Obamacare: Another Assault on Federalism
19. Oct, 2009 
16 Comments
by Bob Ellis, DakotaVoice.com
Federalism and Tenth Amendment state’s rights have been under assault since the days of FDR.
The federal government was created to serve the states and, in the words of James Madison, “to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Under the Tenth Amendment,
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.
The astute constitutional student will recognize that there is no authority whatsoever under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the part of the Constitution which outlines the powers of the federal government) to create or administer a health care system.
In the past year, several states have moved to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment. States such as South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma and more have passed resolutions telling the federal government to keep its paws off areas that don’t belong to it.
Alabama has specifically moved to short-circuit the federal government’s plan to cripple the country under the cap and trade global warming tax. Other states such as Arizona, Florida, and Texas are moving to specifically tell the federal government if they pass socialized health care, it isn’t going to fly in their states.
More states–and more work–may be needed, given what the socialists in congress and the White House have in mind.
The Heritage Foundation has an analysis of how Obamacare would hit federalism and state’s rights hard.
State flexibility regulations will be removed, making states merely administrative arms of the federal government’s bidding
If congress succeeds in raising eligibility to 133% of poverty in the final bill (if it passes, God forbid), 33 states could see their Medicare rolls increase 30%, with 10 states seeing an increase of 50%. And since–contrary to a popular conception–government can’t create money out of thin air, guess who gets to pay for that? What will it look like if they raise it to 150% of poverty? Got your wallet handy?
There are any number of real reform actions congress could take if only they wanted to; these involve real solutions like tort reform, promoting consumer involvement and choice, making insurance more portable, etc.
But they don’t want to improve the system and get it back within constitutional parameters and into the realm of common sense.
Their goal is to push socialized health care on America, and they’ll do it in a big step or several smaller ones. We the people must not allow them to take even small steps in that direction. We’re already too close to the lip of that socialist abyss.
Bob Ellis [send him email] is the founder and editor of Dakota Voice.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Other than backing off of the drug war (because too many states are resisting them), is there really anything the federal government does that isn’t an assault on federalism? I can’t seem to think of much.
I don’t want to be a party pooper, but “Federalism and Tenth Amendment state’s rights have been under assault since the days of FDR”?
Really?
What about Abraham Lincoln, the true father of our centralized government and the man who made all our current losses of liberty possible?
No one in history has done more damage to the notion that the states are sovereign and the people are free than the man who oversaw the death of 620,000 Americans during a constitutional coup d’etat cloaked in historical fallacy.
Secession is not advisable, but, as the union was voluntary, it has always been constitutional. Abraham Lincoln fundamentally changed the course of this country by denying the voluntary nature of our union and killing Americans who had the temerity to disavow what they saw as a broken contract.
Now we cannot question the federal government at all no matter how much damage it does to our lives, liberty, or property, and we have Lincoln to thank.
We have to get the history straight before we can get the future right.
Glenn Beck, I’m talking to you.
Josh – excellent point. Most people don’t even know the reality of this history of attacks on the federal nature of the Constitution. I believe Lincoln’s assaults to be the worst, especially in a short period.
As far as the FDR period – since about 1936, we’ve seen our system of government completely turned on its head. The 3 major clauses that have been flipped around – the Necessary and Proper, the Commerce Clause, and the general Welfare Clause.
At least the courts ruled against much of what Lincoln did. These days, you can’t even challenge much of what the government does because of the decades of bad precedent that started primarily in the 1930’s.
Rob Natelson gave some fantastic insight on this in a recent podcast…
FDR appointed 8 of the 9 Supreme court justices before his unprecedented 4 terms.
I agree Lincoln was a bad fellow in hine-site given what he did, but your right a lot of what Lincoln did was undone. and reversing 150 years of school indoctrination by the victory as to who and what Lincoln was with historic facts is a bit harder to do then reversing just 70 years of dogma about FDR.
Good judgment demands we pick our fights as well as our enemy. Although honesty and my heart demands we fight all wrongs.
Unfortunately I have go go with the good judgment as to pick so many fights at once would cause us to lose all fights.
To that end i propose the compromise of focuses on undoing the evil that both men did rather then undoing the deeply rooted dogma and myth of the men themselves. To try to fight all fronts is to lose all which undo the side of right and justice all together. We must wage our fights smarter not harder.
Mono,
I know what you mean and I agree that there are better uses for our time than iconoclasm. My point is this though: Even if we are somehow able to turn the “federalism clock” back to pre-FDR America, we are still left with the psychology of the centralized government created by Lincoln.
If we want to win this fight, we have to understand what it’s about. If the goal is a return to America’s founding principles, then that means pre-Lincoln not just pre-FDR.
I’m not saying it will be easy.
Lets pace ourselves Josh we try to do too much too quickly and it will fall apart.
Ideally, this should be done in such a way in which the States take the power from the Feds, NOT where the Feds simply voluntarily give up or delegate such power.
The reason for the exact method by which this is done being important is precedent.
If the Feds simply give up such power it establishes a precedent in which they could simply retake it later. Whereas if the States take it from the feds, establishes a precedent of where that power can be kept at the local level where it belongs, and even retaken back again, if the feds do later manage to again wrongfully take that power.
Precedent is important and so by whom and how this is done is important.
As a politically active member of society, I was delighted to read your opinion concerning the potential health care overhaul. I appreciated how you connected the bill to the Tenth Amendment and how state’s rights have been under assault for decades under government issued programs. As you pointed out this has led Arizona, Florida, and Texas to inform the federal government if health care reform is passed, it will not be implemented since there is no authority whatsoever under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to create or administer a health care system. I believe Obamacare not only deals with states rights but doesn’t it also address efficiency of federal programs?
Although Obamacare sounds great on paper I believe it will fail because combining government and private industry constantly falls short of expectations. Private companies exist to create wealth, and government was created to serve the states and, in the words of James Madison, “to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Furthermore, companies manage expenses and try to ensure every dollar has a positive return, whereas the government has a tendency to spend liberally and measures returns in campaign donations and encouraging polling data. Additionally, they serve different entities, corporations serve customers and investors, while government serves special interest groups, voters, politicians etc. To understand troubles that public/private partnerships present, one must recognize the contemporary examples of Amtrak and the United States Postal Service. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation. However, they have lost money every year since. Despite receiving $30 billion in federal subsidies it has never made a profit in a 39 year life span. The Postal service has achieved similar results over its existence. The USPS is run by a board of eleven, with the president appointing nine of them. This allows politics to be integrated in the company’s efforts and failure of tough business decisions to be made. The USPS lost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 and expects to lose another $3 billion to $6 billion in 2009. These losses are being paid back from the population the companies serve, the taxpayers. I am a firm believer if Obamacare includes a public option another public/private partnership with insurance companies will result in a massive deficit increase and leave the taxpayers paying for another failed government venture.
One of the greatest assaults on state sovereignty was at the beginning of Wilson’s administration. In 1913, the power of state legislatures to appoint and direct Senators was taken away through the 17th amendment. It was originally intended that Senators were to be a check on the federal government directly by state representation in the Congress. In “The Federalist XIV” Madison considers whether the “whole mass of ‘powers delegated to the federal Government’ will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.” His answer includes the statement, “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State Legislatures.” One of the measures we must seek is to repeal the 17th Amendment which makes Senators subject to popular election, and so restore the important direct influence of States in the business of Congress.
One other observation I would make is to point out that we have just been through a crisis created in large measure by a federal/private agency which endangered our monetary system: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The political/private combination of these agencies bodes no good for a national healthcare system, should one be attempted.
Wow, David, Josh, Mono, Drew!
What great insight in your comments. I shall return and comment myself when I possess an equivalent insight! Keep writing in!
@Seismedia – definitely some excellent perspectives coming from people here, but don’t sell yourself short! Hope to get your feedback – pro or con – on more articles here in the near future!
Just as with the bank bailout, all of my observations tell me that this healthcare scheme is just another case of a fascist government throwing open the doors of the treasury to let some campaign contributors walk off with billions. Even true journalists on the left are seeing this scam for what it is. Theft in the name of compassion is a hideous crime.
Just another failed “ism” Yeah, thanks anyways
At the risk of getting flamed, I'm going to state a broad question to others in this forum, a question I have found in other forums as of late:
"why is it so evil for someone to be rich in this country?"
On any given day, I'd much rather deal with cold numbers, the logic of cause and effect, sound economic principles, and make the debate over constructive working solutions, but the reality is that even if we attribute the vilest rhetoric to the extreme fringes of the left, the vilification of the rich (bankers, brokers, execs, insurance co's, "Big Oil", etc.) has easily made its way into the mainstream media, and even middle America doesn't spare a jab at complaining about lofty salaries and excessive bonuses, whether they are contractual or not. It's as though even the most patriotic Americans will pledge allegiance, swear an oath to defend the constitution, and in the next breath murmur and complain and tolerate selective abandonment of contract law.
So, am I wrong, in considering the pile of legislation being jammed down our throats, that there's something far more sinister at foot? So, why is our society ready to single out the rich? Why has the language changed from mildly derisive to poignantly hateful?
I'm left only to conclude that for the Agents of Chaos it's easier to destroy than to build, because it's easier to inject envy than inspire action, because if they can convince the electorate that one person having more means you have less, they can raise their strawman villain and distract us from the emptiness of their agenda.
Along that line, rather than Congress and POTUS rushing head strong into over-exaggerating another contrived crisis and jamming another half baked solution down our throats, if they honored their Constitutional Oaths and cared for this country and her people, they would would show themselves as respectable leaders by calling upon the various states and using the bully pulpit function to lead the charge for state level reform of healthcare. Texas has different needs than California than Missouri than Ohio, and the Constitution in that way seems to be smarter than all the elite in Washington.
But I don't even hear this as an option. The strongest opponents of healthcare reform ("Medicare/Medicaid Redux") aren't even putting it on the table. There's hardly a debate that it's beyond the "few and enumerated" powers granted to the Federal Government and belong in the capitol houses of the 50 states. And where are the governors and state legislatures denouncing this intrusion? Why aren't at least some of the congress speaking out in defense of their districts to patriate this obsene abuse of power back to the states? Am I crazy?
On the subject of the Strawman Villain, Bill Mahler seems to capture the hate in a way that raises his status within the agents of chaos that loath this nation. Warning, his language is as foul as his ideology offensive:
[youtube NsHFVKH6xd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsHFVKH6xd8 youtube]