Resist DC: A Step-by-Step Plan for Freedom

Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)
Tenth Amendment Center
November 30, 2009

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

• State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.

• The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.

• County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

• Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [ example legislation]

• Nullification of National Cap and Trade [ example legislation]

• Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]

• Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [ example legislation]

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2:   Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous  Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

• Sheriff First [ model legislation]

• Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [ sample legislation]

• Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]

• Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [ model legislation]

The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7    Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007  Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

NOTES:

1. Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson, Adopted by Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798.

2. Federalist No. 85, Publius (Alexander Hamilton), August 13 and 16, 1788.

3. Rules of the House XIII 3(d), “Content of Reports,” Page 623, 110th Congress.

4. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (Actual Pages 11, 13) (2008)

5. Id at (Actual Page 11).

6. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/ancient/1859-teutoburg-forest-the-battle-that-saved-the-west

7. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sheriff&searchmode=none

8. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

9. Federalist No. 39, Publius (James Madison), January 16, 1788

10. Tempering the Commerce Power, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 95 (2007).

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/resist-dc-a-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/

Montana Town Occupied By Private Paramilitary Security Force

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

A private security force whose biggest role is helping the U.S. government to “combat terrorism” is now patrolling the streets of a town in Montana, acting as law enforcement but accountable to nobody and operating completely outside the limitations of the U.S. constitution in a chilling throwback to the brownshirts of Nazi Germany.

The American Police Force organization is a paramilitary unit that “provides surveillance, investigative, and military services across the world,” according to its website, which shows men dressed in military fatigues carrying machine guns.

“As part of our mission, APF plays a critical role in helping the U.S. government meet vital homeland security and national defense needs. Within the last 5 years the United States has been far and away our #1 client. Technologies, programs, and services performed by APF have played a very important role in U.S. military and civilian efforts to protect our homeland and combat terrorism,” the website states.

APF were originally contracted to provide security at a previously empty detention center in Hardin, a small town in Montana, but are now patrolling the streets driving SUV’s with “Police Department” printed on them despite the fact that Hardin doesn’t have a police department. American Police Force has no jurisdiction in the area because it is a private organization, not a police force.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

According to Two Rivers Authority officials, having the private security force patrol the streets was not part of the contract. “I have no idea. I really don’t because that’s not been a part of any of the discussions we’ve had with any of them,” Two Rivers Authority’s Al Peterson told KULR 8 News. Peterson said that patrolling the streets was on the “wishlist” of APF’s Captain Michael.

The American Police Force is a shady outfit shrouded in suspicion. According to an Associated Press report, questions over the legitimacy of the organization abound.

“Government contract databases show no record of the company. Security industry representatives and federal officials said they had never heard of it. On its Web site, the company lists as its headquarters a building in Washington near the White House that holds “virtual offices.” A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address,” reports AP.

Furthermore, APF was tasked with filling the empty Hardin detention center with inmates, without any clear indication of where those prisoners would come from.

“It’s unclear where the company will get the inmates for the jail. Montana says it’s not sending inmates to the jail, and neither are federal officials in the state,” according to the report.

Maybe the inmates will be the local population of Hardin if American Police Force is allowed to continue to pose as a law enforcement outfit in the town, which is exactly what they intend to do for at least another month.

Having a private security force whose stated mission is to help the U.S. government “combat terrorism” patrol the streets of small towns in America without even having the authority to do so from local authorities is obviously a frightening pretext and harks back to the private paramilitary forces that helped Adolf Hitler rise to power in Nazi Germany.

Many fear that if martial law is declared in response to a flu pandemic or other emergency, private security forces such as APF will be used by the government to oppress citizens by operating outside of the law.

This is completely unconstitutional and a flagrant threat to the liberty and security of the population of Hardin. The County Sheriff is effectively breaking the law if he doesn’t immediately kick APF out of the area and end the occupation of the town by a private paramilitary army.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/montana-town-occupied-by-private-paramilitary-security-force/

Video From G20 the Corporate Media Will Never Show You

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 25, 2009

In the videos here, we get an idea of what the federalized and militarized police in Pittsburgh really think of the First Amendment. The victims shown below are not government provocateurs or anarchists, but middle class students.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/video-from-g20-the-corporate-media-will-never-show-you/

Military Police Kidnap G20 Protester, Shove Him Into Unmarked Car

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, September 25, 2009

It’s a shocking scene that wouldn’t have looked out of place on the streets of Nazi Germany or Maoist China in humanity’s darkest historical period – a protester is shoved into an unmarked car by military thugs and driven away to whatever Godforsaken fate awaits him. And yet this is America in 2009, where the First Amendment is now officially a criminal offense and people who dare exercise it are attacked and abducted by military police in broad daylight.

The video shows an unmarked gold Sedan drive up to a side street near Baum Ave & S Millvale Ave. in Pittsburgh. Men in military fatigues wrestle with the protester as other men in cammo exit the vehicle. The protester is shoved forcefully into the car as the military thugs follow him in and the car speeds away.

Watch the clip below.

Protesters scream “what the fuck is wrong with you” as the Sedan disappears into a cloud of tear gas.

In another You Tube clip, the man with the red bandana seen protesting as the other man is abducted is subsequently arrested by riot cops, presumably merely for voicing his displeasure at the disgraceful scenes he witnessed.

“Some guy just got chased down and thrown in a car for no reason,” states the camerawoman before the shot focuses in on the man with the red bandana, who is being manhandled and arrested by three riot cops.

“Why are you doing that, what did he do?” asks the woman.

Other protesters chant “let him go” as media photographers attempt to find out his name. The clip finishes with a another burst of the sound cannon being used against demonstrators.

Another You Tube clip features the image that is re-posted at the top of this story and asks people to try and identify the military police and riot cops who kidnapped the demonstrator.

These videos require no more explanation, they speak for themselves.

Riot cops and military personnel driving around in unmarked cars kidnapping American citizens off the streets for the crime of exercising their First Amendment.

There can be no more debate, America as we knew it is officially dead and buried. The U.S. is more of a police state than Communist China. The only free speech that still exists is on the Internet, in the form of You Tube videos that remind us of what we already knew – the whole country has been hijacked and looted by a criminal gang of globalists who are using their cadre of enforcer thugs to crush any form of opposition to their agenda.

Our only hope is that when the world witnesses scenes like this, it will act as a wake-up call and prevent the planet from sliding once again into tyranny. Only the most deluded and brainwashed individual can now deny the threat that faces us all when police and military show such contempt for the Constitution that they swore an oath to protect and defend.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/military-police-kidnap-g20-protester-shove-him-into-unmarked-car/

Georgia’s Flu Pandemic “Emergency” Bill

Infowars
September 24, 2009

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

The bill allows the Governor of the state to assume “emergency powers… in the event of a pandemic influenza emergency.” From the bill’s text:

To amend Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to physicians, so as to authorize the use of influenza vaccine orders for a group of patients; to provide for influenza vaccine protocol agreements between physicians and pharmacists or nurses; to provide for definitions; to provide requirements for the content of influenza vaccine protocol agreements; to provide that a party to an influenza vaccine protocol agreement shall not delegate his or her authority; to provide for statutory construction; to provide for policies for handling used equipment; to limit the number of influenza vaccine protocol agreements in which a physician may enter at any one time; to prohibit certain entities from entering into influenza vaccine protocol agreements; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for limited liability; to provide for applicability; to amend Article 1 of Chapter 7 of Title 31 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to regulation of hospitals and related institutions, so as to provide for vaccinations or other measures for health care workers in hospitals; to provide for statutory construction; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 38 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to emergency management, so as to provide for emergency powers of the Governor in the event of a pandemic influenza emergency; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. (Emphasis added.)

Read the entire bill

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/georgias-flu-pandemic-emergency-bill/

Violating Posse Comitatus: National Guard on the Streets of Kingman, Arizona

Mohaveminutemen
September 21, 2009

Kingman AZ Friday 18th 2009 around 4.45 pm Downtown on Andy Divine National Guard perfoming “police” duty, providing “security’ and directting traffic.

We support our soldiers and troops but we do not support the unlawful deployement of our soldiers on US soil, to “police” the Citizens… A clear violation of the The Posse Comitatus Act.

Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code (USC), states:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Why and Who is permitting this “unamerican” precedent and violation of the law in Kingman?
Are we living in a Police State City?

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/violating-posse-comitatus-national-guard-on-the-streets-of-kingman-arizona/

Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009: Unconstitutional

Michael Connelly
Infowars
September 21, 2009

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the  proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.  What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution.

And another to the Bill of Rights.

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/affordable-health-care-choices-act-of-2009-unconstitutional/

Obama Recommends Congress ‘Renew’ Patriot Act Domestic ‘Surveillance Methods’

Little Alex in Wonderland
September 18, 2009

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

The Washington Post reports the Justice Department “recommended that Congress move swiftly with legislation that would protect the government’s ability to collect a variety of business and credit card records and to monitor terrorism suspects with roving wiretaps” set to expire 31 December 09.

Carrie Johnson and Ellen Nakashima report:

The three provisions set to expire Dec. 31 allow investigators to monitor through roving wiretaps suspects who may be trying to escape detection by switching cellphone numbers, obtain business records of national security targets, and track “lone wolves” who may be acting alone on behalf of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The government has not employed the lone wolf provision, but department officials want to ensure they can do so in the future.

Obama’s approach to electronic surveillance has been closely watched since he shifted positions during the presidential campaign last year, casting a vote to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act over the objections of liberals in his party. That law granted telecommunication companies immunity from lawsuits by Americans who argued that their privacy had been violated in an electronic data collection program….

The Justice Department inspector general issued blistering audits in 2007 and 2008, finding, for instance, that FBI agents had used demands for information known as national security letters in many cases where they were not authorized and had employed other tools called exigent letters to quickly obtain data without proper follow-up.

“As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law,” Devlin Barrett reported at the Associated Press. “Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability,” adding:

The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations.

“It should come as no surprise that President Barack Obama supports renewing the provisions, which were part of the Patriot Act approved six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks,” David Kravets writes at Wired. “As an Illinois senator in 2008, he voted to allow the warrantless monitoring of Americans’ electronic communications if they are communicating overseas with somebody the government believes is linked to terrorism. That legislative package, which President George W. Bush signed, also immunized the nation’s telecommunication companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit with the Bush administration’s warrantless, wiretapping program. That program was also adopted in the wake of Sept. 11.”

On Tuesday, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said that the U.S. is spending $75 billion a year on “intelligence activities”, Adam Entous reports at Reuters (h/t: Jason Ditz), adding that:

It has disclosed the amount spent by the 16 intelligence agencies — $47.5 billion in 2008 alone — but those figures did not incorporate the military’s intelligence activities, officials said.

Blair, in a conference call with reporters, explained that his four-year strategy was not set up on the “traditional fault line … between military intelligence and national intelligence.”

“This whole distinction between military and non-military intelligence is no longer relevant,” Blair said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the U.S.A. Patriot Act [sic] next week.

Line of Succession If Obama/Soetoro Removed From Office

Devvy Kidd
NewsWithViews
September 18, 2009

Today is Constitution Day. Sadly, tens of millions of Americans have no clue what it means. Just another day to hit the hog trough or one more day until TGIF. On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed. How very lucky we are there were 39 real men back then who didn’t cower at the mere thought of standing up for what they believe in and fighting for it.

It is an appropriate day to look at the consequences of the constitutional crisis we face with the removal of an usurper from office. In this case, an individual who has no legal right to serve as president of our republic. It must be done.

Over the decades we have seen millions demand every president be impeached. Nixon at least stepped down. Bill Clinton, disgraced the nation with his whoring and fought to stay in office. Of course, he had the full support of his militant, Marxist business partner, Hillary Clinton. The stupid Republicans made a mess of the entire, disgraceful “event” by going after Clinton on a sex charge instead of treason among other crimes. They walked right into the trap that was awaiting them.

It was all a set up and America was sold out. I saw David Schippers speak at a Judicial Watch function in Washington, DC; I think in 2000. I’ve read his book, Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment:

“Schippers, the former Chief Investigative Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and a loyal Democrat, went against his party, the press, and public opinion to build a case against President Clinton and bring him to justice. He shows how the entire impeachment process was rigged, and gives insider information on why Democrats and Republicans conspired to conceal evidence of criminal offenses, how Clinton tried to keep his women quiet, and how Republicans cooperated with Janet Reno’s Justice Department to keep secret the report on possibly impeachable Clinton-Gore fundraising offenses.”

For eight years, Americans demanded Bush be impeached. I want him tried for murder; there is no statute of limitations. [1] Unfortunately, it seems there are no real men or women in law enforcement willing to stand up and say no one is above the law. Cowardice runs deep in this country.

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/line-of-succession-if-obamasoetoro-removed-from-office/

Pelosi’s Misleading Statement on the Constitutionality of Government Health Care

Rob Natelson
The Tenth Amendment Center
September 17, 2009

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.

Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:

“The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement.

First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.

“Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.

Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Deal’s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) — which was invalidated by a unanimous Court.

Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts.

Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Court’s test for laws under the Constitution’s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate “activities that have an effect on interstate commerce” should be that Congress can regulate “economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable.

Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers.

And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/pelosis-misleading-statement-on-the-constitutionality-of-government-health-care/