If conservatives are to stop Obamacare, states will have to resist setting up the required insurance exchanges because President Barack Obama and the Democrats who control the Senate aren't going to do it, according to author Adam Freedman.
Freedman said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV that if states do not comply with what he calls an unconstitutional law, there isn't much the federal government can do about it.
Watch the exclusive interview here.
“With Obama there with his veto and with the majority in the Senate, [Republicans] cannot repeal Obamacare,” he said. “But the states can resist it by refusing to set up exchanges and the governors have been doing that. [Florida] Governor Scott said he was going to do that – the status is a little bit unclear. In any event, the states can do that. If they resist – if states refuse to implement a program like Obamacare, it simply won’t work.”
With each program the federal government creates and funds, he explained, money must be tied specifically to it. So, just because a state does not implement a part or any of the health insurance reforms that does not mean that education or highway funding can be held back as punishment.
“The Supreme Court has held that when the federal government makes the federal grants conditional on a federal program, there has to be a direct correlation,” Freedman said. “I think that that is the reason that states should really be bold here because the federal government when it is all said and done has very little leverage over the states”
Freedman said that about 60 percent of the programs administered by the federal government, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act, are unconstitutional. Shifting all of them from the federal government back to the states would solve the deficit problem.
“What’s driving this debt is the federal spending,” he said. “If the two parties can just agree to respect the Constitution, we could cut the federal deficit by more than half – that would be more than a trillion dollars a year.”
Many of the programs, he said, are already administered by states anyway. States should collect the money to fund a program that works for their particular population.
“Those programs were never the federal government’ business to begin with,” Freedman said. “The states have total freedom to enact Medicare, Medicaid, all of those programs. They already administer all of those other programs. It never made sense for people in New York, for example, to send their tax dollars to Washington, only to have it sent back to New York to administer the social program. The answer is to give the states their freedom.”
Freedman also said that the threat of judicial activism returning to the Supreme Court is real because four of the justices — two conservative and two liberal — are in their 70s. If even on of the conservatives retires, he said, that could flip the court and pose a problem to several conservative causes.
“That means that the Court would be able to overturn its earlier precedents on free speech for corporations,” he said. “It could go down a very dangerous road with religious liberty because there are some really important religious liberty issues coming up, especially in light of Obamacare and its contraception mandate. The court could really undermine gun rights too because there are a lot of issues about the scope of the Second Amendment which are bubbling up in the lower courts. Even though the Supreme Court thought that is answered this question a few years ago, there are lot more issues coming up. A liberal court could really undermine the right to keep and bear arms.”
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.