Mr. Chairman, Committee members,
Today you are going to hear a lot about the foundation of our country, the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, as well as the proper role of the states in a republic. I will spare you the redundancy in advance, but I ask you to listen closely as each of these people speak. Listen and swell with pride or shrink in fear, for what you are about to hear represents the awakening of America; the people of this state are no longer silent nor ignorant to the Constitution, and it is your sworn role and duty to uphold it.
Today, it is also likely you will hear from some self proclaimed experts on the Constitution. They will site obscure case law, and court opinions rather than the very plainly worded Constitution. They will do this because they know you have neither the time nor perhaps the expertise to dig up the relevance of their claims amongst the millions of pages and billions of words, of “legal precedence” handed down by judges most likely appointed by a politician. I remind you that opinion does not equate to Law and does not supersede the Constitution. However, if opinion did carry weight, I would put my money on the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Able Upshur, over those opinions of the Idaho Attorney General’s office, Barrack Obama or a self endowed Constitutional expert.
Today, we consider the nullification of Obamacare, so that the state may be spared the implementation cost of over 228 million dollars we just do not have. Further, the people of this state are overwhelmingly at disfavor with the eventuality of being forced to buy into an insurance pool of socialized medicine. A pool where there money could go to provide abortions, hormone treatment to the transgendered and who knows what else, the administrative authority, (who have great leash in Obamacare) might dream up. The people will be forced to buy into this plan, rather than being free to buy food for their kids, send their kids to non-government schools, give to the needy, or whatever they need or want. The bottom line is the concept of Liberty is that man is not owned by the state; Obamacare kills Liberty by claiming your property; which is a byproduct of your life.
Furthermore, the damage to the state is understated in the 228 million dollars. The compliance costs to business will be huge, as if things are not bad enough as it is with the IRS, State Tax commission, the County revenuers, OSHA, the DOT, DEQ, EPA, and so on. Business is buried in red tape with huge costs of compliance, which inevitably end up in the cost of goods, but in the end do not equate to a higher GDP; it is effort and capital expense with nothing produced.
For these reasons, every member of the Idaho house and senate should do everything within their power to eliminate Obamacare. We the people of Idaho would expect you to take even the wildest chances to do so. However, Jeffersonian Nullification is not a wild chance, it is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional law. If you do not stand and pass H117 on to the full senate with a DO PASS recommendation, you are effectively killing a Republic, in which the representatives are not the rulers of the people but rather the keepers of the law. But instead and installing a representative oligarchy, which is arbitrary law and Liberty is vulnerable to the whim of the elected. If you pass this on with a do pass recommendation, you may someday tell your grandchildren how you saved America. If you don’t you will surely feel shame. The gravity of this day is great.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"Hang Ten" Obama Respects Nullification
In a startling turn of events today, the Obama Administration has chosen not to defend the Constitutionality of the Federal, “Defense of Marriage Act” (1996). While this might be somewhat unsettling to the morals of many, there is certainly a silver lining to this storm cloud from Washington.
Several states have recently passed either blatant “Gay Marriage” laws or Civil Union Laws, including President Obama’s claimed home state of Hawaii. These states (including The District of Columbia) have done so in direct defiance of the 1996 Federal Law which was overwhelmingly passed, 342-67 and 85-14, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. This outright resistance to Federal Law, by these states, baffles most people who were educated in government schools. We were told the Federal Government is the supreme authority and the states are little more than administrative districts. That line of thought however is not based in logic nor does it have historical standing. One concept that is poorly taught in government schools is that the United States are States; we are not the United Administrative Districts of Columbia. When our Union was re-founded under the Constitution, terms and conditions of the Union were set and clearly described in the Constitution. The several States, which were (and are) as sovereign as France and Spain, came together and created a mutually beneficial general government, wherein they ceded certain and specific powers to that general government, which were clearly defined in the Constitution and the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights. It was very clear from the beginning of the union that the States had no intention to cede all their powers, since the people in each state were different; they had different ideas on governance and different state religions. They had no intentions of allowing the new government the authority to meddle in social matters. The States were so adamant about this fact that they demanded the Tenth Amendment which states-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, if it is not written it is not said (the first rule of contract) and the States keep all the powers not mentioned; this goes for the administration of marriage.
Based upon the obvious nature of our Constitution, it should be clear that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is an act outside the powers assigned to the general government in the Constitution; it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, states like Hawaii who ignored the federal law, and made their own Civil Union law, in blatant rebellion to the Federal Government, are fully within their rights as a state to do so. I know that statement is going to ruffle a few feathers on moral lines, and I am certainly not endorsing gay marriage (I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business but that is a different matter). The principle of the matter is what is important here, who has the right to make a law on marriage? If the Tenth Amendment stands true, it is the “…States or the people.”
The silver lining within this turn of events; States rights are alive and well! Hawaii nullified federal law by passing one of their own, obtuse to DMA-1996. Although Hawaii did not follow the exact Jeffersonian principles described clearly in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the outcomes are the same; the states interposed lawfully. Furthermore, with the Obama administration’s cease order, in regards to enforcement of the gay marriage laws, the principle of nullification in the modern day is strengthened (perhaps by accident). Although the modern precedence is kind of neat, the “Principles of ’98,” stand on their own as their Constitutional orthodoxy is as firmly moored to the history of our country as the men that wrote them; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution. Today “Hang Ten” has a new meaning to me; the Tenth Amendment is Alive and well. I look forward to the day when the Federal government gives up hopes of defending the very unconstitutional Obamacare.
Several states have recently passed either blatant “Gay Marriage” laws or Civil Union Laws, including President Obama’s claimed home state of Hawaii. These states (including The District of Columbia) have done so in direct defiance of the 1996 Federal Law which was overwhelmingly passed, 342-67 and 85-14, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. This outright resistance to Federal Law, by these states, baffles most people who were educated in government schools. We were told the Federal Government is the supreme authority and the states are little more than administrative districts. That line of thought however is not based in logic nor does it have historical standing. One concept that is poorly taught in government schools is that the United States are States; we are not the United Administrative Districts of Columbia. When our Union was re-founded under the Constitution, terms and conditions of the Union were set and clearly described in the Constitution. The several States, which were (and are) as sovereign as France and Spain, came together and created a mutually beneficial general government, wherein they ceded certain and specific powers to that general government, which were clearly defined in the Constitution and the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights. It was very clear from the beginning of the union that the States had no intention to cede all their powers, since the people in each state were different; they had different ideas on governance and different state religions. They had no intentions of allowing the new government the authority to meddle in social matters. The States were so adamant about this fact that they demanded the Tenth Amendment which states-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, if it is not written it is not said (the first rule of contract) and the States keep all the powers not mentioned; this goes for the administration of marriage.
Based upon the obvious nature of our Constitution, it should be clear that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is an act outside the powers assigned to the general government in the Constitution; it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, states like Hawaii who ignored the federal law, and made their own Civil Union law, in blatant rebellion to the Federal Government, are fully within their rights as a state to do so. I know that statement is going to ruffle a few feathers on moral lines, and I am certainly not endorsing gay marriage (I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business but that is a different matter). The principle of the matter is what is important here, who has the right to make a law on marriage? If the Tenth Amendment stands true, it is the “…States or the people.”
The silver lining within this turn of events; States rights are alive and well! Hawaii nullified federal law by passing one of their own, obtuse to DMA-1996. Although Hawaii did not follow the exact Jeffersonian principles described clearly in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the outcomes are the same; the states interposed lawfully. Furthermore, with the Obama administration’s cease order, in regards to enforcement of the gay marriage laws, the principle of nullification in the modern day is strengthened (perhaps by accident). Although the modern precedence is kind of neat, the “Principles of ’98,” stand on their own as their Constitutional orthodoxy is as firmly moored to the history of our country as the men that wrote them; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution. Today “Hang Ten” has a new meaning to me; the Tenth Amendment is Alive and well. I look forward to the day when the Federal government gives up hopes of defending the very unconstitutional Obamacare.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Testimony FOR HB-117 (Obamacare Nullification)
Mr. Speaker, committee members.
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the function of the Federal government and assigns specific powers to that government. The branches, are specifically limited in jurisdiction to these enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment further amplifies the limitations of the Federal government when it says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This Amendment is often referred to as the, “States Rights Amendment”, it is much more than that; it is also the peoples rights Amendment. The phrase “or to the people,” must not be ignored!
When a law is made by the Federal government, in an area that is in conflict with the Constitution or in an area where Constitution is silent, the states must not remain silent. So often are they silent, a term was spawned to describe it; “Implied consent.” Implied consent is often a result of, implied or specific threats, by the Federal Government. However, even if a state is silent there is still the matter of “the people”, and their right to “The powers not delegated”. In this case if Idaho does not nullify this law and chooses to remain silent, according to the Tenth, “the people” can grasp the power. Alas this Constitutional power of the people is unlikely to stand in the face of the most powerful National government in the history of mankind; the US government. Alone a person acting in full accordance with The Constitution may be forced to conform.
Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution, “The states are duty bound to resist.” However, I would say the states are duty bound not to remain silent. The state of Idaho must either nullify this law or formally accept it, for silence serves only to place the people, that may act fully within their rights, according to the Tenth Amendment, in harms way.
Walt Holton
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the function of the Federal government and assigns specific powers to that government. The branches, are specifically limited in jurisdiction to these enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment further amplifies the limitations of the Federal government when it says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This Amendment is often referred to as the, “States Rights Amendment”, it is much more than that; it is also the peoples rights Amendment. The phrase “or to the people,” must not be ignored!
When a law is made by the Federal government, in an area that is in conflict with the Constitution or in an area where Constitution is silent, the states must not remain silent. So often are they silent, a term was spawned to describe it; “Implied consent.” Implied consent is often a result of, implied or specific threats, by the Federal Government. However, even if a state is silent there is still the matter of “the people”, and their right to “The powers not delegated”. In this case if Idaho does not nullify this law and chooses to remain silent, according to the Tenth, “the people” can grasp the power. Alas this Constitutional power of the people is unlikely to stand in the face of the most powerful National government in the history of mankind; the US government. Alone a person acting in full accordance with The Constitution may be forced to conform.
Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution, “The states are duty bound to resist.” However, I would say the states are duty bound not to remain silent. The state of Idaho must either nullify this law or formally accept it, for silence serves only to place the people, that may act fully within their rights, according to the Tenth Amendment, in harms way.
Walt Holton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)