Tennessee legislature says Feds overstep
authority. Letters will be mailed soon from
the Tennessee legislature to all 49 other
state legislatures declaring the federal
government is abusing it's constitutional
authority.

The letter invites state legislatures from
across the nation to work together in examining
how to repeal federal "infringements" on
the authority of states.

It further states examination is needed for
what it calls a federal "usurpation of state
sovereignty"

Highlights from the letter;

"Today, the federal government seeks to
control the salaries of those employed by
private business, to change the provisions
of private contracts, to nationalize banks,
insurers, and auto manufacturers, and to
dictate to every person in the land what
his or her medical choices will be.

"Forcing employers to provide
health care, legislating what individuals are
and are not entitled to, and using the
labor of some so that others can receive
money that they did not earn goes far
beyond securing natural rights and the
enumerated powers in the constitution"

Here's a list of the States.

Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Hawaii.

These states have either passed this into law or is being proposed into state legislature and is affirmed by the rights of the 9th and 10th amendment. This list was only 22 last week. You can check these for yourself on the state web sites. I have included a link of New Hampshire's below.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



10th Amendment: "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."

that just might be a valid legal argument

the 9th and 10th could be construed to mean that the Federal Govt doesn't have the authority to require citizens to have health insurance

I remember reading an article about guns a few years back and the subject was whether or not states have to adopt laws the federal government passes and the answer is no. The article was based on a gun manufacturer in Montana who sold guns in Montana without serial numbers. As long as those guns were sold in the state of Montana there is nothing the feds can do because Montana didn't adopt the law requiring all firearms manufactured then sold in Montana to have serial numbers.

The feds will threaten to cut off funding, and the states will bow to their master.

not if a clear majority of states fight it

it IS the United States of America

More good news-thanks willing.

Except the loophole is that individuals can choose not to have health insurance and just pay the fine. It makes as much sense to carry health insurance as it does car insurance. As to the claim that government is dictating choices, it is doing no such thing by ADDING a choice. No choices are being taken so therefore no dictation of choice is being made. As far as using the labor of some to pay others, Im not sure what that is even a reference to. To eat in this country you must work. Some people fall on temporary hard times but you can be sure, unless they are disabled, that they spend the MAJORITY of their life working and paying the same taxes into the system that they may eventually need to fall back on.

mandatory car insurance is a state requirement

and I'm not saying I agree one way or the other

but any power not granted to the Feds in the Constitution is a right of the States

and there is nothing in the Constitution mentioning health insurance

car insurance is mandatory to protect others. Liability is to be used to another party if your actions caused something. The reason you have to have full coverage for financed car is because you don't fully own it and the finance company needs to protect their investments.

Other than that....PIP coverage etc isn't mandatory.

so that isn't the same as the health coverage

Not even the Congressional Budget Office is certain of the claims your making. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10435/07-13-HealthCareAndLaborMarkets.pdf) Given the history of entitlement programs, we have no reason to believe that Obamacare will work-exactly the contrary. Medicare, medicaid, Social Security; all BANKRUPT.

Further, doesn't "Except the loophole is that individuals can choose not to have health insurance and just pay the fine." sound more like extortion than a viable plan?

Third option.

We the majority of the People tell wannabe Kang Hussein to stuff his fine and make room for millions of us Patriotic Americans in the jails.

There are plenty of displced Americans who won't be able to afford the fine. Those and others can demand the Feds prosecute us. That would test the constitutionality of Husseins arbitrary punishment.

I play poker once in a while and if we, as united Americans did this, I think the feds would fold their hand.

This isn't just about the health care fiasco. It's about how those in DC think it's the goal of their lives to bankrupt America and screw the people who pay their slaries. They have gone way beyond sodomy.

How is it that you can say they aren't dictating a choice? Yhey are giving you a choice BUY INSURANCE OR PAY A FINE that to me is a choice. Not a very friendly choice but it is a choice. Kinda reminds me of the old military some had a choice join the Army or go to jail.

"We the majority of the People tell wannabe Kang Hussein to stuff his fine and make room for millions of us Patriotic Americans in the jails."


isn't it ironic that if you don't pay for health insurance they will fine you and if you don't pay the fine they will jail you where you will get health cafe anyway?

Yes, it would be a good idea to make the changes needed to stop all the wannabe kings from destroying America.

I disagree. Liability is to protect people WITH insurance from having to pay for the actions of those without. It makes sure all drivers carry a financial responsibility if they should happen to have an accident. Health insurance is financial responsibility for health. Those without it impose unfair premium increases on those with it whenever they get sick and the hospitals and doctors HAVE to care for them. The costs come from somewhere , passed down to those with insurance.

Firstly, I dont know why OBama keeps being referred to as King as if all 2000 pages of the plan are directly from him. MANY people have been working on a way to improve our system over many years,, this is not HIS baby, it is just something he is trying to have finally initiated in some form. Secondly, are there really Americans so consumed with their own pocket as to feel a healthcare system which bankrupts people and refuses others treatment does not need to be reformed? and Lastly, if its really all about the constitution,, Id be fine with having an AMMENDMENT that permits government to step in and assist with healthcare. The constitution is not infallible or unamendable exactly because times change and the founders could not have thought of EVERY possible situation when writing it.

Woohoo, I see a storm brewing and rightly so.

United we stand, divided we fall, as the days and months go by, more and more people are realizing what is happening in our Country.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives"

The reason people refer to him as "king" is because of how he uses executive orders and other legal tricks to circumvent the constitutional process. (same thing as Bush, too)

Nobody's arguing that healthcare doesn't need reform. The argument is about how to do it Constitutionally-which is at the State and local level.

You're right that the Constitution isn't perfect-that's why the States have Constitutions as well to deal with problems as they come. If you take the time to study the founders' writings, you'll see that they expected problems to arise-and be fixed locally.

What makes you think healthcare providers necessarily "refuses treatment"? By law, hospitals have to care for emergencies. If you want the fancy treatments, you have to behave like a responsible adult and EARN it.

Judging by the results of previous nationalization attempts (Soc Security, medicaid, medicare) there is no logical reason to think that MORE nationalization will lead to improved service. Thankfully, my State and others are moving to nullify this nonsense bill.

ya'll are speaking from a point of view of right or wrong

and I was just speaking from a point of view of legal definition

they may just have a case that the Federal Government doesn't have that kind of authority. And if a clear majority of States say they don't have it (3/5ths I think) then they don't