![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif)
Goldwater Attorney: ObamaCare-Compliant Exchange Would Violate Idaho’s Health Care Freedom Act
Michael F. Cannon
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R), who added Idaho to the multi-state challenge that sought to overturn ObamaCare as unconstitutional, now supports helping the Obama administration implement the law by establishing and funding a health insurance “exchange.” Exchanges are new government bureaucracies that enforce ObamaCare’s many regulations, channel billions in deficit-financed government subsidies to private health insurance companies, and help the IRS penalize individuals and employers who fail to purchase government-approved insurance. So far, some 32 states have refused to establish an Exchange themselves. If Idaho’s legislature authorizes an Exchange, they will make Idaho the only state where a Republican legislature and governor acted together to implement this essential piece of ObamaCare.
One could argue this is a debate Idaho shouldn’t even be having. Establishing an ObamaCare compliant Exchange would violate Idaho state law.
In a letter sent to Idaho legislators today, Goldwater Institute attorney Christina Sandefur explains, “establishing a PPACA state health insurance exchange in Idaho would conflict with the state’s Health Care Freedom Act.” Idaho’s Health Care Freedom Act protects the “right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing heatlh care services free from the imposition of penalties” including “any civil or criminal fine, tax, salary or wage withholding, surcharge, fee or any other imposed consequence.” Sandefur explains (as I have explained elsewhere), “State exchanges that conform to PPACA are inconsistent with this safeguard because they are the key vehicles for implementing the individual mandate tax,” as well as the penalties ObamaCare levies on employers under the employer mandate. Idaho’s Health Care Freedom Act forbids state officials or state-created non-profits from doing anything that helps to enforce such penalties: “No public official, employee, or agent of the state of Idaho or any of its political subdivisions, shall act to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any penalty in the state of Idaho that violates the public policy set forth in [this Act].” As a result, Sandefur writes, “Idaho public officials who operate exchanges would be violating state law,” and “the Attorney General is charged with taking legal action against those who do so.”
Otter himself signed the Health Care Freedom Act into law in 2010, and was the first governor in the nation to do so. The purpose of that Act was to prevent state officials from doing what Otter is now trying to do. “What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says,” Otter boasted at the time, “is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.” Yet he is now trying to subject Idaho residents to those mandates, and violating his own law to help the federal government implement ObamaCare. The best spin I can put on this is that Otter is getting some very, very bad advice about the Health Care Freedom Act and ObamaCare’s Exchanges.
The situation in Idaho is a replay of Arizona, which enshrined a similar Health Care Freedom Act in its Constitution. As Arizona officials were wrestling with whether to establish an Exchange, Sandefur and her Goldwater Institute colleagues threatened legal action if Arizona did so. That threat was likely a major factor in Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R) decision to oppose an Exchange.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Operating an ObamaCare ‘Exchange’ Would Violate Ohio’s Constitution
By Michael F. Cannon
Unconfirmed reports indicate Ohio officials are considering implementation of an ObamaCare health insurance “exchange.” That would be very interesting if true, because operating an ObamaCare exchange would violate the state’s constitution.
Section 21 of the Ohio Constitution provides:
No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system…
“Compel” includes the levying of penalties or fines.
In order to operate an exchange, Ohio employees would have to determine eligibility for ObamaCare’s “premium assistance tax credits.” Those tax credits trigger penalties against employers (under the employer mandate) and residents (under the individual mandate). In addition, Ohio employees would have to determine whether employers’ health benefits are “affordable.” A negative determination results in fines against the employer. These are key functions of an exchange.
Ergo, if Ohio passes a law establishing an exchange, then that law would violate the state’s constitution by indirectly compelling employers and individual residents to participate in a health care system. That sort of law seems precisely what Section 21 exists to prevent.
As I explain in a recent column, 13 other states have passed statutes or constitutional amendments (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia) that bar state employees from carrying out these essential functions of an ObamaCare exchange.
Operating an ObamaCare ‘Exchange’ Would Violate Ohio’s Constitution is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Police State • You Have Rights, They Violate Them
You Have Rights, They Violate Them
Szandor Blestman
The thing about rights that many people seem to forget is that nobody gives them to you. They come from the very fact that you were born a human being. They are your birthrights. That’s why they’re called natural rights, or god given rights, or individual rights, or even inalienable rights. No one can take these rights from you. They are yours whether you want them or not. It is up to you whether you exercise them or not, and like muscles, if you don’t use them, you’ll lose them.
There are those in this world who would say otherwise. They would make the claim that they give you rights. They would make the claim that they have the right to suspend your rights. They would make the claim that it is up to them to decide whether or not your rights should be honored. Who are they to decide? What supreme power decided that they are better than us and should dictate which rights should be honored, which rights shouldn’t, and when or where all this should happen? Some would make the claim that they have the right to take away all your rights and that they can do so legitimately because they were elected to office or hired by those who were elected to office or appointed their position by those who were elected to office. These claims are simply untrue. Your rights cannot be taken away, no matter the reason, no matter the circumstances. They can only be violated.
The only legitimate reason for violating an individual’s rights is because he has violated another individual’s rights. There are no group rights. There are no states’ rights. There are only privileges granted by those who have been entrusted with governing powers usually backed up by force of arms. When such privileges violate the rights of an individual, or a few individuals, those privileges should no longer be allowed in a free society. Such privileges have a tendency to be abused. Such privileges led to the rise of the European aristocracy and were among the reasons the republic of The United States of America was formed in the way it was formed. The government is supposed to protect the rights of the individual from those who would exercise their privileges in such a way as to violate the individual’s inalienable rights.
I heard recently someone say something to the effect that people who venerate the Constitution of the United States of America were acting like religious zealots. Yet the powers that be are always zealously trying to legalize their violations of natural rights. They salivate as they pontificate over the reasons they should be allowed to disregard the well reasoned out Bill of Rights and to legally violate individual rights. Such laws and violations have nothing to do with protecting the public, they have everything to do with creating a more authoritarian and controlling state, with giving the power elite even more power to abuse. This was the wrong path that was chosen long ago which has led us to the mess we find ourselves in now.
This discussion stems from 2nd amendment rights and the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, but this is just the most recent iteration. Historically, such discussions go back much further. There was Virginia Tech, Columbine, the clock tower shootings in Texas, et al. None of these incidents can hold a candle to the mass murders committed by governments when they try to suppress the will of the people. None of these compare to the legalized murders committed by the psychopaths who use the force of law to commit sickening atrocities in the name of some collectivist political agenda supposedly put in place for the "greater good." They start by trying to take as many weapons as possible from the populace so that it will be easier later to violate other individual rights that make it harder to oppress the masses.
The right to bear arms is not simply a right to gun ownership, it’s a right to defend yourself. Do you think you have a right to defend yourself? Do you think you have a right to defend your family? Your friends? Your community? Do you think you have the right to associate with others who wish to defend your community? Do you think you have the right to defend yourself from terrorists? Even if those terrorists are government agents who have decided they wish to violate all your rights and put you in prison for exercising your rights or demanding they respect your rights? These can be tough questions to answer, for at times like these sometimes the correct solutions are counter-intuitive.
It all boils down to who owns you. Do you own you? Really? Are you sure? Can you be so sure? If you do own yourself, can you do what you want (as long as you don’t harm another or damage or steal another’s property) without fear of government intrusion? Can you start a business? One that you’re interested in? Can you start one without buying a license? Can you start one without going to some school? Can you start one without asking permission from some government bureaucracy? Can you keep ALL the money you make to spend or save or use as you see fit? Can you own property? Do you really own your property, or do you have to pay the rent known as taxes? What would happen if you didn’t pay your taxes? Again, do you really own your property? Slaves can’t own property either. Slaves can’t keep the fruits of their labor. Slaves have their rights violated all the time, even the right to defend themselves and their family. Slaves are owned by someone else. Are you so sure you’re not owned by someone else?
Medieval serfs were also owned. Sure, they had their own homes that they lived in and their own land that they worked, but the lords of the lands laid claim to their crops. They were able to invade the home whenever they wanted for whatever reason. Usually they left their workers alone so long as they were productive, but if they started to make a fuss or said something their master didn’t like, watch out. There were worse abuses that took place, but what could one serf do about it? They usually had their weapons confiscated or were never allowed to own a sword, or bow, or knife, in the first place. Slaves can’t own weapons. Their masters were worried they’d be used on them. Serfs finally got tired of the abuse and commoners demanded more freedom. They demanded respect for their rights. How long until you are tired of the abuse?
It’s not just the right to self defense that is at risk here, it is all individual rights. Once the guns are gone, the powers that be have nothing to worry about. The criminal element can go wild, the globalists can come in and save us all, and the common folk will welcome foreign troops on the streets. At least, that’s the theory. How long before they start arresting people simply for expressing opinions that are contrary to the establishment rulers? How long before they start coming into your home just for suspicion of associating with someone who has expressed an opinion contrary to that of the establishment rulers? With luck it will never happen, but I get the feeling that’s not how this is going to play out. As much as I’d like to see a soft landing, as much as I’d like to see peaceful change, it looks more and more like the powers that be want to see us hit quite a rough patch and they seem to be doing everything in their power to make that happen.
Remember, you have rights, they either violate them, or they respect them. Right now, they are violating them everywhere you turn. You are not left alone. You are constantly monitored and harassed even as you simply go about your daily business. As long as you remain silent, they will consider that silence as consent. As long as you go along to get along, they will consider your compliance as consent. As long as you cheer them on and encourage them to violate the rights of others, they will consider your encouragement as consent. You won’t be cheering so loud when they violate your rights.
My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.
For a time my books will be available exclusively at Amazon.com from Kindle Direct Publishing. Keep an eye out for special offers. In the meantime, I do need sales in order to support my habit of eating. These are great, well written books that I’m sure you’ll find entertaining. Here are the links to all my ebooks so you can purchase and enjoy them:
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy
The Edge of Sanity (a Matthew Wayne novel)
The Ouijiers (a Matthew Wayne novel)
Szandor was born the sixth of eight children. His father was a high school English teacher and his mother went on to become a Certified Financial Planner after she had raised her family. He grew up in the west suburbs of Chicago in a fairly nice neighborhood. His childhood was rather uneventful, but he does have a few stories to tell. He remembers watching the Vietnam War, the protests, the riots, the assassinations, the moon landings, all the important events of the sixties on TV although he was very young at the time. He earned a BA in Rhetoric with minors in Math and Geology from the University of Illinois in Champaign/Urbana. He earned an MS in Information Technology from the University of Maryland University College in College Park. He has raised his family of 3 children and two step children as an electromechanical technician and department manager in the vending industry. He now lives alone in the western suburbs of Chicago and aspires to be a novelist. He enjoys playing golf and acting.
Ladies living in or near Addison, Illinois take note. Szandor is available. Email him at sblestman@yahoo.com
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.12/rights.html
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:24 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com