Health care backlash

Posted at 12:46 PM on March 25, 2010 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

It likely will never see the light of day, but three Republican Minnesota lawmakers have filed a bill for a constitutional amendment inspired by passage of the new health care law.

The bill, from Rep. Steve Drazkowski, Rep. Bruce Anderson, and Rep. (and gubernatorial candidate) Tom Emmer would prevent any federal law from taking effect in Minnesota unless two-thirds of the Minnesota House and Senate approve it The bill says:

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read: Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government's enumerated constitutional powers. A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor. Before voting to approve a federal law, each legislator must individually affirm that the legislator has read the federal law and understands it. Citizens of Minnesota enjoy inherent, natural, God-given rights as reflected in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Minnesota citizens have the right to seek redress for any alleged violation of these rights committed by the state of Minnesota exclusively through a jury trial in a Minnesota court and through enactment of a change in Minnesota law.

And the question that would be put to voters is:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to affirm the sovereignty of Minnesota citizens by requiring two-thirds legislative approval before a federal law becomes effective in Minnesota, and by ensuring the right of citizens to seek redress for any alleged violation of constitutional rights?

The proposed bill could easily be called the Constitutional Lawyer Full Employment Act of 2010.

---

Comments (7)

I'd call it the campaign ad snippet act of 2010.

Posted by justin h | March 25, 2010 1:19 PM

---

Whereas politicians at the Federal level of both parties continue to pander to special interests, be they corporate, religous, enviornmental, human "rights", unions,

Whereas Federal spending has increased beyond the capacity of our nation to bear,

Whereas it has been noted that Social Security payments will exceed revenues collected in 2010 (not previously predicted until 2016),

Whereas conservative democrats, liberal republicans, soccer moms, tea-partiers, libertarians, ethnic and racial minorities, families, small businesses, collectively known as "we the people", continue to be portrayed by Washington and the media, yes even NPR...,

Whereas we face either a sovereign debt crisis or the promise of double digit inflation to hide a sovereign debt crisis,

It is therefore resolved that we will have a peaceful bottom up revolution. We do hereby empower city councils, township boards, school boards, county commissioners and state legislatures to fix where Washington has failed.

Signed under our hands this 25th day of March, 2010.

The People.

Posted by matt | March 25, 2010 1:54 PM

---

The people made a typo in their fourth wheras - should read:

Whereas conservative democrats, liberal republicans, soccer moms, tea-partiers, libertarians, ethnic and racial minorities, families, small businesses, collectively known as "we the people", continue to be portrayed by Washington and the media, yes even NPR, as well meaning but uninformed and insignificant voting blocs,

Posted by Matt | March 25, 2010 1:58 PM

---

Minnesota secedes! United State of Minnesota!

Posted by Martha | March 25, 2010 2:57 PM

---

I'm no constitutional scholar but I suspect that the flaw in this proposal is that when Minnesota became a state, I'm guessing, we agreed to abide by federal legislation as enacted by Congress in exchange for two Senators and the Representatives in the House we are assigned as determined by the 10-year Census. There are also mutual protection and freedom of movement considerations that go along with this as well.

To me it seems obvious that, as Martha stated, the only purpose of a bill like this is secession. That being the case the proponents should be shouted down as anti-American radicals.

Posted by JackU | March 25, 2010 3:36 PM

---

I saw another document issued by a different state that reads remarkably similarly. It leads:

"Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses."

Ordinance of Secession of the State of Kentucky, 20 Nov 1861, by a Convention of the People of Kentucky. (Read through all of the Confederate States' ordinances here.)

Posted by Michael | March 25, 2010 3:50 PM

---

I am a sovereign individual, subject to the laws that I create within my home. The laws of the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and the Federal government of the United States do not apply in my home unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the owners of my house.

Posted by bsimon | March 25, 2010 4:38 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories