Thursday, March 29, 2012

Is Obamacare Being Challanged in the Wrong Court?

We are now hearing about how Obamacare is being challenged before the US Supreme court as I type this blog. I just think the states have it backwards challenging this bad law. The states created the Federal government with very limited powers. I just think it is the wrong way for the states to fight this monstrosity called Obamacare. The US Congress has twisted the commerce clause to mean anything to attack personal liberty and property rights. The states always go to Federal Court and they do not need to. The answer lies within the state government to nullify Obamacare.

If I were the governor of Texas as the governor, here is what I would do. I would go to my State Supreme Court and ask for does the Federal government have jurisdiction inside Texas to force everyone to buy health insurance. Does the Federal government have jurisdiction to take over health care and set up death panels inside the state? If the State Supreme stands on the ninth and tenth amendments saying, Washington has no legal jurisdiction. The state courts should order injunctions against Federal intrusion. Why should the States go into Federal court? That is like asking to wolves to keep the foxes out of the hen house.

Back when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed attacking the first amendment back in the late 1700s. The response to this tyrannical law was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. In both of these resolutions that are of historical significance. It was straight forward saying it is the duty of the state legislators to interpose themselves between the Federal government and the people. States are not obligated to go into Federal court to block an illegal and unconstitutional law. It is not the duty of the Federal courts to interpose themselves on the behalf of the people. It is the duty of the state governments to stand in the gap.

Also, look at the Supreme Court landmark ruling of Prinz Mack vs. Brady Bill where the majority opinion by Justice Scalia said the States are not obligated to follow federal directives. We see the State's AGs going into Federal court over the EPA and other overreaching laws coming out of Washington DC. It is a waste of time going into Federal court when the state government can interpose themselves to keep the Federal government out of their jurisdiction.

Passing resolutions and Nullification laws is trying to reinvent the wheel. The Constitution gives the several States the legal framework to keep a bloated Federal government from trampling on the people's and the state's rights. The TSA could have been history if the State just looked at the Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Prinz Mack vs. Brady Bill decision along reading the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The state would realize they never needed to go into Federal Court that never had any jurisdiction anyway to hear the case because it does not involve interstate commerce. It belongs in the state courts because it is a Federal Law that interferes with intrastate commerce within the state. The states determine jurisdiction.

Obamacare was challenged in the wrong courts to begin with. The State AG should have relied on the courts of the State governments to provide legal guidelines to erect barriers. It is the duty of the State government to keep Obamacare out. It is not the duty of the Federal court. If the States said “no” from the get go. Obamacare would be nullified by default because of non-compliance of the states. Waiting for the high court to rule on a matter for the State government is a bad habit that must be broken.


  1. Thanks for the insight. Reblogged at

  2. Good stuff. It might be worth mentioning that the people deciding the outcome had a hand in writing it to begin with. Isn't there some sort of law against that? If there isn't there should be. It's a little like grading your own tests...