Ohio’s on the Move…

This proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution would forbid “any law or rule” from compelling, “directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” This and other provisions relate to the mandate in the 2010 federal law that all Americans buy health insurance.

Passage of Issue 3 would have no impact on the federal law, however. Courts will decide its fate, not voters in Ohio or any other state.

Up to this point it is strictly a matter of opinion as to who this Issue or ‘State action’ would hurt and that if anyone. Simply amending the State’s Constitution in the fashion as outlined above in paragraph one, it sure seems to us that the onus would definitely be put on the central federal government. Why?

Not even on the surface the federal government has really blown-it with the Health Care Plan a.k.a. Obamacare. It has turned out to be costing well in excess of a trillion dollars which you’ll recall was against both the House and Senate, moreover, the Congressional Budget Office’s allowing for a thumbs-up.

Furthermore and indeed more, and more federal courts are finding that this Obamacare is as unconstitutional as anything. Under no circumstances whatsoever does the federal government have the right to make you purchase anything.

On that level, passage of Issue 3 would be merely symbolic. The problem is in the vague language of the amendment, which contains such squishy phrases as “health care system,” “directly or indirectly” and “any person.” Some legal experts predict confusion and legal challenges for years that could prevent action in the state Legislature, courts and elsewhere on a host of health-related issues.

We see this as a very good point however, the realization of the federal government intervening is reasonably nil. Seriously now, do you really think that a federal government is going into a state that has put more men into combat than any other state just to say without credibility or merit, “you’ve got to do this”?

The federal government who no longer has marching orders with ICE and USCIS or even the slightest measure of clout with the special interest groups that leads them around by the nose-ring?

Are you ready for some real liberal bull-mess? Two law professors at Case Western Reserve University have analyzed the amendment for opponents of Issue 3. If the amendment passes, they say, the state may not be able to change workers’ compensation rules. Colleges may not be able to require students to have health insurance. Judges may not be able to address health issues in child-support cases.

Where have we heard these kinds of concerns before? It was during and after the November 2004 election when Ohioans approved a ban on same-sex marriage. That amendment prohibited any state or local law that would “create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” For months after it passed, legal challenges based on that vague wording kept domestic violence cases involving unmarried couples in limbo. (Not to mention kept the lawyers working!)

In short, what makes these professors remotely positive that the central government in this country under the current administration would do anything? Remember, we are suggesting that the “…inactive federal government…” (Barack Obama) would be organized enough to put a case together? Not very likely.

About J.Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in American History, Current Events, Founders, Illegal Immigration,, Justice Department, Political Correctness, Special Interest Groups, States' Rights and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.