Author Topic: No Sovereign State needs a Judge to tell them they should enforce Obamacare  (Read 356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spiraling Leopard

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5423
  • Eternal Vigilance
    • PIGtube-channel:
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:

No sovereign state needs the Courts to enforce a ruling on Obamacare. The state needs only to pass legislation to declare the act null, void and of no force inside its jurisdiction. We currently do not ...have a legisl...ature tha...t believes in Liberty to this extent yet. The legislative template for this is simple and available:

An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.

 

SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:

 

1. The People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.

 

2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.

 

3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

 

SECTION 2. NEW LAW

 

A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

 

A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

 

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.

 

C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

 

D. Any public officer or employee of the State of ____________ that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.

 

E. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsections (C) or (D).

 

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor."

 

The danger of a SCOTUS ruling is that ruling against this is ruling against the general government, in essence, SCOTUS is ruling against the very government it is a part of..The real checks and balance was the the appoi...ntment of senators by... the state legislatures..the check and balance of the court on the executive or congress is incredibly weak over the history of the court who over the years has ruled that both it and congress are superior to state legislatures, something clearly rejected by the Ratifiers during the various state conventions to ratify the constitution...If this superiority was acceptable, the Ratifiers would not have gone to great pains to insure it would not be the case.

By Rosie Johnson.