The States Can Stop Obama

  I found this very interesting. It gives a whole new prospective on states rights.

 
By Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)

http://www.sheriffmack.com/docs/The_States_Can_Stop_Obama.pdf

http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/the-role-of-state-government

http://www.sheriffmack.com/




By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing
freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better
back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth
of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared
to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is
in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States
can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and
"big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with
National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is
say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at
the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More
specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared
that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government.
Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government.
However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would
not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of
Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for
all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So
the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever
be held inviolable by our own governments.
The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty,
and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law
underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal
government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the
States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way
around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central
government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the
truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be
responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article
1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment)
Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or
assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and
enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers
intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the
Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a
recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal
direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S.
Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all
matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme
Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our
constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government
king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz,
that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each
protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the
Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "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." The point to remember here is; where do we define
the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where
does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is
NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his
authority.
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look
at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural
protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different
governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land,
has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in
check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and
Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.
So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States
do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC.
The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution
protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell
national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We
are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government
may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor
command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce
a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our
constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare
definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are
misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants
who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world
such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However,
in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and
keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.
Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.


 He also has it right about our seat belt laws. And it's not about safety.

http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/seat-belts