A Montana tea party lawmaker recently said “Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: ‘That is not right’” And Montana tea party conservatives mustered enough votes in the House to pass a 17-point sovereignty declaration, only to later see it fail to pass into legislation. A nullification advocate stated: “States retain the right of protecting all freedoms of individual persons from federal incursion.” Leon Moe writes the article Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress: Instructions from Hamilton, Madison & Jefferson
Robert Pear in NYT article Democrats Challenging Administration on Medicaid writes, “In an unusual break with the White House, the Democratic leaders of Congress told the Supreme Court on Monday that President Obama was pursuing a misguided interpretation of federal Medicaid law that made it more difficult for low-income people to obtain health care.
The Democratic leaders said Medicaid beneficiaries must be allowed to file suit to enforce their right to care — and to challenge Medicaid cuts being made by states around the country.
he Obama administration maintains that beneficiaries and health care providers cannot sue state officials to challenge cuts in Medicaid payment rates, even if such cuts compromise access to care for the poor.
In a friend-of-the-court brief, the lawmakers said the administration’s position “would undermine the effectiveness of Medicaid.” In addition, they said, it conflicts with more than a century of court precedents that allow people to sue to block state actions that are inconsistent with federal law.
The brief was filed by seven influential Democrats, including Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, an architect of Medicaid; Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader; Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader; and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Similar arguments were made in a separate brief filed by a dozen former federal health officials, including Donna E. Shalala, the secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton; Joseph A. Califano Jr., who was health secretary under President Jimmy Carter; and Bruce C. Vladeck, who was in charge of Medicaid and Medicare in the Clinton administration.
The issue, of immense importance to poor people and states, comes to the Supreme Court in a set of cases consolidated under the name Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, No. 09-958. The court plans to hear oral arguments in October, with a decision expected by the spring. The original plaintiffs in the case, Medicaid beneficiaries and providers, say they were harmed by California’s decision to cut payment rates that were already among the lowest in the country.
The federal Medicaid law does not explicitly allow such suits. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said beneficiaries and providers could sue under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.”
Medicaid, the fastest-growing item in many state budgets, provides health insurance to more than 55 million people, including children, people with disabilities and nursing home residents.
Faced with severe budget problems, many states have reduced Medicaid payment rates for doctors, dentists, hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and other providers. In many parts of the country, payment rates are so low that Medicaid recipients have difficulty finding doctors to take them. When states cut reimbursement rates, they save money, and so does the federal government, which pays 50 percent to 75 percent of the costs.
Federal law says Medicaid rates must be “sufficient to enlist enough providers” so that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to care to the same extent as the general population in an area.
The Justice Department, siding with California, told the court in May that no federal law allowed individuals to sue states to enforce this standard. The Democratic leaders said Congress intended to allow such lawsuits.”
In response to the above, I offer bible prophecy of Revelation 13:3-4, which presents that out of Götterdämmerung, that is an investment meltdown and flame out, a Beast Regime, will rule world wide in all of mankind’s seven institutions and in ten regions of global governance, as called for the Club of Rome in 1974, which is prophesied in both Revelation 13:1-2 and Daniel 2:41-43. Andbible prophecy further reveals that a global Chancellor, The Sovereign, Revelation 13:5-10, will rise to rule mankind. He will be accompanied by a global Banker, who will provide global seigniorage, that is global moneyness, Revelation 13:11-18.