35 states propose ways to prevent health insurance mandate

The Wichita Eagle is reporting 35 states have filed constitutional amendments or laws that move to prohibit nationalized healthcare:

In many states, the proposals began as a backlash to Democratic health care plans pending in Congress. But instead of backing away after a Massachusetts election gave Senate Republicans the filibuster power to halt the health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with new enthusiasm.

The moves reflect the continued political potency of the issue. The legal impact of state measures may be questionable because courts generally have held that federal laws trump those in states.

Lawmakers in 35 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts.

Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face re-election.

I’m sure there will be a constitutional face-off over this.

I’m also sure the Supreme Communist Court will rule the federal government trumps all, 10th amendment and limitations on power be damned!

The Supreme Court has a long and distinguished history of violating states and citizens rights dating all the way back to before the civil war when they declared slavery constitutional.

They also managed to incite the civil war by ignoring the 10th amendment and limitations on power.

A few choice quotes from our illustrious Supreme Court leaders.

On blacks being protected citizens of the US:

“They [African Americans] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [1787] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”

Chief Justice Roger Taney

On racial segregation:

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

Justice Henry Billings Brown

On the federal governments authority to govern every aspect of commerce:

It is established beyond peradventure that the Commerce Clause of Art. I of the Constitution is a grant of plenary authority to Congress. That authority is, in the words of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), “the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.” Id. at 196.

Justice William Rehnquist

On the government’s authority to forcibly sterilize “imbeciles”:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

All of those are from majority opinions.

While certainly the Supreme Court has done “some” good, 90% of the time they side with the federal government in total tyranny.  It is a rare day indeed when the supreme court sides with states and citizens.  The supreme court has broken its oath to uphold the constitution 10 times over, hence the justices are criminals.  Perjury of an oath of office is a felony offense.

Praise Mao.