Virginia Makes State Sovereignty Specific To Health Care - State Sovereignty And The Constitution

I want to say that none of this should be construed as indifference to peoples’ problems with health care costs. That’s a moral consideration for all of us and our communities. But with a nation with the size and history of America, federal coercion not only destroys true charity, it doesn’t work and is in fact socially and economically counterproductive.

Over the past year, many state legislatures have passed declarations of sovereignty against this over-intrusive federal government. In resolution fashion, Texas’ HCR50, declares its “Whereas” justifications of abuses and “Therefore” resolutions. Here is video of Governor Rick Perry’s Announcement of Texas’ 10th Amendment Resolution, last April.

But on Wednesday March 10th, Virginia’s legislature specifically declared its renunciation of submission to a personal imposition of federal health care constraints. Here are reports in liberal papers in liberal cities.

Virginia: Opting to Refuse Health Overhaul. Va. health bill could foil Obama proposal - The Boston Globe

Here is video of a Virginia news announcement.

I have posted that Republican U.S. Senators have declared their intention to block non-budgetary elements of a proposed Reconciliation bill supposedly “fixing” what The House voters find unacceptable. The Senate Parliamentarian has already said the Senate bill must be signed into law before it can be “fixed” in Reconciliation: The House must trust The Senate to fix it. That’s a laugh.

Thursday, it was reported that House Rules Committee Chairwoman, NY Rep. Louise Slaughter, was considering stretching constitutional contortion to new lengths. Perhaps The House could pass its own package of “fixes” to the bill, whereupon it would consider The Senate bill to have been passed, without a vote. This drove radio host, lawyer, and author (Amazon.com: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto ... ) to demand her expulsion from The House as an affront to The Constitution. I surely understand Levin’s horror at this novel distortion, but surely this relatively studied man would also admit that, the grave stakes aside, the idea of expelling members of Congress for offense to The Constitution is a little funny: sure, I’m all for it. Should we stop at half of them or go al the way? Most everyone in Congress considers unconstitutional matters these days, even if they have no such intentions. We have culturally shifted the ground of discussion.

34 States including Texas have made similar declarations of sovereignty. Perhaps a little dramatic for some, here is a video that includes clips of MN U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Barack Obama defending federal sanction of individuals who would refuse to purchase federal government-approved health care insurance, and British Lord Monckton discussing an international energy-regulation agreement at Copenhagen in December. Declaring Individual Sovereignty Part I of II. That “summit” of course, has passed with no treaty but only Obama’s meaningless promise.

The United States Senate is not about to pass any large taxation of our energy consumption. There is a lot to say about that. For instance, whatever Obama or anyone else has said, expect no real action on construction of nuclear energy plants. Why? With no carbon emissions, there would be no potential tax revenue, which is the real bottom-line: maybe they’ll figure out some other threat. But notwithstanding, the “climate change” vehicle is at least, the current approach for promoring global governance and resource control.

This is a video of economist and historian Tom Woods talking about an assertion of Thomas Jefferson that is strangely, little spoken of. With apologies to Lauro, Woods is a libertarian, some extensions of which I also disagree with. Nevertheless, his economics and history are accurate.

Thomas E Woods - Principles of 98

After looking at all of this, maybe you can imagine why I doubt this measure will pass. It isn’t just their electoral safety or even the peace of their consciences that are at stake. There would be furious legal challenges waged, at the very least. There could well be violence: maybe scattered and maybe organized. Surely some and maybe many states would assertively balk. I think all of these histrionics are for show for that 10% or less of left-wing radicals and activists: “See? We tried!” I’d like to know how many of them really hope it would just go away. I don’t care for needless coarse language but sometimes it’s very succinct. So if I may employ a Spoonerism, I think some won’t be ready for the fat to really hit the shin in America.

 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy