Friday, March 26, 2010

Health Care Insanity Reaches Minnesota

A new states' rights constitutional amendment proposed in Minnesota is morbidly fascinating.  Read it here.


  1. Yikes, wasn't this political 'battle' resolved in Philadelphia during the writing of the US Constitution?

  2. Language from this proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution, introduced March 25th by Minnesota's Rep. Emmer, likely Republican gubernatorial candidate, reminds me of the states rights tone set in the preamble to the Confederate Constitution, wherein we read: "Each State acting in its sovereign and independent character." From Rep. Emmer:

    "Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government's enumerated constitutional powers." Okay, this sort-of sounds like what I learned in high school. Let's read on:

    "A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor."

    Hmmmm...I'm getting a little confused here. Isn't reveiw of federal laws for conformance with the U.S. Constitution the role of the U.S. Supreme Court? Seems like Emmer is staying from his alleged strict constructionist view of the Constitution. And the Minnesota House can barely do the people's business on time; are they really up to the task of reviewing and approving every U.S. law? Didn't this road lead South Carolina into the ditch back in the 1860s?