“No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session”.

- attributed to NY State Judge Gideon Tucker

Monday, August 30, 2010

States Legislate Against ObamaCare

One of the last of my Wall Street Journal reads from my absence early this month was the lead staff editorial on August 5th entitled Show Me ObamaCare.

The lead sentence states,

"The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum.

Missouri's Proposition C annulled the "individual mandate" within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries."

The editorial went on to make a major point about how unelected bureaucrats will, under ObamaCare's provisions, define what "health care" is in America. This involves, among other things, defining the elements of "medical loss ratios," which are the measures by which the costs of delivering care, e.g., expenses for capital and people, are meant to be controlled.

But my interest in the piece was mostly about this state challenge to the federal law.

Will the federal government seek to moot or overturn this Missouri law under supremacy, by which federal law automatically supersedes state laws?

Will such action incite further rage in Missouri, causing the election of anybody running against federal-level Democrats?

Would such action by the federal government cause even more support for the states' lawsuit against ObamaCare, as well as a wider, united move by states to amend the Constitution so that supremacy is radically redefined and limited, if allowed at all?

These are, I believe, all causes for hope and optimism concerning the American experiment. It would seem to be time for the people, through their states, which are the parties to the Constitution- which parties do NOT include the federal government, itself- to revisit the agreement and more explicitly place limits on federal power, as well as the ability of federal elected and appointed officials to become a permanent political careerist class.

No comments: