The Test of Fire 2012 & Washington State Strategy to Deal with Obamacare

We live in challenging times.  Yesterday we were shocked to discover that the US Supreme Court deemed Obamacare as Constitutional.  While there are a number of very questionable constitutional issues the main thing for Christians is that it violates our conscience as it forces us, in fact every tax payer to fund ABORTION.  

The murder of innocent children is like the worship of Molech in Leviticus 18.  It is one of the sins that say it will cause the land to spit its inhabitants out.  This law encourages one of the kinds of sin that will cause us to lose our nation.

As challenging as these times are I sincerely believe that if the Church prepares and acts in love, through faith with wisdom this will be her finest hour. Here is a powerful video from one of our allies in this fight for righteousness and freedom in this nation, the Catholic Church.   

I also received an email from Representative Matt Shea that shares Washington State's plan for Obamacare.  Click Read more below to see Rep. Shea's email.

From: Matt Shea
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:38 PM
Subject: WE WILL STILL OPT WASHINGTON OUT OF OBAMACARE

To Our Fellow Patriots In Washington,

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion this morning will not affect one iota our plans to opt Washington out of Obamacare and the ability for states to do so was upheld by the ideological majority of the Court.  Now that the decision lies with the states, we hope each and every one of you will join us in the monumental battle to come…

We stand resolute in our determination to pass the Healthcare Freedom Act, HB 1946. If implemented, Obamacare will bankrupt Washington costing an estimated $30 Billion over the next 10 years to implement in this state alone according to the Washington Policy Center.  It also contains $675 Billion in new taxes over the next 10 years.  This makes Obamacare the largest tax increase in the history of the world. 

On a positive note, we are overjoyed that Chief Justice Roberts once again affirmed state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.  Specifically, he wrote “In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder...The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers...” and then he actually quotes the 10th Amendment in the opinion “the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (pgs. 2-3).’”  

Additionally, the Court once again made clear that state sovereignty is a check against federal power.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power...the facets of governing that touch on citizens' daily lives are normally administered by small governments closer to the government. The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: ‘By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power (pg. 4).’”  Likewise, the four dissenting Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) in a separate opinion agreed that “it is a blatant violation of the constitutional structure when the States have no choice.”  Obviously this is a huge win for the 10th Amendment and clear judicial agreement with our long standing position that states can opt out of Obamacare. 

However, we also strongly disagree with the Court’s tortured reasoning that the choice of Congress not to call Obamacare a “tax” gives the court jurisdiction to rule on the issue but “That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congresses' constitutional power to tax (pg. 33).”  In other words, while Congress' intent was not to create a tax the U.S. Supreme Court will call it a tax to uphold the law.  That is judicial activism and legislation at its worst.  It is also disturbing that the Court finds no problem allowing people to be punished for failing to pay the tax in lieu of buying health insurance because it “leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice (pg. 44).”   That is tyranny akin to the 1765 Stamp Act or the 1774 Intolerable Acts where American colonists had a similar “choice.”  In an interesting historical irony the Intolerable Acts were passed in response to the Boston Tea Party.  Then as now, just because a judge upholds the Stamp Act or Intolerable Acts does not mean the “king's” decree is just or right.

In Freedom,

Reps. Jason Overstreet, David Taylor, and Matt Shea