If Congress cannot or will not repeal the unsuitably named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” the states should oppose the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional. In his new book, “Nullification,” Thomas Woods Jr., makes a coherent case that the American people and their representatives have become detached from the original meaning of the Constitution.

Nullification begins with the conviction that a federal law that violates the Constitution is null and void. The states have a right to defend themselves against Washington overreach.

Woods writes, “If a law is unconstitutional and … of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it.”

One of the most successful examples of nullification in recent years is with respect to the medical use of marijuana. Marijuana use is illegal by federal statute yet 14 states are openly opposing the law.

Even though the law stands, Woods writes, “There are as many as one thousand functioning dispensaries in Los Angeles County alone, each of which operates in direct defiance of federal will.”

Shortly after President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law attorneys general in more than a dozen states were filing paperwork to challenge its constitutionality. The stage has been set for a showdown between the states and the federal government over this unconstitutional and unwise statute.

That the law was passed by an arrogant Democratic Party is beyond question. The process was conducted mostly behind closed doors and votes from Obama’s own party were procured through various political deals. A razor thin majority finally passed the law against the wishes of the majority of the people.

As the legislative process moved forward it became evident that Democrat leaders were unconcerned about the constitutionality of the law they were advancing. The following exchange took place between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a journalist:

Journalist: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?

Journalist: Yes, yes I am.

At that point the Speaker shook her head and took another question. Regarding the exchange, Pelosi’s press secretary later said, “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question.”

For a Member of Congress to display such a cavalier attitude towards the Constitution should appall every American citizen.

A press release from Pelosi’s office declared Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The popular notion that the interstate commerce clause can be used to justify nearly any government activity is one of the myths about the Constitution that is exposed by Woods.

The commerce clause is in Article 1, Section 8. It reads Congress has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Woods notes it’s the portion that addresses “the several states” that has been cited over the years to balloon the government’s power.

Drawing from the Constitution, state ratifying conventions, The Federalist and the Constitutional Convention, Woods shows the commerce clause addresses only trade and economic exchanges between the states and “not commerce that might happen to have an effect on another state.”

The law does not refer to all kinds of gainful activity.

The word “regulate” also appears in the clause. Surely, some would suggest, the power to regulate something grants government the right to control and standardize activities throughout the nation – including health care.

Woods addresses that fable noting that in the 18^th century the word “regulate” meant “to cause to function in a regular and orderly manner – as opposed to the word’s modern meaning that suggests micromanagement and control.” That is also, Woods observes, the meaning of the word in the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia.”

“Thus, the purpose of the commerce clause,” Woods writes, “was to establish a free-trade zone throughout the United States (thereby making commerce regular), and prevent states from disrupting the free movement of commerce.”

In a letter written in February 1829, James Madison explained the phrase “among the several states” was inserted in response to “the abuse of the power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

Over the years this clause has been misinterpreted and distorted to grant Washington politicians ever more power to work their will in ways never imagined or intended by Madison and his colleagues. The health care law is a glaring example of Washington liberals seizing authority that is not theirs to advance an agenda the majority of Americans never wanted.

The health care law is the result of Washington’s escalating disconnection from the people. Over decades the federal government has grown progressively larger and more expensive, usurping rights that had been reserved for the states when the nation was in its infancy. From unjustifiable agriculture subsidies to useless bureaucracies like the Department of Education, Washington politicians have stretched their fingers deep into the lives of the people.

The question Americans must ask is: Do we want our representatives to ignore the Constitution so they can pass laws that address their own political agendas? For the Speaker of the House to express amazement that the constitutional justification of a law was raised and to deem the question unworthy of a response is truly disturbing. Legality should be a primary consideration with regards to everything Congress does.

Domestically there are few issues more urgent than repealing the health care law. If Washington liberals are not successfully challenged they will realize they are not limited by law but only by desire.

17 Responses to “Nullification May Be Answer To Health Care Law”