States have always held the prerogative of whether or not they will enforce or participate in federal acts or regulatory programs. Rather than relying on a corrupt federal congress to stop the federal act, the StopObama.care plan – a project of the Tenth Amendment Center – seeks to ban the state from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of significant portions of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Doing so will cripple the federal act, and lead to further state actions to bring Obamacare to its end.
The “approach is on sound legal footing”
-Mercer University law professor David Oedel, part of the legal team that represented Georgia in its court challenge to Obamacare
There is a long-standing legal tradition which supports the choice of the State to determine whether or not they will participate in a federal act.
James Madison, writing in Federalist #46, recommended state responses to “unwarrantable” (unconstitutional) or merely “unpopular” federal acts which included “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
Supported by Supreme Court opinions spanning more than 150 years, the “anti-commandeering doctrine” is the legal principle that states are not required to help the federal government enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.
The cases are as follows:
* 1842 Prigg: The Court held that states were not required to enforce federal slavery laws.
* 1992 New York: The Court held that Congress could not require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
* 1997 Printz: The Court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
* 2012 Sebelius: The Court held that states could not be required to expand Medicaid even under the threat of losing federal funding.
Anti-commandeering is virtually undisputed by legal experts from both the left and right.
A number of states following this plan will “gut Obamacare.”
-Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News, 12-10-13
Passage of our model legislation will have great practical effect on the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 within the states.
Banning the operation of a health care exchange will have practical impact by forcing the federal government to find ways to operate the exchange itself. Some experts suggest that the federal government is incapable of running exchanges in 30-40 states over a long-period. This action also sets up a serious legal challenge to IRS subsidies, one that has already been taken up by the Supreme Court.
The federal act authorizes Exchange subsidies only through state-established Exchanges, not the 36 Exchanges created by the federal government, or those created in a partnership.
Since those subsidies trigger penalties under both the employer mandate and individual mandate, those states have by law also exempted all of their employers and individual residents from those penalties. The IRS, though, is still trying to impose those taxes and issue those subsidies in states which have banned the creation of exchanges, the basis for the current lawsuits.
The plan also addresses Medicaid expansion, and enforcement of noncompliance by insurance companies.
Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, this legislative proposal stands on extremely strong legal footing. The states are not required to assist the federal government. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states can, in essence, “opt-out” and leave enforcement to the federal government.
And, by following the advice of the “Father of the Constitution,” with “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” on federal acts considered unconstitutional or merely unpopular, the states would lead the nation in bringing an end to the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010.
- Get the model legislation
- Contact your STATE rep and senator, urging them to introduce and support the bills. Contact info here
- Sign the Petition
- Spread the Word
- Get involved – Volunteer!
- Make a Donation – help us ramp up and WIN!