The following letter of support from our friends in Kansas, who are also engaged in a fight against the implementation of PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obama Care”). Like Oklahoma, Kansas citizens applied political pressure to their legislators and governor and rejected the Obama Care enabler “Early Innovator” federal grant money.
OK-SAFE thanks them for their support and will continue to offer our support to their efforts against the liberty and privacy killing provisions of PPACA and the ARRA, (the stimulus bill was the real health care reform bill, providing the funding mechanism for electronic health records adoption, the backbone of the inhuman health IT monster called “reform”.)
(See earlier OK-SAFE post entitled OK-SAFE Response to Federal Health Care Reform Committee.)
Sunday, November 20, 2011
RE: OK-SAFE comments on the recent Joint Legislative Committee on Health Care Reform Law in Oklahoma.
On behalf of the Stop Obama Care in Kansas (the Republic) (SOCK) tour we are 100% in solidarity with you, OK-SAFE and the citizens of Oklahoma.
In addition I would note that under Article VI cl. 3, of the U.S. Constitution every state and federal legislative, judicial and executive officer must take an oath to “support” the Constitution. Although the founders left the actual words of this oath of support to the individual states they did write the oath for the President of the United States. No other officers can have any more or less responsibility that that of the President, although the means to carry one’s oath out will change based on the office held. That oath is as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
-U.S. Constitution, Article II §1.
All of the descriptors of this duty to the U.S. Constitution are action words which clearly indicate that his duty is an active duty not a passive duty. One may not, consistent with their oath to the Constitution, sit quietly by as the Constitution is violated or otherwise attacked.
Also note this duty is by no means limited to military or other physical attacks but includes all attacks including philosophical attacks and legislative, judicial and executive usurpations. Also those who are not fulfilling their duty in this regard are also failing to support the Constitution and are passively attacking the Constitution.
Under the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison espoused the principle that any time the central government exceeded its authority under the Constitution then the central government’s actions in such regard was a nullity and of no force and effect upon the sovereign States. They also noted the only way for the states to preserve the Union was to protect the Constitution from such usurpations by the federal government and in fact the States not only had a right but indeed a duty (were required) to intervene and “interpose” themselves between the central government and their citizens to stop an infringement of the rights of their citizens.
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, affirmed the principle espoused by Jefferson and Madison, holding that any federal law which was not “in pursuance” of the Constitution was a total nullity upon its inception and never comes into force and effect. Murbarry v. Madison. (See U.S. Constitution Art. VI cl.2.) As such no one is required to enforce, obey or otherwise support such law. In fact to support such an unconstitutional law would be a breach of one’s duty to the Constitution.
Note the Court said the law was a nullity upon its very inception not from the time the Court declared it to be so.
What this means is that all those who are under an oath to the Constitution must in the first instance determine for themselves if a law or regulation is Constitutional. Once they have made that determination their further conduct is sealed.
It is no excuse for those under oath to say they are “not an attorney” or are not a “Constitutional scholar”. Once they raise their hand and swear their oath to the Constitution they are required to have a working knowledge of the Constitution otherwise they are incompetent to hold office. In other words such oath established a substantive requirement for them to be qualified to hold office, the oath is not a mere formality as most public officials now treat it.
As Justice Scalia said in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, and was repeated in M c DONALD et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO:
“In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s ratification would have understood that Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid.”
For those of us who know the law, our public servants have no excuse for their ignorance except for laziness and incompetence.
In Kansas the Governor has declared Obama Care to be “unconstitutional”. He has thereby limited the actions he may take as to Obama Care. Also Kansas has sued the federal government based on Obama Care being unconstitutional. Therefore, the official policy of Kansas is that Obama Care is unconstitutional. Further the Federal District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have found it to be unconstitutional at some level. Therefore, any official in Kansas that moves ahead with Obama Care is violating their oath to support the U.S. Constitution by supporting and or implementing an unconstitutional law.
I am sure you will find that Oklahoma politicians are in the same position.
Thank you for all your effort to return our Republic to Constitutional Governance.
For the sake of Liberty,
Richard D. Fry
Founder / Co-Coordinator
Stop Obama Care in Kansas
816 853 8718