Comments about ‘Walter E. Williams: Regardless of high court ruling, states should defy 'Obamacare'’

If obamacare is unconstitutional; then so is medicare and medicaid.
How can we say that only certain segements of our society are entitled to government subsidized medical insurance?
obamacare may have some problems; however: what other solution has anyone else come up with?
private insurance is not working; it cost too much, and leaves too many out in the cold when they actually need it to take care of them.

I'm I'm speechless, this artical and Mr. Williams are so far out in right field I don't even know what to say. Please tell me that readers are not buying into this sort of stuff?

Nothing new here. Ever since we were commanded "Thou shalt not kill", man has been looking for a way around laws. This mandate is essentially a tax, and our society has many who look for ways around paying taxes. One passes laws to set a basis for punishment. Ironically, the punishment for not buying health insurance might be jail time -- where you'll receive "free" meals and health care.

It is a completely different thing for individual citizens to disobey a law they find immoral, than it is for state governments to nullify federal laws. What Mr. Williams is advocating is exactly what led to the Civil War. Then he states that the military should refuse legitimate orders to quell a rebellion. I thought conservatism was about the rule of law, not about total anarchy.

Economist Kenneth Arrow (has Williams heard of this Nobel prize winner?) demonstrated that health care cannot be left to the private sector, i.e. it must not be profit motivated. NOW that is what Obama should have gone after, but then Williams would have been even more opposed to that. The D-News' publication of this piece is incendiary.

Nullification is a perfectly legitimate way to prevent the overreach of the Federal government. When unconstitutional laws are passed and upheld by the courts, the people should have the "final say" in the matter. This is an excellent opinion piece and very constitutional idea. We've ignored the Constitution for long enough. It's time to elect representatives and senators that are willing to rollback the excesses of government.

Tell this to the family whose child died because they didn't have insurance. Tell that to the person who cannot find insurance because of a "pre-existing" condition. Tell that to the family who just lost their mother because they couldn't afford insurance premiums. Tell that to the Utah family who were denied intrauterine surgery to repair an unborn child's spinal bifida until public pressure caused the company to cave in and allow it.

Our health care system for profit is simply obscene. And isn't Utah a place where obscenity is supposed to be abhorrent? Instead of supporting Republican/Conservative attempts to kill the Affordable Health Care Act, shouldn't all Utah citizens be out there supporting it in full?

The Federal Government has been given seventeen duties by the people. The people, not the government, decide which duties need to be delegated to the Federal Government. Health Care, in any form, is not one of those duties. Because health care is not one of those enumerated duties, heath care is left to the States or to the people.

There was a time when the President of the United States had some familiarity with the Constitution. There was a time when the President would honor and respect that document. Mr. Obama either has not read the Constitution or he is deliberately using his office to disrespect that Document. If that is the case, his oath of office means nothing to him. He sees himself as being above the law and beyond the wishes of the people.

The States must not let him get away with that usurpation of power. It is their duty to stop him. No matter how many left-wing-radicals tell us that Obama is correct, the Constitution clearly states that he, and they, are wrong.

The concept of state nullification is implicit in the 10th Amendment and is the heart of Jeffersonian constitutionalism. Mark1 hits the nail on the head when referring to nullification as the ultimate voice of the people. The Supreme Court was never envisioned to have the kind of power usurped by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

As for nullification being a cause of the Civil War, you have to ask yourself why that would be so. Where was it ever stated in the Constitution or by the founders themselves that joining the union was a voluntary act that could not be retracted? Lincoln made that decision on his own. Lincoln, in effect, destroyed the state-centered Constitution and laid the groundwork for a central government that took control from the people (the states) and turned it over to central planners and their corporate pals. Welcome to the Corporate States of America.

Defy all you want,
it doesn change the fact that ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still a step in the right direction.

A few points:

1. I pay $1,017 extra every year in insurance premiums to cover "free riders" who carry no insurance but still receive treatment for various ills.

2. Republicans keep spouting inane phrases such as "We've got to get back to the Constitution" and "We've ignored the Constitution for long enough," when what they actually mean is "I disagree with how someone else has interpreted the Constitution."

3. The Constitution, wonderful as it is, is woefully inadequate for the modern corporate society we've created. For instance, when the Constitution was written, health care involved primarily administering calomel and bleeding the patient, practices that did more harm than good. In the 1820s and 1830s, Thomsonian medicine began to replace the "heroic" system, but Thomson's treatments often involved giving the patient Lobelia inflata to induce vomiting. The scientific advances that have made medicine incredibly more effective and wildly more expensive were still far in the future. If our Constitution is what prevents us from joining the civilized world regarding health care, then we should amend it.

4. What alternatives to Obamacare does Walter Williams suggest? I thought so.

Re: VIDAR Murray, UT
"obamacare may have some problems"

Actually obamacare has a lot of problems, not the least of which is whether this law in constitutional. This isn't an emotional issue but a legal one.

Do we really want to take the same road towards bankruptcy that California is on? Obamacare is nothing more than a ponzi scheme that will cost our grandchildren more than they can pay.

Re:MikeRichards

Our Constitution is one of the shortest in the world. It is a framework, leaving large gaps open to interpretation and disagreement.

The Founding Fathers didn't even agree on the expansiveness or limits in interpreting the Constitution after it was enacted, so while you may disagree with some ways it has been interpreted over the years by legislators and courts there are arguments to be made on both sides.

So you can post comments about how a Pres, Congress, or court can and should do, but it merely represents your opinion for whatever that is worth.

I'm surprised (not) that church-owned DN would publish such a incindiary op-Ed.

Marxist,
I'm surprised you cite a Nobel winner when Obamacare is named after another nobel winner. If the one you cite is as competent as the other, your argument lost ALL credibility.

Truthseeker,
in regard to your comment about our constitution being one of the shortest in the world, look at the quote from its main author Mr. Williams cites in Federalist 45. It is short for a reason, to specifically LIMIT the powers of the federal govenrment. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

But I guess since Madison's view of the constitution does not allow for the federal government to reach into every aspect of our lives and require us to purchase goods and services we may or may not want, Madison was not an expert on the constitution he authored.

Some people, like Truthseeker, would tell us that they have the correct interpretation of the Constitution, even though most of what they propose is not found in the Constitution. They want us to believe that they, or Congress , or the President can add to the Constitution at any time. They seem to forget that the Constitution is a contract, and as a contract, it can only be modified when certain very strict rules are followed. The amendment process is not a unilateral process. The States have to ratify any changes.

No amendment has been ratified that gives the Federal Government the authority to involve itself in health care.

No matter what Truthseeker might think, he has no authority to extend the duties of Congress. No matter what the President thinks, he has no authority to sign unconstitutional legislation.

Liberals seem to think that they define law. They have a very high opinion of themselves, thinking that they are above the law.

The States have the right to reject any federal law that exceeds the duties given to the federal government.

To "LDS Liberal" how is making healthcare more expensive the right direction? If the idea is to make it more affordable, why is making it cost more good?

To "Nonconlib" actually you carry that extra $1000 to cover those who are covered by government insurance.

Tell us, where in the constitution does it allow the Federal Government mandate that a person has to buy a product from a private company?

If your ilk believes that the Constitution should be changed, why don't they ammend the Constitution rather than circumventing it?

To "one old man" what are you going to tell the child when their grandpa dies while waiting for cardiac surgury because of wait lists that are prevalent under socialist systems? What do you tell the family that loses their mother due to cutbacks in medical spending by the government? What do you tell your grandkids when they have to pay the hudresds of billions in deficit spending that is due directly to the government's control of healthcare?

Re: Truthseeker SLO, CA
"I'm surprised (not) that church-owned DN would publish such a incindiary op-Ed."

People living in California who support Obamacare and it's associated costs should take a long hard look at the financial train wreck their state is heading towards. Using bogus fuzzy math Gov. Jerry Brown said in January they expected a deficit of $9.2 billion dollars. Four short months later the Governor now says it is $16 billion dollars. Obamacare is based on the same fuzzy math ..... only on a national level.

Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown suffer from the same inability to balance a check book.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

What is your solution to the health care crisis?
like I said we can not have medicare; if we do away with obamacare; they are the same thing.
Obamacare is expanded medicare.
If obamacare is unconstituional; then so is medicare.
Are we going to care for our citizens or not?
We could fund the entire health care cost of this country without adding debt.
I already put a huge portion of my income into medical costs: insurance, copays, ect.
We simply need to get away from corporate medical insurance; they charge too much, they only want to cover the healthy who will not make claims, people in our country are dying because they can not get insurance.
If you have a better idea; lets hear it.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Everything in California is more expensive due to litigation and regulation. Anyone in the know knows that california is a terribly difficult place to do business.
simply create tort reform, too much of medical dollars is diverted to lawyers; and people wanting to roll the dice; and see they can win the jackpot at the expense of doctors and us all.

Re: VIDAR Murray, UT
"What is your solution to the health care crisis?"

Get the government out of health care and let the free enterprise system do it's job. With the possible exception of the US Postal Service, Social Security, the occasional war, and GSA parties in Las Vegas the Federal Government just doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to spending the taxpayers money efficiently.