February 17, 2011 in Idaho

Idaho House approves bill to defy health reform

• Print
• Email
• Share

BOISE – Idaho’s state House passed legislation Wednesday attempting to nullify federal health care reform, ordering state employees not to do anything to carry it out – despite two state attorney general’s opinions warning the move was unconstitutional.

The bill, HB 117, passed on a 49-20 vote and now moves to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. The opposition was bipartisan, and nearly 90 minutes of debate preceded the vote.

Freshman Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, the lead sponsor of the bill, urged support, saying, “This is Idaho’s moment.”

Barbieri declared, “If Idaho is to stand for its sovereign rights, it must do so by every peaceful means. … The federal government must be restrained.”

Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, disagreed with Barbieri’s assertion that a vote against the bill was a vote in favor of health care reform. Anderson said he opposes the reform bill, and supports Idaho’s court challenge against it – which recently got a favorable ruling from a federal judge in Florida.

“Let’s abide by the Constitution,” Anderson urged the House. “I believe … that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority in passing the health care law, and I now believe that this body will be exceeding its constitutional authority if they pass HB 117. … Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Anderson said he’s received recall threats for opposing the measure. “I’ve been called many things for this,” he said. “I will not cower from this. What I will do is tell you what I believe and vote for what I believe.”

Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, told the House, “I think this is a very appropriate step for us to take.”

Lawmakers have received two Idaho attorney general’s opinions on nullification; the first said any attempt by state lawmakers to nullify a federal law through legislation would violate both the U.S. and Idaho constitutions and lawmakers’ oath of office. The bill was revised after that to remove the word “null,” but it still says the Idaho Legislature considers the federal law to be “void and of no effect.”

The second opinion said the new version likely still is unconstitutional; plus, it said HB 117, if passed, could have the effect of opting Idaho out of the federal Medicaid program – including receiving more than $1 billion in federal funds that now provide health care to the state’s poorest and disabled residents.

One comment on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  jdelaney3 on February 17 at 1:00 p.m.

  Sadly, Anderson and his adherents are dead wrong. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, edicts, fiats perpetrated by ANY branch of the central gov’t. I refer them to the Principles of 1798.

  A modicum of objective research demonstrates that nullfiication is a well-grounded constitutional principle championed by, among other luminaries, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the latter the “father of our Constitution”, both of whom asserted that nullification was the “rightful remedy” to federal unconstitutional overreach. If it’s good enough for these founders, it damn well should be good enough for Anderson and his clueless allies.

  It is, indeed, sobering and deeply troubling to me that so many political “leaders” at both the state and federal levels simply do not understand American history or the implicit authority of the states—per the 10th Amendment—to interpose between their citizens and the federal gov’t when the latter overreaches its constitutional authority.

  I congratulate those courageous and clear-minded Idaho leaders who DO understand and appreciate the importance of state sovereignty and their sacred duty to ensure co-quality between the states and the federal gov’t and, in so doing, to protect the liberty of their citizens.

  I sincerely suggest that the opponents of nullification be given a crash course in American history and the Constitution. Obviously, the opponents have been brainwashed into believing that an unaccountable, runaway unitary central gov’t is what the framers and ratifiers intended. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  I, like many other American patriots, inclusive of several other states, firmly understand that nullification is probably our last best hope forpeacefully restoring constitutional order, failing which all bets are off.

  NOte: nullification is NOT secession, and nullification (voiding or otherwise ignoring unconstitutional federal laws) has been going on for a long time. Of late, it has proven to be especially popular and effective. (Check out the 10th Amendment Cntr site for an update on current nullification activities.)