This piece was co-written with Forbes contributor  Peter Ferrara.

The Social Security Institute has joined with the American Civil Rights Union in filing anamicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that ObamaCare’s expansion and transformation of the Medicaid program violates the Tenth Amendment under the Court’s Coercion Doctrine.  In overstepping the bounds between acceptable pressure and unacceptable compulsion, ObamaCare transgresses state sovereignty and violates the constitutional framework of federalism.  Peter J. Ferrara wrote the brief on our behalf.  The essence of that brief follows:

Medicaid was enacted in 1965 as a federal-matching, grant-in-aid program to the states with each state free to decide whether and when to participate. Historically, the federal government has paid for 50 percent to 83 percent of total program costs in each state, the exact federal matching share determined by a statutory formula calculating the federal contribution in each state.

Until the 2010 enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Medicaid preserved state sovereignty and was consistent with the constitutional framework of federalism, despite numerous stringent federal mandates, because the states retained substantial discretion to decide Medicaid eligibility, determine the scope and duration of coverage, and they were free to discontinue participation in Medicaid if not satisfied with the terms and conditions imposed by the program.

 

At the core of ObamaCare is the individual mandate requiring every citizen to obtain health-insurance coverage with the benefits and provisions specified by the federal government. The way ObamaCare provides for lower-income individuals and families to obtain that required coverage is by forcing the states to offer expanded coverage under Medicaid as a condition of continuing to participate in the rest of the program.

Under ObamaCare, the federal government now imposes Medicaid on the states as a federal mandate to meet the federal requirements of the individual mandate for the entire below-age-65 population with incomes under 138 percent of the poverty line. That includes mandatory coverage for the first time of all non-elderly, childless adults within the income limits. The states, consequently, no longer retain substantial discretion to determine eligibility or scope and duration of coverage for the program within their respective jurisdictions, which makes the program unacceptably coercive.

The result of this coercion will be to increase Medicaid enrollment by 24 million additional beneficiaries by 2015, covering nearly 100 million Americans by 2021 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that ObamaCare will impose at least another $20 billion to $42 billion in additional costs on the states by the end of the decade, even counting all the federal financing for Medicaid, not to mention other open-ended mandatory costs that are inestimable.

ObamaCare threatens the states with the loss of all federal Medicaid funds unless they buckle to all of the new, mandatory expansions of state obligations under the program. Federal Medicaid funds currently account for more than 40 percent of all federal funds granted to the states, amounting to more than $276 billion in 2011 alone. Even before enactment of ObamaCare, federal and state spending on Medicaid amounted on average to 20 percent of total annual state budgets.

In Florida, for example, had the state not had federal funds available in 2010, Medicaid benefits would have consumed almost two-thirds of Florida’s tax revenue. As for the federal claim that Florida could just raise its own taxes to pay those benefits if it doesn’t want to comply with the ObamaCare’s mandates, the federal government already collects more than $100 billion per year in federal taxes from Florida residents, leaving little or no capacity for further state tax increases to make up the difference.

ObamaCare Makes Medicaid An Offer States Can’t Refuse  [continued]

the 44th President of the United States...Barack Obama

Attorney talks about Ron Paul and How States can Fight NDAA

Who is Ron Paul?

Sheriffs Stand TALL for the Constitution

Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.

Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.

But now prosecutors are offering their first detailed explanation for why they charged Mr. Heicklen, arguing in a brief that his “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”

Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge [continued]

Suppose you are a sincere conservative advocate of “states’ rights.” What conclusion would you draw from Saturday night’s presidential forum on Fox News Channel’s Huckabee show?

As I once pointed out elsewhere, American attitudes toward the division of power between state and federal government track a famous line from Thomas Jefferson’s’ first inaugural address: “We are all republicans,” he said, holding out an olive branch to the other party, “we are all federalists.”

But as he himself demonstrated in office, when it comes to limits on federal power, we are all hypocrites. The basic view of “states’ rights” is that they extend to any policy that the speaker thinks will go his or her way at the state level. Policies become law at the federal level become, ipso facto, “national problems.” Certainly this mode of thinking seems to have affected some of the Republican presidential candidates.

Leading GOP Candidates Don’t Want to Return Power to the States [continued]

NEW YORK — The First Amendment is one tricky piece of the Constitution.

We are not as “free to speak, or advocate,” as we would like to be, and there are various ways to interpret our so-called natural rights.

In the case of Julian Heicklen, he is determined to look back at 2011 and be proud of having at least tried to protect our liberties as citizens against the oppressions of the government.

Mr. Heicklen is a 79-year-old former Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University, who has stood outside of the U. S. District Courthouse in Manhattan and other courthouse entrances since 2009 speaking in favor of jury nullification by handing out pamphlets aimed to inform jurors of their right to acquit a defendant if they disagree with the law that is being levied, regardless of evidence presented.

Jury nullification advocate indicted for jury tampering [continued]

Courtroom One Gavel

The upcoming Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of Obamacare once again highlights a point that best-selling author Thomas Woods has made so clearly in many of his writings — that having one branch of government rule on a dispute that involves another branch is a ruse.

In the case of Obamacare, this ruse is especially clear, because one of the judges, Elena Kagan, has been waving the pompoms for this unconstitutional piece of legislation from the time of its conception. In fact, as Obama’s Solicitor General, she was intimately involved in formulating Obamacare and in preparing legal arguments to defend it. Her e-mail trail is downright embarrassing.

Based on Judge Kagan’s indisputable involvement with Obamacare, according to federal statute, she must — repeat, must — recuse herself because of her obvious conflict of interest. But will she? Not likely. The Political Class in Washington doesn’t give a damn about laws if they pertain to their own actions.

Nullification and Obamacare [source]

by Tom Woods

Retired chemistry professor Julian Heicklen is facing imprisonment for advocating jury nullification to passersby, following an indictment by federal prosecutors last year, according to the New York Times.  He stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan and handed out brochures on the subject.

According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred…. His speech is not protected by the First Amendment…. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”

Feds: Jury Nullification Advocacy Not Protected Speech [source]

The Obama administration expanded its legal battle against state-based immigration laws Tuesday, filing suit against the state of Utah over a law enacted in March that allows police to detain individuals they suspect are in the country illegally.

Utah is the fourth state the Justice Department has sued over an immigration-related law since President Barack Obama took office.

The first suit, filed against Arizona last year, resulted in court rulings blocking key parts of the state’s anti-illegal immigration measure. The Justice Department filed similar suits against Alabama in August and South Carolina last month.

Justice department sues to block Utah immigration law [continued]

Trenton Education Association (TEA) chief Naomi Johnson-LaFleur New Jersey’s gun-control laws are among the strongest in the country, and New Jerseyans like it that way. There’s been no significant attempt to weaken them since 1992, when a Republican-controlled Legislature tried to repeal the state’s pioneering ban on assault weapons, Gov. Jim Florio vetoed the effort, and public support for the ban helped block an attempt in the Senate to override the veto.

Now, however, the Republican U.S. House of Representatives has taken a big step toward undercutting New Jersey’s gun laws. Two weeks ago, the House approved, 272-154, a bill that would require any state that issues permits to carry concealed firearms to recognize similar licenses held by visitors from other states, no matter how different their permitting requirements might be.

The seven Democratic representatives from New Jersey voted against this National Rifle Association-sponsored attack on their state’s right to determine its own public-safety policies, but all six Republicans voted yes. They are Rep. Chris Smith (R-Hamilton); Rep. Leonard Lance (R-Clinton); Rep. Jon Runyan (R-Mount Laurel); Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-Harding); Rep. Scott Garrett (R-Wantage), and Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-Ventnor). Why?

“It’s astonishing,” said Brian Miller, head of Ceasefire New Jersey, a group that works to reduce gun violence. “We heard that the Republican leadership, which is in thrall to the NRA, had leaned very, very hard on Smith, Frelinghuysen and Lance to vote yes on the bill.” These three members had supported sensible firearms regulation on occasion in the past, Miller added, but not this time.

Amick: Gun laws in the Garden State [continued]