RIP Federalism

" Last Saturday at 11 o'clock in the evening the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin. To have the federal government managed health care of everyone in America. At a cost of over one trillion dollars over the next ten years for the first time in American history of this bill becomes law. The Fed will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you the body. If you don't do so when they tell you to do it if you don't buy just what they say is right for you the government may find you. Prosecute you and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications. And medical making decisions with your physician will be gotten. More of your hard earned dollars will be at their disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats. It was not intended to be this way. We elected government. It works for us how to make gets so removed so on -- so arrogant that I can tell us how to live our personal lives. Evil rarely comes upon us all at once and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here a cave in there. Powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it. We have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity tax any behavior and demand conformity to any standard he chooses. In the next few weeks -- will be giving a public lecture. On constitutional law here on the Fox News Channel on the Fox Business Network on foxnews.com. And on fox nation. In anticipation of that many of you have asked what can we do now what about the loss of freedom. We can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices we can persuade the state governments to defy the Fed's. In areas like health care where the constitution gives the federal government zero authority. We can ask our state legislatures. To threaten to amend the constitution. To abolish the income tax to return the selection of US senators to state legislatures. And to nullify. To nullify all the laws. But congress has written that are not based on the constitution. But there was one thing we can't do. Just sit back and take it. Pierce Kevin Deutzman he's professor of American history at Western Connecticut State University. And author of the politically incorrect guide to the constitution. And Thomas. And government bailouts will make things worse they wrote a great books to gather called who killed the constitution. The fate of American liberty. From World War I to George W. Bush gentlemen welcome to the Glenn -- a program. Germany's first to you. What is federalism what is the concept of the states have. Some power and they gave a little bit of a way to the federal government. But somehow the government keeps taking more from them."

" Well the underlying theory of the revolution was the people wanted local self government through legislative elections that was. Procedure that the British government was denying the American colonists in the led the declaration of independence. So when the federal constitution was made a note that it's called a federal not a national constitution. When the federal constitution was made there was this idea that the Sovereign States were delegating some few of their powers which they carefully. Spelled out in the constitution to this new central government. And big great residual arm was being retained by the states so that people would still have control over most areas of their government's behavior. Through local legislative elections."

" Tom how did the federal government gets so big and so powerful wrote -- constitution. The state senate pretty specifically the seventeen unique discrete power is that the constitution delegates to the federal government. He is that -- even recognizable. Today if you compare it to the areas of human behavior that the federal government claims it can regulate."

" Now they've made that joke out of it in fact in the 1990s the solicitor general was asked can you name me one area of American life that in your view. The US government would have no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere with and just stood there gunfire he had no answer. Thomas Jefferson warned us that if the federal government has a monopoly. On determining what its powers are we have no right to be surprised if it expands its powers over time -- Jefferson told us in 1798. That what we need to do if the federal government goes beyond those powers that was delegated. Is to use the states the states are not perfect but there what we have great and use the states to nullify. And refused to enforce these laws and I know that idea would horrify Katie Couric but I'll take Thomas Jefferson on the other side can advocating for -- we'll get to --"

" Occasionally just a minute and I'm glad you raised that but just enough thumbnail sketch having it happen. How did we go from seventeen unique discrete powers that only address things that work federal. Like a post office like have an army and have a navy like provide a common defense like provide for weights and measures and patents. 24000. Different criminal laws 40000. Pages of tax regulations how do we get. From a small government with maximum individual liberty that recognized limitations on it."

" To a big fat government. That doesn't regulate that doesn't recognize any limitation its powers. Well the short answer is that we trust of the federal government to determine what the limits of the federal government's powers were. And just as any other group of people could be expected to do over time. The federal government decided that it had all powers that it was necessary that it be able to regulate everything to tax everything to legislate about every question. And over time that came to mean that this principle of federalism that we talked about a minute ago. Just vanish from the federal system we still called a federal system but it's really a national system."

" Tom. Ronald Reagan used to say the beauty of our sister Michigan vote with your feet. Meaning if you don't like the laws in New Jersey you can go and live in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or Texas. But as the federal government standardized. Is everything makes the laws the same. Takes away New Jersey and Connecticut and Texas. Independents and I'm just using them. By way of example but concept of voting with your feet of going to a place in the country -- the laws are more to your liking. Goes away doesn't it."

" Right and you know in the old days of the left used to support this principle Kirkpatrick sale the old left. They like to decentralize power they didn't like a gigantic bureaucracy where is now. Left and right seemed to like a gigantic bureaucracy that overrides that the powers of the states in effect when you look at the history of western civilization. How did liberty come to Europe. It came to it because Europe. With a bunch of tiny little municipalities. Where you if if the prince was oppressive in one place as you say judge you can just vote with your feet move somewhere else and that encouraged them all. To support liberty because I didn't wanna lose their tax base when you remove this incentive which is a healthy incentive. That you get the system we have now all right Kevin you."

" I have a talk about this honor and off many times there a couple ways to amend the constitution but they all involve. The State's. -- the states. Demand -- enough of them do so constitutional convention but constitutional convention proposes amendments and they go back to the states. Or that congress circulates an amendment and it goes to the states in either way it requires. Three quarters of the states to adopt an amendment and then it becomes part of the constitution. Question. Can we amend the constitution. Can -- abolish the income tax which would starve the federal government backed down to what's footprint. Can we get the state. Governments to elect senators rather than the people which would ensure that one of the two houses of the congress fought for state sovereignty. Or is this just fanciful thinking."

" Well we've never use the provision of article five of the constitution that allows for the states to amend the constitution without having to congress be involved. So we shouldn't be surprised that recently amendments of all about. Of all been about further empowering central government. But fortunately at the moment there's a groundswell I've been hearing from legislators in several different states who -- me for advice about the question. How the constitutional convention process might work that is how the states could go about amending the constitution to reduce and curb. The power of the central government and I think that there is a significant chance that this could happen but before it can happen people have to encourage their state legislators to go out and amend the constitution."

" you mentioned nullification and 1830 for the state of Massachusetts nullified the fugitive slave act meaning you can't kidnap any runaway -- to Massachusetts or well arrested for kidnapping that defied the federal government. How would nullification work today."

" Well we've already seen examples of it really there couple dozen states that have effectively nullified the real ID act which is the beginnings of a national ID card. -- to the point where the federal government has pretty much stopped trying to enforce that that law that's just what Jefferson would want a free people who do. We've seen about a dozen states in effect nullifying federal laws -- regarding a medical marijuana. And now we're starting to see if you states talking about what they can do to resist this healthcare measure. This is what a free society does we don't have one single one size fits all system for 300 million people that's not what the United States was about. That's the principle that we fought the revolution against so that if we wanna know how this would work we can just look around us and see some of the creative legislatures around the country."

" Tom woods Kevin Gottesman thanks for joining us thank you get. Health care reform is reigniting the abortion debate the house by house health care bill was saved by the Stupak amendment. Named after congressman Bart Stupak this is a provision that imposes tough restrictions on federal funding for abortion. Now what will happen on the Senate. Here's Michael cannon director of health policy studies. At the Cato Institute Michael welcome to the one backed program do you think that's -- admit that thank you do you think that the restriction on the funding of abortion. Which is it now stands in the house bill. Would prevent the federal government from actually paying for abortions or form buying insurance policies for people that provide for abortion coverage. Do you think that'll stay in there or do you think it was just a ruse. To get pro life Democrats. To vote in favor of this thing."

" Well I think it would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions. And that's why the pro life Democrats wanted to end the leadership needed the pro life Democrats to vote for this legislation or -- it wasn't going to pass but what's interesting is. Dayton minority -- majority whip Cliburn says that they were ten votes short without the pro lifers. But if they keep this Stupak -- language in the bill. About forty pro choice Democrats have said that they will bolt and they will kill the bill that legislation isn't it. So if they go one way they lose ten votes and there should ten votes -- majority they go another way it was forty votes and they can't get a majority. And it doesn't look like there's a way that you can split the baby here it doesn't look like there's no way you can. Satisfied -- forge a compromise I did this legislation is going to force taxpayers to fund abortions. Or it's going to curtail access to abortion coverage exists in the private market right now. You bring out like that one of those or the other of those outcomes he may not like both of them but you cannot find some way to sort of bridge the divide there's so this could imperil the entire bill."

" All right let the concept of above health care is based on on risk. People put money into a common pool and they they get gamble with the fact that they're gonna be paid back more money than they put in the pool. This proposal that was passed by the House of Representatives if it becomes law tell me if you agree with me Michael cannon. Will force young people to put in more money and buy more insurance than they may want to -- they may need to have more than they can even afford. So that the older folks at the other end of they age line. We'll have lesser impact."

" In each of these bills is a price control that would force insurance companies to ignore health risk. And not to chart and essentially the charge. Young people more for their health insurance so that they could bring down the premiums for older people what that does is it essentially taxes. Adults in their twenties to subsidize those adults parents which have higher incomes. -- what's gonna happen if you're imposing these hidden taxes on young adults. What -- talking about health insurance there are penalties that they'll have to pay if they don't comply with the health insurance mandate. But those penalties are much less than the cost of the insurance the President Obama would force them to purchase. And so they're gonna opt out of the health insurance pools the only people who are going to be left they're going to be older sicker people and that's gonna drive up the cost of insurance for everybody gonna get -- prescription for disaster."

" Let me get this straight the president wants to sign a law that would force young people to pay more for insurance and -- and get. To buy insurance that they might not want to pay for insurance that they cannot afford. Did he read the election results in 2008 didn't he get. About 66%. Of the vote between the ages eighteen and -- running for at least targeting that age group. That's right they the young adults came up for President Obama in record numbers and -- are paying them with one of the biggest tax increases in this legislation. Well all right what one last thing I want to ask you insurance companies operate on a on a financial model they have investments from investors their customers who pay premiums that make a return on the investment and a return on the premiums. What will happen to that model -- federal bureaucrats. Tell insurance companies what to charge rather than letting the free market indicate to them what they should charge."

" Well let's not also forget they create value for their -- out shareholders and they save a lot of lives insurance companies save more lives in a single day. That President Obama and Nancy Pelosi will save their entire lifetimes. But if the government forces insurance companies to charge everyone the same premiums here's what's gonna happen. Say they force insurance companies to sell a 50000 dollar policy for only 10000 dollars. Those 50000 dollar patients are gonna represent -- 40000. Dollar liability for the insurance companies. That President Obama likes to say that the insurance companies won't be able to turn you down for coverage because we're gonna ban exclusions for preexisting conditions. But what the interpret insurance companies can't do is they can make life really unpleasant for you they can deny care bright and very few specialists and their networks they can make -- so awful for you'd have to file a claim or get customer service that you're gonna switch to another insurance company. That's gonna save your insurance company 40000 dollars is gonna bring down the bottom line of one of their competitors there they're going to be competing to provide lousy care to the sick if President Obama imposes these price controls unbelievable Michael cannon thanks for joining us."