Posts Tagged ‘sovereignty’

Big Senate Vote Monday! Contact Your Senator!

On Monday, the Virginia Senate will debate and vote on SB 283 (Senator Fred Quayle, R-13, Suffolk), SB 311 (Senator Steve Martin, R-11, Chesterfield), and SB 417 (Senator Jill Vogel, R-27, Winchester), three bills that will protect Virginians from being forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance. All three are worded exactly the same.

The bill made it to the floor earlier this week when the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unexpectedly passed it 8-7. Democrat Senators Phil Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) and Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) voted with the six committee Republicans. The debate is expected to be intense and widely watched. It also will be close. If the two Democrats hold their votes, it could come down to a tie, with Lt. Governor Bill Bolling breaking the tie.

Don’t let this rare chance at a major victory in the Virginia Senate go to waste! If you want Virginia to protect itself from the federal government’s reach into our personal health care decisions and protect us from the force of the federal government to make us buy insurance — an unprecedented act in the history of our nation — you must contact your senator and ask him or her to support these bills. (If you don’t know who he or she is, click here.)

If any of the bills pass the high hurdle of the Senate, it certainly will receive a warm reception in the House. If either Senator Puckett or Senator Colgan represents you, thank them for their courageous committee votes and encourage them to stay strong on the Senate floor on Monday.

There’s more great news about bills designed to assert Virginia’s sovereignty and resist federal intrusion into our health care decisions: Thursday, Sub-committee 2 of the House Commerce and Labor Committee voted by an 8-2 margin to report HB 10, The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to the full committee. The bill is patroned by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Prince William). Its day in full committee is not yet determined.

The 10th Amendment Disconnect

I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Bob Holsworth (Virginia Tomorrow) speak Monday night about the recent elections. He is the best political analyst in Virginia in my opinion and his insights on campaigns and strategies never fail to enlighten.

He said that one of the many aspects where the Creigh Deeds campaign (as well as the Wagner and Shannon campaigns) fell short was in its inability to respond to the federal issues — card check, cap-and-trade, nationalized health care — Republican Bob McDonnell repeatedly raised as not only an intrusion into Virginians’ sovereignty, but as harmful to Virginians themselves —their prosperity, opportunity, way of life, health. In other words, upholding the 10th Amendment, which leaves to the states all powers not specifically delineated to the federal government.

Senator Deeds couldn’t dis President Barack Obama, who historically carried Virginia last year, and turn off the liberal Democrat base and its newly energized voters, by opposing those signature liberal issues. So the best he could do was assert they had nothing to do with running the commonwealth. Dr. Holsworth said Deeds’ inability to satisfactorily deal with this dynamic pleased no one — crucial independents, who broke overwhelmingly to the GOP, nor the base.

Who am I to disagree with Dr. Bob? But I want to add that it was more than that. Defending one’s state against the onslaught of the federal leviathan is a constitutional charge. So it is a legitimate issue. But Senator Deeds, reflective of today’s ingrained liberalism, at the very least couldn’t respond to the issues because he doesn’t understand the 10th Amendment. Doubtful. So that leaves the worst, but more likely, case — a total disregard for it. When state politicians become too comfortable accepting mandates and force-fed programs from Washington, which stunt states from their roles as democratic laboratories and distinctly different places to live, they deserve to lose. Indeed, federal issues always have and always will be integral to state issues because the constitutional relationship of states to the national government demands it.  

18

11 2009