconciliation.’ If Dems ram historic legislation down the throats of American taxpayers, there will be nothing friendly about it. Eboch said this would be a “strategic error” and a “miscalculation.”

Click to read more ...

Axelrod’s offhand comment could light healthcare fuse: state compacts?

David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, talked with Bill O'Reilly after President Barack Obama addressed Congress Wednesday. Axelrod focused on Dick Morris, but what he said about state health insurance regulations lights the fuse of opportunity.Leftist media pundits are celebrating President Barack Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod bashing rightie pundit Dick Morris after Obama’s address Wednesday to Congress. But all missed a loaded remark Axelrod made about the states. The  top strategist for the left was talking to Bill O’Reilly and the talk show host asked about being able to purchase insurance across state lines. In his speech Obama cited an obstacle to reform—“In 34 states 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by 4 or 5 companies.”

When O’Reilly mentioned this, Axelrod suggested—I’m paraphrasing—deregulation was a matter for the states.

Apparently I am the only analyst who saw the fuse Axelrod unintentionally lit.

In the full exchange with O’Reilly,  Axelrod focused on Dick Morris’ book, denying potential for rationing medical care once new consumers come into the market when the Democrats pass legislation. Rationing, by the way, is likely. We face a shortage of primary care physicians within a few years because the real money is in specialties.

But the adviser’s comment lights a path to state involvement in deregulation. Why can’t states form compacts to combine purchasing power with a goal of broadening the market? If you think companies won’t compete for market share, talk to your nearest CEO.

Why can’t Southeastern governors come together to pool resources, and open the health insurance market so our choices are expanded?

Click to read more ...

HR 1913 will spend millions for an unconstitutional law

Technically, HR 1913 will provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. Sounds so simple. But this legislation will not only expand existing assaults on freedom of speech, it will also cost a bundle and further intrude the federal government into local and state jurisdictions. While the law does stipulate federal assistance will be provided “at the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency,” the language is troublesome and the costs will certainly grow beyond the $10 million estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for 2010.

The bill panders to advocacy groups and community groups with the fiscal tool every politician loves—federal grants. HR 1913 says, “In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.”

And the way the bill is worded, almost any violent crime could fit the provisions of HR 1913 governing “offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”

Click to read more ...