Quotes of the Day - Supreme Court

Considering that the U.S. Supreme Court justices have completed their hearings on Obamacare are in now in the process of writing their decision, I thought these quotes from Chief Justices were especially relevant.  And here's a bit a trivia for you:  the title is Chief Justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"The power of the state to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order, and prosperity is a power originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered to them by the general government, nor directly restrained by the constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive."  ~  Justice Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States (1888-1910)

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. ... Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."  ~  Justice John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States (1801–1835)

"To hold that Congress has general police power would be to hold that it may accomplish objects not intrusted to the general government, and to defeat the operation of the 10th Amendment, declaring that '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.' "  ~  Justice Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States (1888-1910)

Ohio House passes resolution supporting religious liberty, misses key point in issue

Yesterday, the Ohio House passed a resolution to protect the rights of religiously affiliated organizations by urging the repeal of a federal mandate that all health insurance plans must cover contraceptive services.

House Continuing Resolution 35 opposes the U.S. Health and Human Services mandate that religious organization provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs at no charge to their employees. It passed by a vote of 56-38 (a listing of yeas/nays, with representatives from our area in bold, is at the bottom).

The resolution urges the "President of the United States to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to rescind the rule that would force an employer to offer health insurance coverage that violates the employer's religious beliefs or moral convictions." It also asks members of Congress to enact the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" (H.R. 1179 and S. 1467).

What I find amazing is that this was a mostly party-line vote with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it. I would think that ALL state legislators would oppose the intrusion on states rights that this mandate represents.

As I've previously written:

For years, individual states have determined what insurance companies operating within their borders must provide. Some states, like Ohio, mandate certain mental health coverage. Other states have different criteria. The differences between the state mandates means that some states have lower health insurance costs than others.

This is one of the primary reasons why so many have pushed for the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines.

...

In presenting his compromise, President Obama is now dictating coverage to the insurance companies. The federal government has not just violated the Constitution - they have usurped the authority of the states, which had exercised exclusive authority over the coverage provided within their borders.

This further erosion of the power of the states, overtaken by the power of the centralized government, is exactly what our founders warned against and set up a structure to avoid.

But, as far as I can tell, virtually no one is talking about this aspect. And I believe it is clearly the more dangerous one.

I can't help but wonder if the vote would have been different had the resolution focused on the exclusive authority of the states (or the people, per the Tenth Amendment) to determine such things, rather than the federal government.

But then again, I've seen too many state legislators across the nation (from both sides of the aisle) willingly abdicate the rights of their states in order to advance their national political agenda.

Sadly, the politics are more important to them than the Constitution and the fact that our Ohio representatives did not focus on this important infringement means that further violations of the Tenth (and other) Amendments cannot be far behind.

***Side Note: As one of my Smart Girl Politics friends commented:

The lunkheads who are promoting this bill in the Ohio legislature need to have someone explain to them that we already HAVE a religious liberty resolution. It's called the First Amendment.

Those voting in favor of H.C.R. 35:

Adams J.
Adams R.
Amstutz
Anielski
Baker
Beck
Blair
Blessing
Boose
Brenner
Bubp
Buchy
Butler
Combs
Conditt
Damschroder
DeVitis
Derickson
Dovilla
Duffey
Gardner
Gonzales
Grossman
Hackett
Hagan, C.
Hall
Hayes
Henne
Hill
Hottinger
Huffman
Kozlowski
Landis
Maag
Martin
Matheney
McClain
McGregor
Newbold
Pelanda
Peterson
Roegner
Rose
Rosenberger
Ruhl
Schuring
Sears
Slaby
Sprague
Stautberg
Stebelton
Thompson
Uecker
Wachtmann
Young
Batchelder

Those voting against:

Antonio
Ashford
Barnes
Budish
Carney
Celebrezze
Celeste
Cera
Clyde
Driehaus
Fedor
Fende
Foley
Garland
Gerberry
Goyal
Heard
Letson
Luckie
Lundy
Mallory
Milkovich
Murray
O'Brien
Okey
Patmon
Phillips
Pillich
Ramos
Reece
Slesnick
Stinziano
Sykes
Szollosi
Weddington
Williams
Winburn
Yuko

What we're all missing in the Obama-contraception-Catholic Church debacle

For years, individual states have determined what insurance companies operating within their borders must provide. Some states, like Ohio, mandate certain mental health coverage. Other states have different criteria. The differences between the state mandates means that some states have lower health insurance costs than others.

This is one of the primary reasons why so many have pushed for the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. Having the ability to purchase an insurance policy that doesn't charge me for mental health services or well-baby care (two things I don't need), even if it's from Kentucky, would mean I would be paying less for health insurance while paying only for what I need.

The states were supposed to work this way - where experimentation and ideas could be tried and, if successful, adapted to other states.

Enter President Barack Obama and his administration ruling that all employers, even religious ones (like hospitals and homes, but not actual churches) must provide - free of charge - contraception and aborticides to their employees, regardless of their religious teachings.

The Catholic Church, with a strict teaching that such things are contrary to God's will, rightly objected and the firestorm erupted. That the ruling and mandate was contrary to the First Amendment was clear to anyone not supportive of the President's desire to dictate to the American people. It was probably clear to supporters, too. They just chose to ignore it or twist it in some way to make the mandate acceptable.

In an attempt to 'compromise' on the issue, the Obama Administration decided that the religious organization didn't have to provide such coverage after all. The insurance companies would be required to provide it - still free of charge - instead.

Now, most people realize that if an insurance company has to provide a product to customer without charge to the user, they'll recoup their costs one way or the other. This means that religious organizations will still be paying for something they find abhorrent and contrary to their teachings.

The problem - the violation of the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law...' - still exists. But that's not the biggest - nor the most overlooked - problem.

In presenting his compromise, President Obama is now dictating coverage to the insurance companies. The federal government has not just violated the Constitution - they have usurped the authority of the states, which had exercised exclusive authority over the coverage provided within their borders.

This further erosion of the power of the states, overtaken by the power of the centralized government, is exactly what our founders warned against and set up a structure to avoid.

But, as far as I can tell, virtually no one is talking about this aspect. And I believe it is clearly the more dangerous one.

The Constitution limits what the federal government can do. In celebrating the 'seeming' reversal over the violation of the First Amendment, too many are embracing the violation of 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.

And if the federal government can dictate this - along with speed limits and education and other requirements - what limit still exists?

Don't be fooled by this misdirection. The federal government is grossly out of control and if the states don't stand up for their rights, they may find they have no rights left.

The impact of the 10th and 17th Amendments

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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."

A 1931 Supreme Court Case (United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733) stated:

"The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”

Today, the federal government exceeds this restriction, or basically ignores it (along with many other facets of the Constitution) on a regular basis - in fact and in philosophy.

Over the years, the feds have used what is called 'greenmail' in this effort.

Originally, according to Wikipedia, the term meant the "practice of purchasing enough shares in a firm to threaten a takeover and thereby forcing the target firm to buy those shares back at a premium in order to suspend the takeover."

Today the term is also used to describe the process whereby the federal government uses the distribution of tax dollars - or the withholding of those dollars - to force states to adhere to certain rules, laws or actions in order to 'earn' the funds.

Basically, it's the thought that if I'm giving you money, then I get to make the rules. If I (that is the federal government) give you (the state) money for roads, I can put conditions on those funds (like what your maximum speed limit in the state will be). If you don't like the conditions, you don't have to take the money.

But, you say, it was my money to begin with that you took from me under penalty of imprisonment! Well, that's a minor point, the feds say, "we need the money more than you do."

But, you continue, if you didn't take my money to begin with, I wouldn't 'need' it back to fund all these things you're paying for...

Aye, there's the rub.

Which brings me back to the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers believed that decisions were best made in the states - the 'local experiments' where policies, programs, and even laws, could be tried before being adopted nation-wide by other states (never by the federal government). They believed - and rightly so - that a limited federal government was the best thing for the future prosperity and freedom of the country and the individuals in it. They'd lived under strong centralized governments and knew their failures. That's why they consciously and purposefully set up our country the way they did.

James Madison said:

Whenever power may be necessary for the national government, a certain portion must be necessarily left with the states, it is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States so as to carry equal justice to them. The state legislatures also ought to have some means of defending themselves against the encroachments of the national government. In every other department we have studiously endeavored to provide for its self-defense. Shall we leave the states alone un-provided with the means for this purpose? And what better means can be provided than by giving them some share in, or rather make them a constituent part of, the national government?

The 10th Amendment was important not because it changed anything in the Constitution, but because it reinforced the positions and discussions that led to the organization described in the Constitution. It's there as further evidence - and promise - that the federal government would remain limited and small and that the states would continue to have not only an equal part in the national government but also the larger role in the lives of their residents.

Sadly, we're too far gone from those original intents and the limitations on the federal government are ignored, while questions to those sworn to uphold those limitations are dismissed as being 'not serious.'

And that's where the 17th Amendment comes into play.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

While the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people - and thus 'loyal' to the interests of their districts, the Senate was to be selected by the state legislatures and 'loyal' to the states.

This ensured that the interests of both the individual and the states, an equal partner in the governance of the nation as Madison described, were balanced. It also provided a check against the penchant for the federal government to expand beyond its scope.

It the senators had, as their first priority, the overall interests of the states that sent them to Washington, they would not (hopefully) allow the federal government to exceed its limited powers and overrun the concept of the 10th Amendment.

However, with the passage of the 17th Amendment, all that changed.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

How often has a state senator asked your opinion about a measure pending before them? I know you've probably offered such opinions on a regular basis. But it doesn't make sense for Ohio's two senators to try and get feedback from the nearly 11.5 million people who live in this state (according to July 2008 Census figures).

It does make sense, however, for them to consult with our state house and senate about the impact of bills that come before them for a vote.

Think about it. Right now, they're more likely to confer with lobbyists and special interests than they are with their constituents or their state legislators. As a result, the interests of the state no longer provide a balance to the power of the federal government and the federal government commonly issues mandates to the states requiring all sorts of things our founders would find egregious.

The direct election of senators eliminated the check and balance designed to restrict the federal government from exactly such action.

An examination of the health insurance mandate currently before Congress is a prime example. Sen. Ben Nelson, responding, he said, to concerns about the mandates against states included in the bill, got an exemption from paying for those mandates for the state of Nebraska. It was even labeled the 'cornhusker kick-back,' though now he's saying he never intended for Nebraska to be singled out - that all states should have the same consideration.

Consider this: how successful do you think the Senate health care bill would have been if every senator said 'no' to the federal government's dictate - or insisted that any mandate enforced upon them be funded by the feds?

Or go a step further and consider if the state legislatures told 'their' representatives in Congress to stop taking so much money from the state in the first place? With states in financial troubles, I'm sure the state legislators think they can spend the limited dollars much better than bureaucrats in Washington - much like the average American thinks.

If the senators were accountable directly to the state legislatures, think about how different their positions and votes might be.

And it's not just the health care bill. The No Child Left Behind Act - in fact the entire Department of Education - is a direct violation of a state's right to control education.

The 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Education is nearly $47 billion. Just for discussion purposes, if you divide that by the 50 states, each one would get $940 million. How much better than the federal government do you think Ohio would do at spending $94 million on education?

Would we even have a federal department of education if we hadn't passed the 17th Amendment?

How much different would our federal government - and state governments - be if we hadn't eliminated the check and balance on the federal government? And how much more adherence do you think there would be to the 10th Amendment?

***
For more information on the 10th Amendment and efforts to exert authority under it, please visit the 10th Amendment Center.

For more information on the impact of the 17th Amendment, please visit The Campaign to Restore Federalism.

Sunday round-up

* Do you blame companies for making decisions based upon politics? Or do you blame the politicians?

This column by Thomas J. Borelli, PhD., the editor of FreeEnterpriser.com, takes a look at two companies, Whole Foods and GE, that are, indeed, making politics a core component of their business decisions - with drastic results. The fact that such considerations are contemplated is part of the problem. If government and various elected officials didn't write laws to benefit or harm particular industries/groups, there'd be no need for political considerations in the first place.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this...

* Patrick Henry is known by most people for his 'Give me liberty or give me death' rallying cry. But do you know what got him so angry as to make such a statement? Samantha Hagan, Director of the Patrick Henry Legacy Program at the Patrick Henry Center, has the background in this column, "Liberty and Gunpowder."

You see, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, seized a town's community supply of gunpowder and ordered the disabling of weapons stored in the public magazine. He did so following his disbanding of what today we'd call a house of representatives and the rallying of the public to Henry as a result of his impassioned speech.

"Patrick Henry demanded the return of the gunpowder, or failing that, he called for compensation to replace the colony’s fleeced supply. Lord Dunmore feared Henry and his men, and from the security of the palace he threatened to destroy the town should any hostilities begin.

For days the standoff continued until a deal was finally brokered in which a sum that both sides agreed upon was paid from the royal account to replace the stolen gunpowder."

Property rights, a core basis of our free nation, were also at the heart of the Revolution.

* From CNSNews.com:

"A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) study says that all levels of government – federal, state, and local – will have to come up with a total of $16.6 billion in additional revenue to purchase carbon allowances, if cap-and-trade – to allegedly combat global warming -- is enacted into law. Experts say this could prompt increases in taxes.

This is the second government report to estimate that the proposed climate-change legislation, formally known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will eventually cost consumers more.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published on June 19 revealed that the House cap-and-trade bill, passed by a 219 to 212 vote on June 26, would cost an estimated $175 per household every year."

How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes to *potentially* lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree???

* Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, has this scary perspective on Eric Holder's Hidden Agenda. For a long time, I have been concerned about actions by those in the federal government and the courts that seem to indicate a willingness to subject our sovereign nation to the whims of others. While we have a global economy, we do not (yet) have a global government - and that's a good thing. For the same reason I support states rights, I support the ability of nations to govern themselves. If people in positions of authority in our nation's government are not willing to support our nation's laws over all others, they don't deserve their places in that government. You cannot uphold our Constitution if you're willing to place it below the rules and laws of others.

Again I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think. Would the word 'treason' enter their minds?

* This is sick! Melissa Lafsky, at The Huffington Post, speculates on what Mary Jo Kopechne might think about the life of Sen. Edward Kennedy. She writes:

"Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it."

I think there's something wrong with any individual who would make such a comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood the post, but I find it hard to believe that the Kopechne family would agree - and I'm sure they knew Mary Jo much better than Lafsky.

States' rights and sovereignty

A growing number of states are looking to exert their rights under the 10th Amendment. This website has a complete list as well as some interviews from sponsors of the various measures.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

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 based upon the second Article of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Ohio does not yet have a bill pending.

As you'll see from the comments, this website also has a complete list of states and links to the news about their sovereign issues.