Nullification in Oklahoma?

Weekly Opinion Editorial

Nullification in Oklahoma?

by Steve Fair     

   
     Nullification, aka interposition, is a legal theory that a U.S. state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state deems unconstitutional. The theory of nullification never has been legally upheld in court and in fact, the US Supreme Court has rejected it in several cases
*****    
     State Rep. Mike Ritze, (R-Broken Arrow) plans to reintroduce a bill in the 2013 legislative session to “nullify” the individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care legislation in Oklahoma.  “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and believe that state governments were intended to serve as a check on the federal government,” said Ritze. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is better known as ObamaCare, is an example of federal overreach and my legislation will authorize the state to resist it and ban the enforcement of it.”
*****
     If passed, Ritze’s legislation would authorize the Oklahoma Attorney General to defend citizens who fail to purchase health insurance against the federal government and criminalizes the enforcement of the individual mandate.
*****
“My hope is that ObamaCare will be repealed, but I do not think that means we have to wait for the repeal to happen. Oklahoma lawmakers should do what they can to support our choice to make our own health care decisions,”  Ritze says.

*****     

     Can states pick and choose which federal law to obey?    Nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by a compact among the States.  It says the founders of the federal government intended to give the States the final authority to determine the limits of the power of the federal government. Under this theory, the states and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. So if a state believes a federal law shouldn’t apply in that state, they may nullify or reject federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers.

***** 

     Nullification is not a new issue.  In 1798, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) declared the states had the right to nullify laws when the federal government overstepped its limits.  The resolutions were not approved by any other state and the issue died.  Nullification came back to the forefront in the 1820s when one of the biggest advocates for nullification, Senator John Calhoun was VP.  A South Carolina native, Calhoun argued that overreaching federal tariffs-an idea of President Jackson- were not applicable to South Carolina.  His policy conflicted with Old Hickory and he was forced him to resign as Vice President- the first VP to do so.  Jackson said, “Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down.”

***** 

     Judge Andrew Napolitano, of Fox News, says nullification is constitutional.   "Nullification offers hope to those who wish to tame the federal monster as the Framers intended — by using the utterly lawful and historically accepted principle of nullification."  Here is one YouTube video by the Judge on the subject- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-cQIMmVo4. 

***** 

     John Quincy Adams condemned nullification and said, “Democracy is self-government of the community by the conjoint will of the majority of numbers. What communion – what affinity can there be – between that principle and nullification?...Never – never was amalgamation so preposterous and absurd as that of nullification and democracy!”

***** 

      In an article written by David Barton of Wallbuilders, in 2010, Barton says, “Nullification is the hallmark of selfishness and anarchy; and selfishness and anarchy, whether by citizens or states, is not a cherished virtue. To the contrary, a characteristic of America’s greatness has been an unwavering dedication not only to follow the rule of law but also to expend as much time and energy necessary, no matter how long it takes, to make needed changes through the constitutional process, whether by the use of courts or through elections. While this is admittedly a much slower process, there is never an end-around for doing what is right, nor can right be secured by pursuing wrong.”  You can read the entire article at http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=46525.

***** 

    Ronald Reagan said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” There is no doubt government at all levels has gotten too big and far reaching.   The nullification option may not be the right way, but in some American’s minds, it is the only way. 

Don't apologize for hard work!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

DON’T APOLOGIZE FOR HARD WORK!

by Steve Fair

     At a campaign stop in Virginia last week, President Obama said, “If you’ve got a business,. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Conservatives jumped on that statement like a chicken on a June bug. He defended his comments and said they were taken out of context. What Obama actually said was that if you had been successful in business, government had helped by providing the infrastructure (roads, bridges, public education) that helped make your business successful. While it is true that government builds roads, the President forgot who funds the government - the people. The truth is the government has no money to build infrastructure with until people pay taxes, fees, penalties, so we are in effect, helping ourselves.
*****
     The President went on to say, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.” There are a lot of wealthy successful Americans who do give back, but not in the form of increased tax burdens. These wealthy Americans give back by participating in the free market system and in doing so, they create wealth not only for themselves but their employees. Government can never create wealth- directly or indirectly. The only possible way a government can assist in the creation of wealth, is by creating an economical environment that fosters success. This is accomplished is by limited regulations, taxes, and interference. Government produces nothing- it consumes. The President may be confused about business and job creation because the largest employer in the U.S. is government.
*****
    According to Gallup, seventeen percent of U.S. workers work for federal, state, or local government, ranging from 38% in Washington, D.C., to 12% in Ohio. More than a quarter of workers in Washington, D.C., Alaska, Virginia, and Maryland work for government, as do upwards of 15% in the vast majority of states. Oklahoma ranks #8 in the U.S. in percentage of government workers. That is not healthy.
*****
    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says, "What has made America the greatest country in the history of the world is the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of the American people, and especially those who take enormous personal risk to build a business. Until now, these are qualities we as a country have always celebrated. But to denigrate those efforts and attribute to government the credit that rightly belongs with individuals turns the whole American idea on its head."
*****
     While it is true that many successful people did not get there “on their own” as President Obama told us, the help they did get was from others participating in the free market system. The successful individuals in our nation did so by buying goods and services from one another. These successful individuals took financial risks in order to possibly obtain a greater financial reward. The successful business owner is not only intelligent, they are hardworking, goal oriented, business savvy, and creative.
*****
     Many successful companies, such as Staples, did have help from companies such as Bain Capital. One of Bain's earliest and most notable venture investments was in Staples, the office supply retailer. Bain’s 4.5 million dollar investment in the company enabled Staples to expand from one store in 1986 to over 2000 stores in 2011. Staples went public in 1989. Bain Capital eventually reaped a nearly sevenfold return on its investment, and Mitt Romney sat on the Staples board of directors for over a decade. Staples is a great example of true job creation- private money creating private wealth.
*****
     There are small businesses that have had help from the local communities purchasing their goods or services. They had help with small business loans from local banks. And yes there are some good teachers who teach free market economies, individual liberty, and instill a foundation of basic knowledge to take the risk of business ownership. However the vast majority of teachers in public universities prefer to teach their students about broken socialist systems, welfare states, and instill in their students a false narrative that has been proven over time the be in fact false.
*****
     President Obama wants to create jobs, but not job creators. His collectivist philosophy, if fully implemented, would result in a loss of incentive for Americans. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” could become our national creed. Is that what we want in America?

OBAMA FIDDLES WHILE AMERICA BURNS!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

OBAMA FIDDLES WHILE AMERICA BURNS!

     by Steve Fair

     Colorado and other parts of the western half of the U.S. are experiencing one of the worst wildfire seasons in over a decade.  In late June, the fast-moving Waldo Canyon fire near Colorado Springs nearly doubled in size overnight, forcing as many as 32,000 residents to be evacuated.  At one time, the fire threatened part of the U.S. Air Force Academy campus, claiming nearly ten acres close to the facility  The Academy’s Fire Chief, Ernst Piercy, told the official U.S. Air Force website: ‘This is absolutely the worst wildfire I’ve ever seen.’

*****

     President Obama went to Colorado to tour the fire-damaged areas on June 29^th.  He said, “I think what you see here is an example of outstanding coordination and cooperation between federal, state and local agencies. We have been putting everything we have into trying to deal with what’s one of the worst fires that we’ve seen here in Colorado. And it’s still early in the fire season, and we still got a lot more work to do. But because of the outstanding work that’s been done, because of not only the coordination but also some unprecedented arrangements that have been made with military resources combined with the civil resources, we’re starting to see progress.”
*****
     While the President did resist the urge to call the fires- Bush- fires, his statement about federal agency coordination and his administration ‘doing everything they can to fight the wild fires' is not completely accurate. 
*****
    Take for example, a company called Aero Union, founded in 1960.  Aero Union converted military aircraft to aerial firefighters and operated some of their planes under contract with the federal government.  For years the company had a fourteen million dollar annual contract with the U.S. Forest Service to provide airtankers- P-3 Orions-  for wildfire control, but on July 29, 2011, the U.S. Forest Service terminated Aero Union’s contract saying safety inspections were not being completed. 
*****
     "Our main priority is protecting and saving lives, and we can't in good conscience maintain an aviation contract where we feel lives may be put at risk due to inadequate safety practices,” Tom Harbour, director of the Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation Management program said. “This contract termination notwithstanding, we possess the aircraft support needed for this year's fire season." Oops, you may have not anticipated a record years for wildfires Tom! 
*****
     Shortly after they lost their contract, Aero Union laid off sixty workers and declared bankruptcy.  Bear in mind, Aero Union’s airtanker planes were FAA worthy, but did not meet the standards for the USFS.  Following the logic of the federal government, the planes could be used to transport people, but not fire retardant?  That makes no sense whatsoever, but then again, it’s the government. 
*****
     So which federal agency should be certifying aircraft as airworthy- the FAA or Smokey Bear?    I would prefer a guy with a degree in Aerodynamics, not Forestry.  It would seem this is a classic illustration of no federal agency coordination.   In the meantime, airworthy planes equipped and ready for firefighting service are sitting on a runway in Chico, California while people’s home and businesses are burning. 
*****
     To add insult to injury, the Mobile Airborne Fire Fighting Sytems (MAFFS) - which retrofits C130 Aircraft for use as fire fighting aircraft was build and supported by Aero Union.  So when the Brain Trust at the Forrestry Service pulled the plug on Aero Union, they also pulled the plug on the company that built the equipment that pretty much made up the rest of the large air tanker fleet.  Now the MAFFS is no longer being built, spare parts are no longer being built, and the intellectual property that underlies the MAFFS is tied up in Bankruptcy.  One C-130 crashed in the past couple of weeks, one MAFFS lost . . .
*****
     But wait, it gets better, with no logical replacement available for the P3 Orion or the C130 as airborne tankers, guess where the USFS is looking for replacements- try Russia!   http://fireplanes.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/iab-evaluating-beriev-be-200-air-tanker-in-russia/  How do you say "Outsourcing" in Russian?  The answer:  аутсорсинга.  How do you say hypocrite in politics?  OBAMA!
*****
     President Obama’s administration should be explaining to the American public what they haven’t done about the wildfires.  The Obama administration’s conflicting policies put a sixty year old aerial firefighting company out of business, costing sixty people their jobs.  Their conflicting policies kept fire fighting planes on the ground when they could have been used to help fight the wildfires that were destroying homes and businesses.  The lack of foresight by the USFS has placed in jeopardy property and lives.  They shouldn't be talking about outsourcing jobs when they are trying to buy planes from the Russians.
*****

     When he was running for President in 2008, Obama attacked President Bush’s policy on fighting wildfires and  said, “As President, Barack Obama will aggressively pursue an effective fire prevention plan that decreases the fire risks to communities.”  His whole 2008 campaign wildfire policy is available online at http://obama.3cdn.net/4c3532cf6695d7eb42_j8amvy80e.pdf. Oops!- that policy didn’t go quite as planned.   Because of his administration’s inability to use simple common sense, thousands of American families’ homes burned down. 

*****

    Popular legend claims that Roman emperor Nero played the lyre and sang while Rome was burning in 64 AD.  It appears President Obama may be tuning his fiddle and his voice for the big BUSH(GOP) fire coming in November.
*****
     President Obama recently has been attacking Mitt Romney for saying he built a business.  Obama said,  "If you have a business you didn't build that . . . you had help along the way . . ."  The full text of Obama's speech is available here 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/ .  My question is if your aerial tanker business was destroyed and 60 people lost their job and hundreds of thousands of acres burned....who HELPED with that?

Health Care Exchange? NOT SO FAST!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE?- NOT SO FAST!

by Steve Fair     

     A health care exchange is a set of state-regulated and standardized health care plans in the United States, from which individuals may purchase health insurance eligible for federal subsidies. Under federal law, all exchanges must be fully certified and operational by January 1, 2014.  The exchange – envisioned as an easy-to-use, online insurance marketplace for consumers who need an individual health plan – is the heart of ObamaCare and the piece that will impact consumers most directly.
*****
     In theory, using an exchange could be much simpler than the current way that people buy insurance. Right now, consumers have to dig through technical jargon and complicated premiums, copays, deductibles and hidden exclusions to compare one plan with another.
*****
     As envisioned by ObamaCare, an online exchange would have simple, side-by-side comparisons of health plans. Depending on how the exchange is set up, it could also prescreen the health plans available to make sure they are comprehensive and as affordable as possible. The exchanges could pull together large groups of people – such as combining both individuals and employees of small businesses – to make a bigger pool and keep prices down or not since all of this is theoretical and untested.
*****

     Currently your best option for reducing the cost of your health insurance is to buy a policy with a high deductible, which leaves you to pay for routine checkups and minor injuries... but covers your needs in catastrophic circumstances.  If you have a bad car accident or expensive treatment for cancer, your insurance would kick in. But the health-insurance exchange is intended to eliminate precisely this kind of low-cost catastrophic coverage. Its purpose is to force health-insurance companies to offer ‘comprehensive coverage’ that pays for all of your routine bills - which in turn comes at a higher price. So under the guise of making health insurance more affordable, ObamaCare will restrict your menu of choices to include only the most expensive options.

*****

     The liberal New York Times says it’s time to get those state exchanges up and going.  In an editorial last week, they wrote, “Many states are well on the way toward setting up exchanges, a complicated process in which governance procedures must be established, standards must be set for the plans that will compete and new information technologies put in place. The big uncertainty is how many Republican-led states will refuse to set up exchanges either because they adamantly oppose all aspects of the reform law or because they are reluctant to spend any time, effort or money to set up a mechanism that they hope Republicans will repeal after the November elections. That sounds like wishful thinking. States would be foolish to rely on it with deadlines fast approaching.”
*****
    Not everyone agrees, including Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn.  Dr. Coburn, eleven other Republican Senators and sixty members of the U.S. House sent a letter to every Governor across the country urging them to not bend to federal pressure to set up the complicated health care exchanges.  In the letter, they wrote, “These expensive, complex, and intrusive exchanges impose a threat to the financial stability of our already-fragile state economies with no certainty of a limit to total enrollment numbers. Resisting the implementation of exchanges is good for hiring and investment. The law’s employer mandate assesses penalties – up to $3,000 per employee - only to businesses who don’t satisfy federally-approved health insurance standards and whose employees receive “premium assistance” through the exchanges.  The clear language of the statute only permits federal premium assistance to citizens of states who create a state-based exchange.”
*****

    It’s unclear where Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and the legislative leadership is on the issue of the health care exchange.  In 2011, Governor Fallin and the State House and Senate agreed to accept a $54 million federal grant to set up a health care exchange. Conservatives became enraged and the blowback produced an about-face and a return of the grant. Last fall, a legislative committee studied possible state responses to the law if ObamaCare was found to be constitutional, but no action was taken during the legislative session. 

***** 

      The federal lawmakers concluded their letter to the Governors by saying, “Implementation of this law is not inevitable and without the unconstitutional individual mandate it is improbable.  Join us in resisting a centralized government approach to health care reform and instead focus on solutions that make health care more affordable and accessible for every American. Let’s work to create a health care system of, for, and by the people, not government or special interests.”

***** 

     The best way to handle the health care exchange is at the ballot box in November.  Americans should take back their government and give Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

Winning a Battle- Lose the War!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

WINNING A BATTLE- LOSE THE WAR!

     by Steve Fair

    

      The ruling on federal mandated health insurance by the Supreme Court of the United States has dominated the news in the past week.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the four liberal justices on the court to uphold the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or to pay a fine. 

***** 

     Writing the majority opinion, Roberts and the other four justices evidently based their decision on ObamaCare being a ‘tax.’  President Obama and the Democrats have long argued the mammoth federal health care program was not a tax.  Conservatives had argued that forcing Americans to buy a product was a violation of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  The justices agreed that the government could not force us to buy a product, but then in their 5-4 ruling contradicted themselves by saying it could be done if it was called a ‘tax.’ 

***** 

     Four observations about the ruling:

***** 

     First, this ruling surprised most people because the ‘tax’ argument was not expected to be the basis of the ruling.  It is true Congress is given the constitutional authority to tax, but is ObamaCare a tax?  Not according to Justice Scalia, who wrote in the dissenting opinion, “To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it.” And President Obama has repeatedly said the fines and penalties imposed on Americans who do not buy health insurance are not a tax.  On Sunday, his chief of staff, Jack Lew said on CNN’s State of the Union that the penalty for failure to buy health insurance is not a tax.   "This is a penalty," Lew said "It's something that only 1 percent of the people who could afford insurance -- (and) who choose not to get it -- will pay."  So while the SCOTUS rules the Individual Mandate a tax, the White House doesn’t want to have it labeled a tax in an election year. 

***** 

     Second, federal mandated health insurance is most certainly a tax.  Webster defines a tax as: a sum of money demanded or required by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.   Federal mandated health insurance fits the definition of a tax.  As Shakespeare said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”  Penalties are a form of taxes just as are tolls, tribute, import duties, customs, and excise fees.   Calling a tax a tax can be political suicide, so politicians have conveniently re-labeled taxes and called them mandates and penalties, but that doesn’t change what they are. 

***** 

     Third, you never know about Supreme Court justices.  Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions often end up being contrary to a president's expectations.    According to the U.S. Constitution, “The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”   The current nine members include two appointees by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama.  Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.  Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment.  The current justices age range from 52 to 79.  There are three women on the court.  Chief Justice John Roberts was expected to be a reliable conservative on the court, one who would rule based on the Constitution.  That didn’t happen.  In the dissenting opinion, the four conservatives on the court firmly stated the case should have been tossed out because the individual mandate was unconstitutional.  So how did Roberts, a constitutional expert, get this wrong?  Charles Krauthammer, a conservative commentator who disagreed with the ruling, says Roberts made the ruling to avoid the appearance of politics on the high court and because he carries two identities. “Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature,” Krauthhammer said.  

***** 

     Fourth, this ruling is really a nightmare for the Democrats.  It allows them to claim victory in a battle, but it could cost them the war.  President Obama said the ruling was, “ a great victory for all Americans,’ but 69% of the American public have said they don’t want ObamaCare.  Rush Limbaugh says it was the largest tax increase in world history.  Now the Democrats must take ownership of that TAX.  In the majority opinion Roberts wrote,  “We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”

***** 

     The Supreme Court ruling told the American public ObamaCare can be overturned the same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.