Last Wednesday, all 41 Senate’s Republicans signed a letter promising to hold Democrats to the letter of the Senate rules concerning reconciliation. These rules determine what items may be included in a package of alternations to the health bill Democrats intend to shove through Congress violating minority rights in an effort to take over 1/6 of the U.S. economy while simultaneously inserting themselves between you and your doctor.

Will it be enough to scare Democrats in the House? I have my doubts. I believe the GOP must shut down the entire Senate now on all legislation until ObamaCare is moved off the Senate and House calendar and both leaders promise to keep it off the calenders until the next Congress. However, I am hearing from inside sources the Senate GOP is skittish about this approach. Skittish about protecting our liberties? As one strategist put it who has created enough decision trees on the matter to wallpaper a house:

…the only viable strategy I can see is for the Republicans to begin the process of shutting down the U.S. Senate until the Democrats agree to MOVE ON — move off healthcare until the 112th Congress convenes.

I hope the Senate GOP knows what it is doing. I would not put it past VP Biden to overrule the parliamentarian and force this through. I have seen no evidence to the contrary that the entire Democratic party is in self-destruct mode and displaying outward signs of an obsessive-compulsive disorder bordering on seriously neurotic behavior when it comes to ObamaCare.

Related:

Constitution Butchers: Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House; Update: Dems don’t have the votes

Obama flip-flops on dealmaking for ObamaCare

Reconciliation bill posted; Update: Shell bill

One of the two main criteria for nullification to work is passion and the sheer number of states involved. If 20 or more states nullify ObamaCare there would be no way to enforce it. Read on.

The time to step up is now. We fight not just for our country, but for our families and for those not yet born. The information below is voluminous and it is merely a primer. Taking back our country requires understanding the power of the states in contrast to federal power. It requires we grasp the historical context of how the federal government absconded with powers the founders clearly never intended it to possess.

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent implicit case for why nullification is the only way back to federalism and the Tenth Amendment Center provides extensive education and commentary on the subject itself. Let us start with Michelle as she questions the ability of Republicans to lead us out of the sinkhole:

Now, I want you to read every word of what Andy McCarthy has to say about the GOP leadership’s abandonment of Jim Bunning — and what it says about the lack of Republican fortitude in the war against the permanent, ever-growing Nanny State.

Andy speaks the truth. Hard truths. And fiscal conservatives/Tea Party activists need to shout them from the rooftops. I’ve invoked Phyllis Schlafly many times over the past year in urging the GOP to provide true choices instead of echoes. Actions speak louder than words. So, alas, does feckless inaction.

Maine’s Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to assure Americans that Bunning’s radical views about Congress’s not spending yet more billions it doesn’t have “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” And sure enough, they didn’t. Once Bunning backed down, the measure passed by a whopping 78-19.

Think about that. We are talking about $10 billion in a year when Leviathan is slated to spend a total of $3.6 trillion. The majority of Senate Republicans joined Democrats in concluding that the allocation of every one of these 3.6 thousand billion dollars is so vital that not one of them could be sacrificed in favor of unemployment insurance. So another $10 billion just gets heaped on the already unfathomable trillion-dollar deficits stacking year upon year.

Read the entire post. The realization that salvation exits with neither political party is an a priori and tacit argument the federal government is responsible for creating this mess and cannot, by design, be the architect of solutions to restoring fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. This is not to say principled politicians do not exist in Washington – I can think of a few – but most politicians are just that…politicians. Self-interested, disconnected, contemptuous elitists. For those in the Tea Party, it is a calculated risk that your candidate somehow is cut from a different cloth. In reality, you will fare no better than the average citizen. As I write these words, salivating, power hungry impostors wait to prey on the wishes and dreams of Tea Party members everywhere. I am your candidate, they will say. Even those with honest designs are not immune to the corrupting influence of Washington, for the system is fundamentally broken and it is impossible to remove a sitting member of Congress member. It is not, however, impossible to recall a governor or a state legislator in some states and it is here that Tea Parties, nullification, and real power collide in the perfect storm of the restoration of constitutional governance.

Those of you who follow this blog recall that a group of organizations successfully changed Senate GOP healthcare policy. The history of those efforts are here and cross-posted at Politico. Be forewarned, you will not like the narrative:

After weeks of refusing to embrace the “obstructionist” label as a virtue, Senate Republicans finally saw the light and late last week began to use the parliamentary tools at their disposal to delay a final vote on health care.

Until then, with the exception of South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican lawmakers had refused to use Senate rules and procedures to obstruct the passage of the health care bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and run out the clock on Obamacare. Some prominent Republican senators and members of their staffs had even let it be known they actually believed passage of the Reid health care bill and enactment of Obamacare would benefit GOP candidates in the November midterm elections.

This GOP strategy of expedient complicity enraged the conservative base, roused talk radio show hosts and bloggers and even provoked a backlash from the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Social Security Institute and the National Tax Limitation Committee joined with Tea Party Support and Gun Owners of America to convey this outrage to the Senate Republican leadership through letters, e-mails and telephone calls from the grass roots to GOP senators’ offices.

It took a figurative gun to the collective head of the GOP to add a little starch to collapsing spines. Had the switch occurred just a smidgen later, Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts may well have occurred after the passage of ObamaCare.

To the GOPs credit, they continue to stick to obstruction and the promise of obstruction regarding ObamaCare. Their performance at the bipartisan healthcare “summit” was nothing short of amazing. However, the same tendencies against fiscal restraint still exist for many in the party, as outlined by Michelle in her post.

So what is one to do? The answer – nullification. No, nullification is not secession and no, nullification is not a violent act. The Tenth Amendment Center describes nullification as follows:

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void…

…There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

More on federal tax escrow accounts and the willingness of federal agents to execute orders deemed unconstitutional below.

For more information about nullification I strongly encourage the reader to visit the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and type in nullification in the search bar. Lots of very interesting reading. Additional information can be found at the Social Security Institute.

The TAC also writes Our Goal is Federalism, not “States’ Rights”:

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence…

…Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

So if I were to ask you to identify the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, the correct answer is not the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather the states themselves. Allowing the U.S. Supreme Court – part of the judicial branch of the federal government – to rule on federal powers presents a problem. Dr. Larry Hunter informs us (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

If we remain sheep, apathy lays the foundation for us and our descendants of a people enslaved to the whims of a capricious few. Nullification begins with the state legislative and executive bodies, when the previously lorded over sheep transform into self-reliant wolves. It requires of us and our state leaders great strength of character and leadership. If they are not up to the task – we can replace them. At times, we must be prepared to stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder – literally and figuratively. The goal of any nullification movement is critical mass. Using ObamaCare as an example – assuming it passes, if enough states nullify the law and governors coordinate the effort with the will and strength of the people at their backs, ObamaCare will collapse. Federal repercussions will be swift:

When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,” that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states pass laws to nullify unjust and unconstitutional federal acts, the feds will still continue to tax us and punish our states financially for not complying – so what can we REALLY do?

One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account” or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.”

Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people.

Naturally, the U.S. Supreme Court would label such an act unconstitutional, but as stated above, such an action by the Supreme Court amounts to empty words and rhetoric. The natural progression of such actions, given enough states and a determined populace, will be the nonviolent return of federalism. While it is possible events unfold in such a manner leading to a showdown between, for example, national guard troops and/or civilians and the U.S. military, it is highly unlikely the U.S. Military will follow orders that are obviously unconstitutional. After the forceful removal of guns from citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, many in law enforcement and the military began a serious a deliberate debate on the issue. Oath Keepers states the following on their site:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army — and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.

Included in the link is a list of orders member will not obey.

We can take great lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr. and his approach to the civil rights movement, as well as Gandhi and the issue of British colonialism in India. A passive-aggressive approach can work if executed correctly.

It is no longer the case that most of us sacrifice for our freedoms. We know of those who did so in the past and do so even today. We honor them on special holidays and then go about our business. Lately, some find themselves prone to attend rallies, send faxes, call and email their federal representatives, only to sit back and watch Washington arrogance ignore our calls for sanity.

It is now clear to many the way forward – the only way forward – is through the states. We may slow our slide into fiscal disaster and European style socialism with leveraged federal pressure, but inaction at the state level – read nullification – we only delay the inevitable. So now is the time to begin. Now is the time to transform.

The sovereignty of the British at the time of the War of Independence was in the Parliament. The founders knew this and ensured the constitution would not allow for concentration in a centralized power for a few to lord over the many. The final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but rather the states. This is something rarely taught in law school and constitutional courses concentrate on case law and not on the historical context of the founding document itself. When the historical context is reviewed, it is clear, as Jefferson warned, that allowing a federal judicial system to check the federal powers was patently absurd.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written in secret by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Act, which would have jailed them for speaking out against the government, clearly made the above case and the case for nullification. Nullification is not secession – it is a state saying the federal powers have no right to execute a law within the borders of that state. Now look back to the context of the War of Independence. A tiny island off the coast of France has now been replaced by a city in DC. We are back where we started.

Perish as sheep, or thrive as a wolves.

Highly Recommended Reading:

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

Related:

Listen to Judge Napolitano as he talks about nullification and secession. Personally, I don’t believe secession is necessary nor really an option. The very thought of it conjures images of violent battles. Nullification is the peaceful means to taking back our liberties under the Constitution.

More reason to start now: New House Dem strategy on ObamaCare: hostaging

How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad

State Sovereignty is About You!

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

Nullification: The states have a “nuclear option,” too

Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

Hoyer: We could totally draft an anti-abortion bill that will get considered … by Democrats

Note To GOP: Our Freedoms Are No Longer Negotiable

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

So… What Next?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Keep in mind that in order for Reconciliation to work, the House must pass the Senate version first.

A couple of thoughts after reading Kim Strassel’s Wall Street Journal article The Summit Sideshow:

There is a concern about how many free passes Pelosi gave to conservative Democrats to vote against ObamaCare during the House vote last year in an effort to provide them political cover. In reality, the concern is not ours, but Pelosi’s.

Those who voted no have seen what happened to those who voted yes. Plummeting poll numbers of conservative Democrats who voted yea on the bill are not encouraging signs for their nay counterparts, so why flip and ruin your political career? For Pelosi? I don’t think so.

Pelosi faces many challenges. One, hold the yes votes. Two, flip the no votes on enough conservative Democrats to pass ObamaCare, and three, hope that retiring conservative Democrats who voted yea originally are not convinced that vote hastened their departure and will express their displeasure at the Pelosi, Reid, Obama triumvirate that seems hell-bent on destroying the Blue Dog conservative Democratic caucus and political careers in the process.

Look for a lot of no votes to stay that way. Especially after yesterday’s lackluster performance by the Democrats at the healthcare “summit”, I don’t see a lot of Representatives rushing towards the cliff for a leadership that has demonstrated nothing but contempt and disregard for the political careers of their colleagues in what amounts to an obsessive-compulsive neurotic rush to shove an unpopular bill down an unwilling public’s throat.

Add to that Senate pressure and a promise by Senate Republicans to throw enough amendments at any reconciliation attempt to keep the ball rolling until 2050. The only way out of that trap will be for the Democrats to evoke the Bryd Option and kill the fillibuster. How many Senate Democrats will sign on to that, and if you are a House member from a state with a Senator that stands firmly against that tactic (a true nuclear option), how do you stand on your vote for ObamaCare? The pressure will be enormous to buckle and vote against ObamaCare. The same argument holds for reconciliation itself.

Newsmax is reporting today that Senator Byrd, the architect of the reconciliation process said using reconciliation to expedite health-care reform would be “an outrage that must be resisted.”

Eric Cantor makes the case that Pelsoi faces an uphill climb getting votes for ObamaCare. I think the problem is an even bigger one that described by Representative Cantor.

I think this bill is dead.

Related:

Pelosi losing grip on the House?

Oba-Kabuki: A box-office bomb

Health Care In Spinsville

Does Pelosi have the votes to pass Obama’s new bill?:

Ironically, for all of the left’s endless whining about the filibuster, it ain’t the Senate that’s their biggest problem anymore. A simple question for you from Philip Klein, who’s been counting heads in the lower chamber for weeks: Given that they’re starting with only 217 “yes” votes, who’ll be stupid enough among the no’s to flip in favor of what even David Brooks is calling a “fiscal time bomb”?

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill [in November], 31 of them were elected in districts that went for John McCain in 2008, according to a TAS analysis. One of the Democratic “no” votes, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, has subsequently switched parties. Given that a Republican who campaigned on being a vote against the health care bill was just elected to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in a state that went for Obama by 26 points, it’s hard to see why anybody in a McCain district who already voted “no” would decide switch their vote to “yes.”

While Obama won the districts of the remaining eight “no” votes, in six cases, he won by only single digits, making them potentially competitive races this time around. And a closer look at several members who represent these areas are not very encouraging to proponents of Obamacare…

The biggest problem she faces is that President Obama’s proposal maintains the abortion provision in the Senate bill, rejecting Rep. Bart Stupak’s more restrictive language. When the bill passed the House the first time around, 41 Democrats voted for the health care bill only after voting for the Stupak amendment. Any of them could explain switching to a “no” vote on a final bill by citing abortion funding. Stupak himself has said there are at least 10 to 12 Democrats who voted for the bill the first time who would vote against it if it didn’t include his amendment (he reiterated Tuesday morning that the Senate abortion language adopted by Obama was still “unacceptable”). One of his co-sponsors, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, said at the time that he was only able to vote for the bill after the Stupak language was adopted, and he’s now running for Senate in Indiana, where a Rasmussen poll taken last month shows voters oppose the health care legislation by a 23-point margin.

An alternative explanation from former Bush economist Keith Hennessey: They know they don’t have the votes and this is all just a blame-shifting exit strategy.

It is possible that we are witnessing uncoordinated Democratic leaders each pursuing their own exit strategy in anticipation of legislative failure:

• The President proposes a “compromise” and blames Republicans for being unreasonable and unconstructive. Legislative failure is the Republicans’ fault, not the President’s.
• Speaker Pelosi continues to press for a two bill strategy in which the House and Senate will pass a new reconciliation bill. If the Senate cannot or will not do so, legislative failure is the Senate’s fault, not the House’s or Speaker Pelosi’s.
• Supported by outside liberals, Leader Reid points out that the House could just take up and pass the Senate-passed bill. Legislative failure is therefore not his fault or the Senate’s.

ObamaCare is dead and very unpopular with 58% opposing the current bill before Congress, but that does not stop the One from calling, what even CBS is admitting, a faux bi-partisan meeting with the GOP in a last ditch attempt to salvage his failing plan. Obama seems to understand how Newton’s first law of motion applies to legislation; legislation in motion will remain in motion and legislation at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force. As ObamaCare is most certainly at rest and dead, Obama has nothing to lose and the GOP has nothing to gain by this farcical display. To flip it around, Obama has everything to gain and the GOP has everything to lose by attending the so-called healthcare summit.

Attend or not attend, the liberal media will spin the story in Obama’s favor, so again – why the hell is the GOP leadership committing such a explicit act of stupidity? ObamaCare is treading water and the GOP is about to throw it a lifeline. From the CBS story:

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

(AP)Mr. Obama said he “won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party.” But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he “won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience.”

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its “obstinacy” and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

So my first instinct is to state that attending the summit, if ObamaCare subsequently passes, the GOP attendance will be scored by the grassroots of this country as a vote for ObamaCare. As Representative Eric Cantor already committed to attending, the GOP better pray that Obama does not walk circles around them as he did recently during the Republican retreat in Baltimore:

This wasn’t supposed to be televised, incidentally, but both sides agreed to it at the last minute in the name of showing the public how bipartisan they are. The GOP figured it’d give them a platform to prove that they actually do have policy ideas of their own, but I think the format ended up benefiting Obama more than them. He was on camera the whole time; he did most of the talking; he got to show that he’s perfectly capable of extemporaneous debate even with multiple prepared challengers lobbing questions. (Which should have been clear after 20+ debates in 2008, but the TOTUS jokes have taken on a life of their own.) Even conservatives I follow on Twitter were saying that he seemed more appealing in this format than in his thousand speeches last year. Who knows? Maybe that means we’ll see more of this.

Update: Not surprisingly, White House aides tell HuffPo they’re ecstatic with how things went while GOP aides tell NBC it was probably a mistake to let the cameras roll. Oh well.

Prior to Representative Cantor’s foolish committal to attend the One’s Hail Marry summit, I was quite pleased to read the letter from House Republican Leader John Boehner and Rep. Cantor (House Republican Whip) to Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:

Washington, Feb 8 –

February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

I have also read Gibbs sorry excuse for a rebuttal to the Boehner and Cantor letter. Gibbs letter is proof positive they other side is bankrupt of ideas and is rehashing the same old tired rhetoric. It also shows they smack of desperation and have nothing substantial to say. Gibbs basically channeled Obama’s typical generalites (see page 2 of the Politico story).

By sending this letter and then accepting the invitation, it’s time to hold the feet of the GOP to the fire. They asked for it, and now its time to pay the piper. If the GOP wishes to continue to forge and nurture the relationship it has enjoyed with grassroots organizations and voters across this country, then it is time to step up to the plate and prove your worthiness. Therefore, I submit the following if ObamaCare passes subsequent to the meeting (the following scores apply to the GOP):

• The meeting will take place at a round table with no teleprompters allowed. If this agreement is not accepted the meeting is off. Failure to secure this agreement prior to the meeting will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President and Democrats in both Houses have already said they will not start over. More to the point a Politico story states that “Obama hopes to walk into the Feb. 25 summit with an agreement in hand between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a final Democratic bill, so they can move ahead with a reform package after the sit-down.” The GOP must make this an issue and call out the President on the false premise of the entire event. If agreement is reached on a final bill, what is the purpose of the meeting? Where is the bi-partisanship if the bill was agreed to a priori to the event? Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President stated that reconciliation will not be taken off the table. As this amounts to shoving an unpopular bill down American’s throats and trampling on minority rights in the Senate, the entire premise of the summit is again called into question and the President’s real agenda for the meeting exposed. The GOP must challenge the President on this point. Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must insist they be able to invite House Democrats opposed to the measure. If they are not allowed to do so, the meeting is over. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite officials and lawmakers from those states that has passed or are working on passing legislation/resolutions challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite their own experts, including but not limited to actuaries from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and members from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare

Again, whether the GOP attends or not, the liberal media are going to spin, spin, spin. This “summit” is a disaster in the making; we have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have dug a deep hole, jumped in and are now extending their hands for our assistance in extricating them out of a disaster of their own making. If Republicans help revive this bill, they will lose a number of us out here in the voting world. I fear going to this summit will be a turning point.

If the Senate is going to use reconciliation, they are going to do it with or without this summit and I doubt they are going to use it, although the summit may embolden the House to pass the Senate version if Obama plays his cards right. I and many others have VERY strong reservations about this summit. The House GOP needs to think really hard and ensure the President does not use this as a platform to railroad over any real discussions. Equal time, no teleprompters, the President at a table and not lording over the event from a podium, and all the above relevant conditions met prior to the GOP accepting this offer and during the event itself.

The President wants no preconditions for good reason; the entire “summit” loses its utility if it is controlled in such a way as to force the President to address the issues related to the bill on terms not entirely of his own making. If the meeting is held, use it to highlight the flaws in the bill and remind the President why the American people do not like this bill. Bring your testosterone boys, you are going to need it. You made the promise, you wrote the letter, now it’s time to deliver. Failure to do so would be very bad….for you.

A piece of advice for the GOP: as three-quarters of independents now have a favorable view of the Tea Parties, either turn down the offer or bring your A game.

Oh, and let’s not forget that we may have a bill here that fines and imprisons people for not having insurance. I would like to see these aspects discussed if they are indeed in the bill. Also, last I heard – it’s so hard keeping up with all the changes – the current Senate bill places some type of constraint or rules requirement on future chambers to amend or repeal certain aspects of the bill. If true, I want to know the details and hear Obama’s response.

Update: It does not appear, at least to me, this is a done deal yet:

When asked by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News last night if Republicans would attend, Boehner said he was awaiting answers from the White House.

“There are a number of questions I’d like answered before I give you or the President an up or down answer,” Boehner told Fox News last night.

Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith told HUMAN EVENTS last night that they have not received a formal invitation, any details on the event or a response to their letter.

Keep up the pressure folks.

Update 2: Dr. Hunter agrees:

Now, Republicans have reverted to their old ways and appear prepared to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Instead of negotiating the point of departure of their own defeat, Republicans should be insisting on postponing any consideration of healthcare reform until after the new Congress convenes in 2011. This Congress has lost all legitimacy where healthcare is concerned. This is a lame duck Congress, and it is time for it to fold its wings and float on the pond in silence and inaction until the people have an opportunity to vote for a new Congress a few months hence.

So, here we go again. Hey, Republicans, heads up, ears open, eyes on the prize: Object, Obstruct and Delay any effort by the White House and congressional Democrats to revive the death march toward nationalization of healthcare. And most importantly, don’t do anything to allow RhinoCare to be resurrected from the dead.

Remember, obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice and cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue.

This Congress is lame; don’t give it legs.

Read the whole thing.

In other news:

Porkulus II: Return of the Phony Jobs Boondoggle

WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama losing command of the issues

The Negotiations Fraud

Will the Stupid Party Blow It?

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

Update: Nullification resolution with teeth: ResistDC: The State Authority and Anti-Racketeering Act:

If teeth is what you want, you need to go no further than Georgia. House Bill 880 (HB880), introduced by Representative Bobby Franklin, is called the “State Authority and Anti-racketeering Act.”

Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, HB880 is legally-binding legislation…

…that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

This bill would make it a crime – with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense – for “any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government” to attempt to “enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law” reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

As of this writing, the bill has had two readings in the Georgia House. Will such a strong piece of legislation go anywhere? Only time will tell. The reality, though, is this – it’s going to take some serious effort to push back against decades and decades of unconstitutional federal acts.

————————

News today at Hot Air via Townhall: Dem sources: Senate “fix” for ObamaCare could add another $300 billion to price tag; Update: Dems ready for reconciliation, says Kyl

As the saying goes – strike when the iron is hot.

Many of my friends will disagree with me this is the time or that healthcare is the issue to fight the nullification battle and start the long journey back to re-asserting states rights; it is a nasty and drawn out process, not an event as many would think. There is the beginning, a middle, and an end. The middle and the end are often, shall we say, fraught with peril. However, given the sheer level of contempt the Democrats are preparing to level at the American public it is clear the time for niceties is over. And I am not talking about the nullification of just the individual mandate which, if successful, may only serve to usher in more quickly the single-payer system, I am talking about the nullification of the entire bill. I’ll go even further and suggest that as many states as possible draft and pass legislation that would allow that state to nullify any federal law which violates state sovereignty. What I am talking about is an virtual (not literal) act of war by the states against the federal government. It would not be pretty; it would not be easy. Continuing a campaign of pressure against the federal government while steadfastly supporting state’s governors and legislators as they embark on this journey of defiance requires great skill, leadership, patience, and gumption. So get ready.

In his excellent piece A short history of the destruction of state sovereignty, a worthy read in itself, Dr. Hunter notes the following regarding the rolling back of tyrannical federal powers:

But, it won’t be simply a matter of untying the knot or walking this cat back. It is impossible to simply retrace the steps that brought the American political system to its present perilous situation; it will require courage, steadfastness, truculence, defiance and a will of iron to stand up to Washington and stand down the power of the federal government. It will be an undertaking not in principle different from but even more daunting and difficult than the Civil Rights Movement, namely reviving America and restoring liberty by overcoming oppressive government that is acting illegally and immorally with a pointed gun under the color of law.

Later, Dr. Hunter goes on to say (emphasis mine):

After spending several weeks traveling around the country speaking at grass-roots events and Tea Parties, I am impressed by the pent up anger at the federal government spilling out across the land. It is diffuse and largely unarticulated but it is real, and it is growing.

I also am impressed by the actions already taken and under consideration in several states to re-establish state prerogatives and “sovereignty”—from unilaterally withdrawing from the federal government the authority to regulate guns manufactured, sold and used solely within the confines of the state (MT & TN), to opting out of national healthcare (AZ) to consideration of refusing to be ensnarled in cap-and-trade (IN).

It is a messy, boisterous process and mass movements such as the Tea Parties frequently get it wrong in their enthusiastic assertions about what is and what is not constitutional. That said, there may be a kernel here—“state sovereignty”—around which a movement may be coalescing and the Spirit of ’98 revived.

But, the state sovereignty movement must be about more than simply unfunded federal mandates; it must go beyond making intergovernmentalism efficient and bearable; it must aim to revive genuine federalism in order to restore individual rights and personal freedom.

Certainly, to be a lasting political force, the Tea Parties need a focus rather than simply running around making noise and venting their frustrations. But time is not likely to wait for the intricate schemes and the best laid plans of man; from the sorry looks of states such as California and plans the current administration has in hand for a complete takeover of everything in sight, events may take on a life of their own.

In the not too distant future, America may face a spontaneous and violent crackup designed by no one but out of the control of anyone, followed by a backlash of severe national-government oppression and tyranny. That is why it is vital for citizens to get ahead of the curve and organize a peaceful rebellion against Washington—a restorative revolution led by the natural depository of power—the States—which were intended by the Founders to be the locus of resistance to check an oppressive and tyrannical national government.

If the states do not intervene to halt the national government’s takeover of everything and act to restore some semblance of balance to the American political system, there is a real danger that Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s prediction in The Road To Serfdom will come to fruition. Hayek feared that in times of turmoil and hardship, the appeal of dismantling the free-market system under the allure of central planning and the distemper of envy and fear would inevitably place society on “the road to serfdom,” which ultimately ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom.

Hayek argued that once a society progresses sufficiently far down the road to collectivism and consolidated central control, the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the national government to implement an otherwise good idea. According to Hayek, such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the national government, and ultimately allow a “strong man” to rise to power. Once a charismatic strong man who is perceived to be capable of “getting the job done” consolidates his power, Hayek foresaw the ultimate and ineluctable descent into outright totalitarianism.

Or, America may traverse the road to serfdom via another route. Rather than a strong-man takeover, a consolidated and centralized national government may instead visit upon the American people tyranny by committee every much as destructive of economic and personal liberty as the rule of any strong man.

Although all the wounds of slavery, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement may not yet be behind us, it may be, one hopes, that they are sufficiently healed to allow a critical mass of Americans from all walks of life to join together and rejuvenate their states. To revive American liberty and restore our constitutional republic, people will have to rediscover their courage to resist the way Martin Luther King and his followers resisted. But whereas civil rights activists looked to the national government as the font of legitimacy to take down immoral and oppressive state laws, a restoration of freedom from national-government oppression will have to look to state governments as the font of legitimacy in resistance.

The Revive America Movement must begin by electing and supporting governors and state legislatures who will act with the Spirit of ‘98 in truculent and defiant resistance to Washington. It will require citizens standing shoulder to shoulder with their governors and state legislators to confront the federal government where possible, defy Uncle Sam where necessary and restore some semblance of balance to the American democracy before it is too late.

Reviving America and restoring liberty to Americans won’t be simple because we are too far down the road to serfdom for simple unwinding and backtracking. It is not self-evidently obvious what a true Restorative Revolution would look like but the civil rights movement offers a model that may be the last best hope we have before passing a point of no return.

As Redstate’s Brian Faughnan reports, Democratic pollster James Carville’s recent poll indicated just one-third of voters support ObamaCare:

Democrats are currently saying that no matter what happens in tomorrow’s Senate election, they will pass a health care rationing bill.

Now there’s some audacity for you.

I am reminded of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

The train of abuses has been long, and with the Brown win, President Obama is promising a combative turn. Translation: more abuses of federal power and even less attention paid to the will of the people. Therefore, it is time, in this author’s opinion, for the Tea Parties to work with state legislators and governors, standing shoulder to shoulder with them, unbending and stalwart in the battle for the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, state leaders and citizens must stare down the federal tyranny with an icy glare. So perilous is this journey that the path must be carefully prepared, our leaders steadfast, and our own resolve unbreakable. What of federal repercussions and our legislative preparedness to deal with them? Are each of us prepared, as in the civil rights movement, to resist in a passive-aggressive manner the abuses of the federal government with acts of civil disobedience? When will the movement reach critical mass, causing the federal powers to crumble under their own weight and lucre?

If the Senate or the House passes the current and very unpopular health care bill, especially if the process of reconciliation is used, this very well could be the tipping point, forcing our hand to take measures to ensure a federal government oblivious to the will of the public is spanked hard and spanked often until it caves to our will. As Orrin Hatch recently stated, the use of the process of reconciliation in the Senate is will lead to an all out war in that chamber. The states would not be far behind.

Already, we have seen the Democrats in the Senate vote, along party lines, to increase the debt ceiling to 14.3 trillion. Combined with the soft on terror approach of the current administration, balooning deficits, a Congress that seems hell-bent on ignoring the American public to the point of brazen arrogance and dismissal, an appology tour by nothing less than the President of the United States, a recent Executive Order by the Presidet that surrenders U.S. sovereignty to Interpol, and a host of other abuses that would fill a book, there is a growing sense that enough is enough.

It is interesting to note that many today believe the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all things within the borders of the United States while in fact this Court is only a check against the other two forms of the federal government, not the states. Where the Constitution is silent, the states can govern themselves.

From The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

The public in each state must ensure its state government does not fold like a bunch of cheap suits when the federal government attempts its first act of retribution – the withdrawal of state funds. While money is a very powerful weapon, the stream flows both ways. Let us not forget our resolve nor allow our leaders in each state to ignore their constitutional duty to each citizen to fight for the rights of the state against the tyranny of the federal government. Let us not waver in the face of opposition from tyrants whose own audacity places them at odds with each of us. This is the time to use federal lucre and abuse of power to grab back the rights duly possessed by the states of this country. In this, the Supreme Court holds no sway over the authority of the states. The Constitution makes this clear. So long and slow has the erosion of state authority occurred, the we forget the people of this country and their respective states wield power over the federal government – not the other way around. Time has eroded our feeling of empowerment, and like pawns on a chessboard, we feel moved by the powers that be, forgetting that it is US that moves THEM. It is time to take back that power. It is time to save the future for our children and grandchildren. It is time to put the federal government back into its proper place. The road will not be easy, but if our resolve is strong, we can have back the country our forefathers left for us.

Update 1: While not a great Ron Paul fan, the an article at the Tenth Amendment Center basically lays out the same approach as above, but offers a few more details. I found the following to be highly interesting:

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

Living in Texas I am particularly interested in one of the comments:

We are developing nullification legislation for Texas that might serve as a model for other states. See http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/01/cautions-for-nullification-proponents.html

Proposed Components:

1. Commission. Establish “Federal Action Review Commission” – special commission with grand jury powers to meet continuously with rotating membership drawn from a pool of legal historians and constitutional scholars, appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, or Legislative Council; empowered to review the constitutionality of congressional legislation, or federal regulations or decisions, and if it finds such legislation, regulations, or decisions to be unconstitutional, to issue an edict, with the force of law, requiring that no state or local officials, employees, or contractors cooperate in the enforcement of it, and urging state citizens to refuse to cooperate. This Commission would be established by an amendment to the Texas Constitution.

2. Structure and procedure. The Commission shall consist of 23 members, who shall serve for staggered terms of 4-8 months, drawn at random from a pool of at least 230 constitutional scholars and legal historians, who shall meet for at least one hour once a week, with a quorum of 16, and a vote of 12 required to issue an edict, based on a presumption of nonauthority and requiring strict proof of constitutionality from logic and historical evidence. It shall be open to direct complaints of the unconstitutionality of federal actions from any citizen. It shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, and its deliberations shall be secret, except that it may disclose anything in its presentments. It may authorize criminal prosecution by issuing an indictment to any person, not necessarily a lawyer, upon a finding that the court cited has jurisdiction and that evidence of guilt is sufficient for trial.

3. Penalties. State and local officials, employees, and contractors shall be duly notified in writing of such edicts within ten days and shall have twenty days to comply or be subject to termination after one written warning and a second failure to refuse to cooperate.

4. Funding. Establish a state fund to pay for legal and financial support of state citizens and officials who refuse to cooperate with unconstitutional federal statutes, regulations, or decisions, with the intention to obtain judicial decisions that support the unconstitutionality of the federal actions.

Update 2: Another reason to start the nullification movement: Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Update 3: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

Great deeds are not accomplished by great men and women; great deeds are done by normal people facing extraordinary circumstances. It is through actions during troubling and trying times taken by those of us who are ordinary that mold and shape what will become a great and historical figure. Right now, in the Senate and the House, a single Democrat or group of Democrats have the chance to become great in the eyes of this nation. From broken promises of transparency to outright lies, the Obama administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party in the House and Senate have consistently taken this country down a path it does not want to travel.

Who among you is willing to remove the “for sale” sign on your vote? Who among you is willing to demand in a loud voice for the transparency promised eight times to televise health care negotiations? Who among you will stand up to the strong arm of Chicago style politics and stare down the administration with an icy glare? Do this for the country and we will forgive all past transgressions. Show us that greatness is still a quality that means something. Step up and protect us from this madness.

The profligate vote buying in the Senate has gotten out of hand. The special treatment granted and federal lucre handed out to the states of a few balking Senators has been disgraceful. This is not compromise, it is bribery pure and simple.

As neither party in the Senate truly understands what is in the health care bill, the law of unintended consequences demands a deliberative and transparent process. The purpose behind rushing through this bill is political and completely disconnected from serving the best interests of this country and the people who live in it.

It is time for a new style of politics, not one of obfuscation, hidden backroom deals, and broken promises. Yet lately it seems many politicians in the Democratic party are pitting themselves against the will of the American people, both liberals and conservatives. America needs someone of great quality to stop this madness—someone who understands the responsibility derived from freedom and position.

Someone once said, “The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.” The Democratic party appears deaf in this regard. We the American people implore Democrats in the Senate to stand on principle, to separate themselves from the pack, be the guardian of freedom and demand total and open transparency on our behalf. We urge you to vote against this bill. We urge you to lift the veil of deafness and hear our voices.

Related:

Pelosi: We’re “very close” to a deal with the Senate on ObamaCare. Perhaps Senator Blanche Lincoln will do the right thing.

Press corps grills Gibbs: Um, didn’t Obama totally shamelessly lie about C-SPAN?

Darkness reigns: Obama and the Vampire Congress

Redstate titles the post Even the grizzled Senate Veterans Found this Amazing — Vaporbill:

Vaporbill is a bill that has no legislative language but that is brought up before the Senate and cloture is invoked on a 100% blank bill.

I am not kidding.

One of the most powerful Senate staffers briefed a group of us on it yesterday morning. It is the next logical step to the HELP Committee’s mark-up of a bill not yet written. Why not take a bill to the Senate floor that does not exist?

Just wait till the READ-THE-BILL first crowd gets a hold of Vaporbill.

This is exactly what the Democratic Senate Leadership has in mind. If you were wondering just how-out-of-touch-Congress-could-get — well, now you know: Vaporbill.

Dan Perrin of Redstate then informs readers how the process would play out (via the Heritage Foundation).

Right now, the Senate Finance Committee is in the midst of marking up health care reform “legislation.” Due to Senate procedure, what they are actually marking up is a 200+ page conceptual framework of the actual legislation, not a real bill. That means that not only has no Senator even read the bill but, there is a high probability that the bill hasn’t even been written yet. If the Committee sticks to their artificial deadline of completing work by this Friday then they would have passed a conceptual document reforming the nation’s health care system, spending trillions, without ever seeing an estimated 1,500 pages of legislation, which may or may not be written.

The current plan is to start debate on Obamacare as early as next week under the following four-step scenario:

STEP ONE: The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday. Baucus has not unveiled final legislation and, according to the Associated Press, he added some new language to the mark up today. AP reports that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.”

Senators have not been provided any real legislation and are offering amendments this week to Baucus’ 200+ page outline. It is expected that at the end of the process the Senate Finance Committee may produce a bill longer than the 1,000 page House bill that proved so controversial over the August recess. Many Senators are upset that they don’t have final language for a bill, yet still they sit in a Committee Hearing Room this week marking up a draft document that is not in the form of legislative language. The plan is to have this document voted out of the Senate Finance Committee by Friday.

STEP TWO: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. This was the late Senator Kennedy’s (D-MA) bill, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), which passed the HELP Committee on July 15, 2009 on a party line vote. Remember, most Senators will still not know what they voted for in the Finance Committee.

STEP THREE: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was the bill passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Reid will move to proceed, and he will need 60 votes to act on this bill. After the motion is approved, he will then offer a complete substitute bill purportedly including the combined Senate HELP and Finance Committee products. This means that the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

STEP FOUR: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont), and a potential new member replacing the late Senator Kennedy. This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. According to CQ, the state legislature may pass a bill and present it to Governor Patrick by next week.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House Leadership may consider using reconciliation to pass the legislation. For a more detailed explanation of the reconciliation scenario, please see the Heritage Foundation’s Fact Sheet on Reconciliation here or a handy guide on Reconciliation published in Human Events earlier today.

Does this sound like a transparent, bipartisan and effective way to change the way millions of Americans get their health care? Of course not.

Larry Hunter of the Social Security Institute has this to say on the matter:

Now the VaporBill piece is making the rounds of the Internet

I have no doubt they may need to do a little striking and inserting in lieu thereof for procedural reasons – I’m not enough of a Senate parliamentarian to know whether they will or not but for the life of me, I can’t see any strategic value in this rigmarole. (Please tell me if I’m wrong so we can light up the Internet.) It surely doesn’t give anyone anywhere to hide because folks like me and the grass roots will cut them a new one with it. My favorite link in the whole chain in the five-step strategy comes in un-enumerated Step 5 in the penultimate paragraph:

“Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy.”

This casual statement reminds me of my favorite New Yorker cartoon of all times:

If this is an even remote possibility – and I have my doubts due to the monumental backlash that would occur against Democrats in the Senate and House, as well as Obama, then the grassroots needs to contact their Senators and let them know they face political extinction not only if they support this overt disrespect of a legislative process that will affect 1/6 of the nations economy and usurp our personal liberties, but also if they support in any form or fashion using reconciliation to jam this down our throats. Burn up the phone lines as well as the faxes. However, do not take your eye off the ball. As far as I know, this can just be a diversionary tactic. Don’t get me wrong, this needs to be addressed with the weight of the Tea Party movement, but not at the expense of other and more realistic ways of jamming ObamaCare down our throats. Say no to RINOCare and say no to reconciliation.

In other news and opinion:

Videos: Medicare Advantage consumers will lose benefits

How Brave the Meaningless

Me, Myself and I

ObamaCare: Is the GOP finally turning on the mandate?

Harry Reid gives GOP direct warning on healthcare; I give Harry Reid a direct warning: start looking for outplacement services

CBO contradicts Obama on healthcare – again

Dems lied, transparency died: Senate Finance Committee nixes Obamacare online disclosure

Transparency! Democrats Refuse to Post Health Care Bill Online

Last Friday, my wife and I attended the counter-protest in support of Whole Foods in Austin. The night before we learned of the planned boycott and that Austin was one of three major cities on this list. The boycott from leftists nutroots is directly related to CEO John Mackey’s audacity to disagree with Obama on health care reform. There is a strange twist to the story, though.

You see, John Mackey pays for his employees’ health insurance premiums – 100% of it to be exact. He is a proponent of organic foods, and a great philanthropist. While I don’t agree with Mr. Mackey on many issues, I feel he has the right, like any American, to voice his opinion. In 2006 Mr. Mackey wrote a letter to his staff announcing that he would reduce his own salary to $1 a year, donate his stock portfolio to charity and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems. He wrote: “I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart.”

While CEO of Whole Foods Market in 2008, he earned a total compensation of just $33,831, which included a base salary of $1, and a cash bonus of $33,830. He has instituted caps on executive pay at the company. Sounds like a really bad guy to me.

With only 12 hours notice, we equaled the number of protesters and stood in the stifling heat of Texas for over 1 1/2 hours – some on our side stayed longer. The protest started at noon and at the stroke of 1:00, all of the 18-25 year olds who made up the entire opposition all but disappeared. Hmm, I wonder how much they were paid?

At one point, some half-wit leaned out his car window and flipped us the bird. My wife yelled out “No, you’re number one”. We all joined the chant, relishing the look of consternation on the young man’s face and noting how disarmed he was by our response, especially since most of us were flashing the piece sign in response.

Shoppers stopped by to give us drinks, and Whole Food employees of the store came out in the 105 degree heat and offered both sides some water. I don’t know how many times others approached us, thanked us, and mentioned they never shopped at Whole Foods before, but intended to stop by whenever possible. The average spent was, by my calculation, about $100.00 per person. Whole Foods was busier than usual. How’s that boycott working out for ya? Oh, and thanks for going nuts all over Glen Beck – he is now stronger and more popular than ever. We could not have done it with you. You can’t buy that type of publicity, so I offer my deepest and sincerest thanks to every lefty working to move forward the cause of conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and making Obama and the liberal left look nuttier by the day. Thanks a bunch guys and keep up the good work.

By the way, how does it feel to be your own worse enemy?

It was then that Judy Holloway introduced herself. Judy runs the organization Texas Tea Party Patriots, and she was so impressed by my wife’s handling of the bird flipper, we soon found ourselves asked to attend an invitation only town hall inside the Austin capital building the following day, August 22nd. The speaker, C.L. Gray, M.D., is founder of Physicians for Reform. Democrats and Republican’s were invited and told to leave their signs at home. This was to be a cordial and informative town hall.

I taped most of the first hour, which dealt mostly with the philosophy of healthcare from Plato, through Hippocrates, onward to Frederick Nietzsche, the Nazis, and ending with modern day eugenics and some contemporary players in this movement – including the White House health czar Ezekiel Immanuel. It was chilling to say the least. Dr. Gray went out of his way to assure us he was not comparing anyone to the Nazis. Sorry Nancy Pelosi, but we have it on tape. He was a quite, well-spoken presenter and moderator.

I am still attempting to pull the first hour together in a video to upload to YouTube. It is a must see. The second hour centered on solutions to our healthcare problems – real solutions – with a subsequent Q&A session. I did not catch most of the second hour on video. However, I strongly recommend the following two links:

The History: Schools of Thought – Hippocrates vs. Plato and the main site.

Here you can check out solutions which include insurance reform, tax reform, tort reform, and secondary reforms. It is a real eye opener.

In other news and opinion:

“Let’s keep turning people out for these!”

So much for the Greatest Transition in World History

Culture of corruption: Daschle edition

Rasmussen: Obama passion index at -12. Hopeless and changeless.

Congresswoman says some senators ‘Neanderthals’. Did the Congresswoman read the bill? I think not. And let’s not forget Maxine at her best, intentions laid bare. If a Neanderthal is against Socialism, an ideology Maxine passionately identifies with as evidenced in the linked video, then count me in.

I am John Galt. I am a Neanderthal.

As I watch these videos (here and here) of congress members coming home to meet the wrath of their constituents, the hairs raise on the back of my neck. I am reminded of the Declaration of Independence. While the following was used as a preamble to describe the abuse of power by Great Britain and subsequent call-to-action for independence, the beginning is a generalization of the human condition under any form of tyrannical government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

If the liberals want to make health care a right, then by all means do so. The right to health care, combined with the inclusiveness of rationing and subsequent denial of care, would directly contradict the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the greatest insult visited upon the right to life.

I think Congress and the Senate are on very dangerous grounds here. The backlash and public upheaval should they force through this boondoggle will be a great force, motivated by anger – a potential earth shattering apocalypse – metaphorical, and possibly literal.

For years the gatekeeper against our revolutionary spirit was apathy , so eloquently explained in our Declaration of Independence as:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

But under Obama I am beginning to see signs that many believe we have suffered enough:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our duty.

The mask is off. Here is a video the proves beyond argument that Obama and the liberals are maneuvering towards a single payer socialized health care system, regardless of the lies they tell us. No more. Thanks also Ma Bird who is following me on Twitter for this story.

Now add to the mix of insults and lies the promise from Obama the middle class would not be taxed with his administrations recent statements that

We Can’t Promise Middle Class We Won’t Raise Their Taxes.

More on that here.

Can you say powder keg?

Call and email Congress now. Visit the town hall meetings. Read the words above from the Declaration of Independence and remind them who it is they work for and represent.

Should you become discouraged as you take up your signs, make calls, and send emails, keep the following quote from Thomas Jefferson in mind:

People get the government they deserve.

Send these two videos to everyone you know. This gets the point across. Heck, send them to your Senators and Representatives. Thanks to Nancy who is following me on Twitter for providing the links:

Part 1

Part 2

The videos can also be found over at Not So Sure.

Also read Did ‘Cash for Clunkers’ just put Obamacare on the junk heap? and check out this other video that shows you just how poorly senior citizens are already being treated. Ties in well with the first video above.