Saturday, September 23, 2006

Medicaid violates the 10th Amendment

There’s a lot of talking about Medicaid being a large budget problem in Western New York. The local government is saying the State isn’t helping out enough and that its killing county budgets.

I can’t understand how the Federal Government even has the authority to start social programs. From my understanding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. Then again I've only read it, not the black housecoat wearing judge's rulings that changed it.

A while ago though I read an article about a man named Sheriff Richard Mack. Sheriff Mack was upset about a little intrusion into state’s rights, in the form of the Brady Bill. The main problem is that it “billed” the states, literally. The sheriff always wanting to uphold the law, and in this case the highest law, the one called the Constitution, challenged the bill.

In JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503 The Supreme court ruled that the Brady Bill violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, basically because it required the States to pay it (Unfunded Mandate).
June 27, 1997] Justice Thomas, concurring.
The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

Before any dismiss it because Thomas wrote it:
Justice O'Connor, concurring.
Our precedent and our Nation's historical practices support the Court's holding today. The Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the extent it forces States and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on prospective handgun owners and to accept Brady Forms from firearms dealers. See ante, at 23. Our holding, of course, does not spell the end of the objectives of the Brady Act. States and chief law enforcement officers may voluntarily continue to participate in the federal program. Moreover, the directives to the States are merely interim provisions scheduled to terminate November 30, 1998. Note following 18 U.S.C. § 922. Congress is also free to amend the interim program to provide for its continuance on a contractual basis with the States if it wishes, as it does with a number of other federal programs. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. § 402 (conditioning States' receipt)

Now I've got a few questions for our so-called representatives in Albany. If a Sheriff had the courage to stand up to the Federal Government for his county why can't you? You whine about it being out of your control, yet its not, so says the Supreme Court. Or were you hoping no one would notice?

Is there anyone out there that understands the law will enough to explain why we don't use this decision to get the unfunded mandate of Medicaid off our backs? Better yet is there a lawyer out there that would take the case?

Richard Mack is now running for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, maybe he could get the other Senators to read the Constitution.

By the way I received a very nice three-page letter from Sen. McCain (sorry no pictures, I used it in the bird cage) in response to mine to him. Very nice form letter even had a stamped signature that REALLY looked like his. Though the letter didn’t address my concerns, though how could it, they were about his disregard for the Constitution. After all you have to know something exists before you can talk about it.

No comments: