What Missouri's Law Against ObamaCare Does and Doesn't Do

In the words of our President: “Let me be clear,” Missouri’s Prop C represents a victory for individual freedom, not “states’ rights.”

I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but there is NO SUCH THING AS STATES’ RIGHTS! And people that use that term, or the term “nullification,” do not help our cause.

States have powers, and while those powers diminish in the face of the progressive-statist attack upon our Constitution, powers run contrary to individual rights. So let me break it down:

1) Prop C places a duty on the state of Missouri to defend its citizens from the IRS enforced individual mandate.

2) Prop C denies the federal government state resources to enforce the individual mandate.

Anyone with an ounce of constitutional knowledge knows that neither of those aspects of Prop C conflict directly with the Supremacy Clause.

Individual Freedom

No part of Prop C provided any protection for the state. Prop C placed a duty on the state to defend Missourians from the individual mandate. Contrary to Lefty arguments regarding the costs of such a defense, the state attorney general has a fixed budget, and I am not sure why people have a problem with the state’s top lawyer defending individual Missourians from an arguably unconstitutional mandate. Imagine these same naysayers suggesting we not push integration because it would cost too much through litigation.

Prop C recognizes the first principles enshrined in the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact that the Constitution did not mention a right of the people to choose whether or not to purchase insurance does not grant Congress the ability to mandate the purchase of insurance. Interestingly, the private lawsuits initiated against Obamacare deal directly with 9th Amendment issues. The lawsuit out of Mississippi uses the infamous Roe v. Wade to advance the concept of the right to privacy. If there are any legitimate Democrats left in this country, they should realize that progressive-statists do not like either the right to privacy or the freedom to choose. The private lawsuit initiated in Missouri by Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder should consider some of the same arguments surrounding the 9th Amendment.

Federalism

Prop C falls within constitutional jurisprudence preventing the national government from co-opting state resources. The national government can try to enforce the individual mandate through the IRS, but it will get no help from Missouri. Combine this with the state’s obligation to defend individual Missourians, and one can see the difficulty the national government will have. The Supreme Court decision in Printz v. United States recognized the constitutional limitations of Congress in imposing its will upon the states. And one need look no further than the decriminalization of marijuana in California to see this concept in practice. Again, I am not sure why true liberals do not see the danger in supporting the progressive-statists controlling the Democratic Party.

Many non-experts have argued that the individual mandate “trumps” Prop C’s rejection. First of all, the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws passed in pursuance to the Constitution, and as many in Congress have made clear, constitutional powers played no role in the drafting of Obamacare. Second, as stated above, Missouri has no obligation to enforce the individual mandate. I dare the Administration to file another unpopular lawsuit against a state operating within the confines of the Constitution. And please do it before the November midterms.

The national government possibly has recourse through the withholding of federal funds, but with so many states challenging the individual mandate, I cannot imagine the national government withholding funds from a majority of the states. At any rate, Prop C did not advance the powers of the state of Missouri, it simply put the state on the side of individuals in the conflict over Obamacare.

States’ Rights and Nullification

Do I need to repeat myself?! People that use these terms either do not understand the concepts or are deliberately trying to spin Prop C, and similar actions in other states, as a negative. This conjures up images of the Civil War, and fuels the accusations of racism and armed insurrection made by the media. These are not concepts that will drive independents to vote out the progressive-statists. Stop using these terms!

Nullification describes an action by which a state invalidates a federal law. Prop C did no such thing. In fact, under Prop C individuals that still want to opt into a federal plan can do so.

Do not get me wrong, I fully support the 10th Amendment, but it speaks to powers, not rights, and nullification runs contrary to the Supremacy Clause. However, as noted before, powers run contrary to rights, and I am much more concerned with individual freedom and the 9th Amendment than the powers of states.