Brion McClanahan writes on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:

When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

As more states are joining in, it is worth noting that so-called constitutional scholars do not really exist. The constitution is not a very difficult document to understand. The real meaning of the phrase “constitutional scholar” should be replaced by “constitutional case law scholar”. However, a close look at what such a scholar actually knows about the origins of the constitution and what the founders intended it to mean makes it abundantly clear that many so-called scholars are not, in fact, scholars in the sense of understanding both the foundations and subsequent evolution of the document’s impact on this country, nor modern deviation from the original intent of the founders. One by-product of the modern study of constitutional law, is that for many in the field case law and precedents are primary while the foundations and history of the document are glossed over or entirely ignored. What does that tell us? It tells us that, since the foundations have been mired and replaced by 200 years of nationalist judges, many current scholars in in the field are actually completely clueless. Ask them about the Marshall Court around 1810 and onward and you will get a list of cases along with commentary, but mention that it was Marshall who took the sound defeat of nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention and turned it into a victory and you will be met by a blank stare or a nationalist talking point that exposes the naivety of the speaker. You also will not hear any mention of why America in 2010 looks a lot like America in 1776 in reference to the many being lorded over by the few. Brion McClanahan continues (emphasis mine):

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct…

…The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”

The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.

As stated earlier, the constitution is not a difficult document. So grab your nearest copy and look for the words “national healthcare” or any synonymous phrase. The fact you will not find such working indicates national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. How embarrassing for Engstrom. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to display a complete ignorance of the constitution. Read the whole article. Here I wish to point out a few other pertinent items (emphasis mine):

By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].

Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”…

…Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

The crux of the article that will shape the debate as ObamaCare lawsuits wind their way to the Supreme Court is well articulated (emphasis mine):

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

Brion McClanahan recalls a very telling quote by a great patriot:

Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue.

When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

Herein lies the crux of the matter – the blank space. The blank space that has been filled in for 200 years by those who would create an ecosystem ripe for the growth of tyrannical rule and contempt fo the unwashed masses. How else does one explain the lucre and arrogance of Congress and the President force-feeding ObamaCare to an unwilling public? The burning question is, will the Supreme Court side with the other two branches?

For two centuries the judicial branch acted the enabler to the Congressional addiction to power. Two centuries to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers. Two centuries for a judiciary promising to uphold the constitution while crossing two fingers together behind their collective backs. Each finger represents the usurpation of powers that belong to you and me. One finger is the Supremacy Clause and one is the Commerce Clause. It will be very telling as ObamaCare lawsuits make their way through the maze of the court system to see if the judiciary will finally imply it understands its own role in shredding the constitution or whether they will continue to conspire with the executive and legislative branch in a triumvirate of tyranny.

This battle will prove once and for all whether tyranny rules our land. I doubt it will resolve the issue of state’s rights vs. nationalism. An entire compendium of cases since 1810 would need to be undone and power wrested from the federal government either by the people along with their states, or by the people under their own power through non-violent passive-aggressive massive civil disobedience. My money is on that later requirement.

Highly recommended article: What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!

More news and opinion:

Dean: Of course ObamaCare is wealth redistribution!

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

Now this is getting fun. It’s like watching a good cage fight. Now The Hill is reporting that Blue Dog Democrats said they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders (emphasis mine):

The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Now that’s a good line for a commercial. I can hear it now….

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.

But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.

“Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”

Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus.

“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”

A leadership aide said no decisions have been made on how to proceed.

Ouch.

So far I have to say I am proud of the Blue Dogs for standing on principle. The big question is whether they have the character and gumption to continue to stand together against the liberal tide and do what is right for this country.

Here is a great list from Tea Party Patriots that provides not only which committee each representative is on, but whether they are Blue Dog. Call the Energy Committee members, especially Waxman. Lend the Blue Dogs your support.

From Michelle Malkin: Waxman wants Blue Dogs to heel, signals committee bypass

Just how bad is it for the opposition? Dallas Tea Party activists outflank MoveOn at Obamacare protest

Hot Air: Waxman threatens to bypass own committee.

Heard this on Bill Bennett this morning and found multiple sources. From the Wall Street Journal – Repealing Erisa (emphasis mine):

One by one, President Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation: Costs will explode, not fall; taxes will have to soar to pay for it; and now we are learning that you won’t be able to “keep your health-care plan” either.

The reality is that the House health bill, which the Administration praised to the rafters, will force drastic changes in almost all insurance coverage, including the employer plans that currently work best. About 177 million people—or 62% of those under age 65—get insurance today through their jobs, and while rising costs are a problem, according to every survey most employees are happy with the coverage. A major reason for this relative success is a 1974 federal law known by the acronym Erisa, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly—to offer uniform plans across state lines. This lets thousands of businesses avoid, for the most part, the costly federal and state regulations on covered treatments, pricing, rate setting and so on. It also gives them flexibility to design insurance to recruit and retain workers in a competitive labor market. Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.

Goodbye to all that. The House bill says that after a five-year grace period all Erisa insurance offerings will have to win government approval—both by the Department of Labor and a new “health choices commissioner” who will set federal standards for what is an acceptable health plan. This commissar—er, commissioner—can fine employers that don’t comply and even has “suspension of enrollment” powers for plans that he or she has vetoed, until “satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur.”

In other words, the insurance coverage of 132 million people—the product of enormously complex business and health-care decisions—will now be subject to bureaucratic nanomanagement. If employers don’t meet some still-to-be-defined minimum package, they’ll have to renegotiate thousands of contracts nationwide to Washington’s specifications. The political incentives will of course demand an ever-more generous “minimum” benefit and less cost-sharing, much as many states have driven up prices in the individual insurance market with mandates. Erisa’s pluralistic structure will gradually constrict toward a single national standard.

Yet a computer programming firm, say, and a grocery store chain have very different insurance needs, and in any case may not be able to afford the same kind and level of benefits. Innovation in insurance products will also be subject to political tampering. Likely casualties include the wellness initiatives that give workers financial incentives to take more responsibility for their own health, such as Safeway’s. Some politicians will claim that’s unfair. High-deductible plans with health savings accounts are also out of political favor, therefore certain to go overboard. If you have one of those and like it, too bad.

The new Erisa regime will be especially difficult to meet for businesses that operate with very slim profit margins or have large numbers of part-time or seasonal workers. They may simply “cash out” and surrender 8% of their payroll under the employer-mandate tax. A new analysis by the Lewin Group, prepared for the Heritage Foundation, finds that some 88.1 million people will be shifted out of private employer health insurance under the House bill. If those people preferred their prior plan, well, too bad again.

The largest employers—though not all—may clear the minimum bar, at least at first. But in addition to the “health choices” administrative burden, the cost of labor will rise because the House guts another key section of Erisa. Currently, lawsuits about employee benefits are barred under the law, allowing large employers to avoid the state tort lotteries in disputes over coverage. No longer. As a gratuity to the trial bar, Democrats will now subject businesses to these liabilities in the name of health “reform.”

If you can’t sue the government, but can sue your employer, the end result is exactly what Obama and his radical allies want – everyone on the public option. Employers, in order to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits, would dump private plans en masse. One of the reasons for spiraling health care costs is unnecessary extra tests ordered by your doctor to cover themselves and mitigate the chances of a lawsuit. Now the lawyers are going to get to play in a whole new sandbox. Cost savings, eh?

If you think the fight is over, think again.

Read The Road To Waterloo Is Paved With Socialist Intentions. You will find links with information on how to contact your senator and representative. Make use of it now (see below).

Also read Michelle Malkin’s Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard.

Glenn Reynolds: The Press Has Met Their Waterloo and It’s Obama

Can we get ABBA to record that?

CNN Political Ticker: Experts debate proposed ‘big brother’ medical council

Have you heard the latest? Re-branding – Health Care Reform is now Health Insurance Reform. Another example of elitists looking down their noses and thinking we all operate on dim bulbs. I would say a rose by any other name is still a rose, but roses are beautiful and represent love and honesty to me. So how about, a piece of crap by any other name is still a piece of crap.

Another piece from Michelle: Barbara Boxer: My jerkish behavior is great for fund-raising! Apparently, even some Dems are getting concerned about her odd behavior.

Stop the ACLU reports: Obama Warns Against Scare Tactics. He Should Take His Own Advice. Only to a radical liberal would scare tactics equate with truth.

Also of note, The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi may pull a power play and skip the Energy and Commerce Committee and bring the vote for a bill to the floor before the August recess.

House Democrats, in the faint hopes of getting a vote before August recess, indicated they are considering bypassing the Energy and Commerce Committee altogether, where the bill has stalled, and proceeding right to the floor.

“The preferable course would be to go through the committee,” Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said Thursday night. “But all options will be on the table.”

Don’t let them jam this down your throat like the cap and trade bill. Contact your representative now.

Sonia Sotomayor is a shoe in for the Supreme Court – so let’s quit covering her.

This is a diversion, and that’s how socialists get their agenda accomplished. Check out this story from the Hill. The shock and awe destruction of our health care system rears its head again. Trust me, the liberals do not rest, and neither should we. Time to stop covering Sotomayor and get back to the business of protecting this country against the government, lest we find ourselves standing dumbfounded as to what the hell happened.

House Democrats will introduce their full healthcare reform bill Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday while acknowledging she has much work left to do to win over members of her own caucus.

“We’re still on schedule. We have plans to vote for this legislation before we leave for the August recess,” Pelosi said at a news conference. Pelosi said, however, that the bill to be unveiled would have to undergo further changes during committee markup to garner enough support among Democrats. “It is just the beginning,” she said.

“It won’t be the finished product,” Pelosi said. “In order for us to be on schedule, we have to roll out legislation this week.”

But even a Tuesday introduction, to be followed by possible committee action beginning before week’s end, represents a slight setback to the House Democratic leadership’s ambitious goal of passing a healthcare reform bill before the lower chamber departs for its summer recess on July 31.

Diligence people, diligence.

Hot Air has a Live stream from Sotomayor hearings. While an interesting diversion, a crime is being committed in the House. Take your eyes of the ball for a split second and you will drop it. Don’t transfix on just this one issue – it is what the other side wants. They are running a reverse pattern and our entire team is running to the wrong side of the field.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Hot Air and many other blogs. They are where I get the real news from very talented writers and real journalists. Think Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Sister Toldjah, and anybody listed in my blogroll. I just hope everyone does not spend too much time on Sotomayor, wasting our time looking at shadows on cave walls while Obama, Pelosi, and Reid chip away at the foundations of this country bit by bit. I fear Sotomayor morphing into the Michael Jackson of conservative blogs while Pelosi and Reid work backroom deals virtually unchecked. Keep the pressure off and we may just lose some votes.

A death by a thousand cuts.

Michelle Malkin is also covering the Sotomayor hearings. As usual, her commentary and coverage is excellent, however I strongly believe her role in stopping the health care debacle is pivotal.

Michelle Laprarie at Wizbang has her eye on the ball: Democrats ready to drown, not just soak, the “rich”

Sister Toldjah: Palin slams Democrats on cap and trade

Michelle is on the case: Waiting for the health care takeover bill to drop. Details are provided on the Republican plan.

Even after the Blue Dog revolt in the House, Obama still tries to save his beloved health care fiasco.

The White House on Monday said that President Obama would consider asking Congress to delay the summer break if he hasn’t seen sufficient progress on healthcare reform by the August recess.

Hours after Obama told reporters that he is “going to get this done,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that it is unlikely legislation will be finalized before the recess.

“Maybe,” said a shrugging Gibbs. “I don’t know.”

He added: “I don’t think anyone was under the illusion the whole process would be wrapped up by the beginning of August.”

Gibbs said the president would, however, like to see a reform bill pass either or both the House and Senate before members leave, and if they do not the president would consider asking the leadership to delay their vacation.

Obama: ‘Don’t bet against us’ on healthcare.

President Obama, fresh off a week overseas that saw his healthcare plan bruised back home, sought Monday to regain momentum to get reform passed by the August recess.

Obama, introducing his nominee to be surgeon general in a Rose Garden ceremony, began by taking on those who think healthcare reform has run off the rails.

“I want to put everyone on notice because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone,” Obama said. “We are going to get this done.”

Doubts began to emerge late last week over whether Congress will meet the president’s deadline of passing healthcare reform legislation through both chambers by the August recess.

Both the House and Senate have struggled to agree on how to pay for the expensive reforms even as they have looked for ways to keep its costs down.

A White House aide confirmed that the president will meet with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) later on Monday. The two men are chairmen of the committees that oversee tax policy and Medicare and Medicaid, and Rangel on Friday proposed a controversial surtax on the wealthy to raise $540 million to pay for healthcare reform.

I am Obama, I Control Your Mind, Vote for Heath Care. Socialism is Goooood.

Michelle Malkin on Your Tarp Dollars At Work. A lesson in how to sue yourself. Huh?!

Breaking news from Iran from Jihad Watch via Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.

In other news to make your day, check out the new TV ad from the RNC that hits Obama and ABC News where it hurts concerning the upcoming health care infomercial. From Allahpundit at hot air.