The Health Care Bill is not law, but soon it may be. However, many States are in not standing idly by as they face these new realities. These States are exercising their rights from being told what to do. They are sick and tired of  the heavy hand of the Federal Government and are moving forward by taking their State and Country back  through "NULLIFICATION". 

NULLIFICATION—state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws—is the way forward.

When a state ‚Äònullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‚Äònon-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.



And this is not all, several Senators, among them, the Senior Senator from Utah, the Honorable Orrin Hatch has know doubt that the Health Care Bill as passed is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. His opinion is based on several factors.

1. No where in the Constitution does it give Congress the right to require Americans to purchase health insurance. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress cou,d not regulate. Congress Socialists point to the "general welfare" provision. However, this clause only identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. 

2. Senator Hatch has identified the "horse trading" by individual Senators to the detriment of other States. What this did was affect the spending programs of certain states. It waived certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid Program. This is a fly in the face of the General Welfare clause.

3. The legislation required that the States establish benefit exchanges which will require state legislation and regulation. We have recently posted on the blog, the striking down of Federal Regulation requiring the States to enforce a Federal Regulation. See http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/12/30/anton-scalia-our-man-on-the-supreme-court.aspx.  In two cases, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the Federal Government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. This is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.