Friday, 06 July 2012 07:54

Oklahoma State Rep. to Propose ObamaCare Nullification Bill

Written by 

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States exceeded its authority by declaring an unconstitutional act of Congress constitutional. While there are many powerful weapons in the fight that must be fought to dismantle ObamaCare, one of the best items in the arsenal is nullification.

Simply stated, nullification is a concept of legal statutory construction that endows each state with the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, state legislators and governors are boldly asserting there right to restrain the federal government and are accordingly considering bills that will stop ObamaCare’s multitude of mandates at the state border.

One of these noble state legislators is State Representative Mike Ritze of Oklahoma (pictured above, along with the Oklahoma State Capitol). Since its introduction by President Obama two years ago, Representative Ritze has fought to protect the citizens of his state from the burdens imposed by not only the individual mandate of ObamaCare, but from all effect from so many unlawful intrusions into family life that are part of the federal healthcare program.

“The federal health care law represents a radical change toward socialized medicine and the idea of the federal government forcing Americans to buy health insurance was a bold overreach,” said Ritze, a Republican from Broken Arrow. “I simply don’t see how the Supreme Court could justify upholding this law.”

When it comes to health care, Representative Ritze knows what he’s talking about. He is a family practice physician and surgeon and his wife is a nurse. It is this real-world experience with the cost of medical care that first alerted Ritze to the harm posed by ObamaCare prompting him two years ago to begin his fight against this federal overreach.

“I am going to continue my efforts to pass legislation in Oklahoma to nullify the law in our state,” said Ritze. “Although most Americans want to see our health care system improved, they do not want the government to take it over or to make important decisions for them. There is a conservative approach to fixing the system, which is to remove the government intervention already in place that has kept it from being a truly free market system.”

Citing the Tenth Amendment, Ritze’s bill — HB 1276 — declares that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010:

 are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. 

Admirably, Representative Ritze’s bill does not stop at merely labeling ObamaCare unconstitutional; it includes a provision that criminalizes its enforcement in the Sooner State. The relevant portion of the bill reads:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

Any public officer or employee of the State of Oklahoma that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment.

Ritze originally introduced a bill to opt out of ObamaCare in 2010, but after being passed by the legislature the act was vetoed by the governor. Undaunted, Ritze reintroduced the measure as a proposed constitutional amendment and it was overwhelmingly approved by the citizens of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the climate created by the Supreme Court’s recent ratification of ObamaCare makes it necessary for Ritze to continue the fight against the federal government and its seemingly never-ending salvo of unconstitutional acts and edicts 

In a few months, Ritze will re-introduce his ObamaCare nullification bill, placing another barrier between Oklahoma and the federal assault on its people and its sovereignty.

Ritze is not alone in this fight. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt made the following statement, “We’re disappointed the court upheld the individual mandate, and find it disturbing that they did not place a limit on the power of the federal government to control the lives of Americans. But, the battle isn’t over. It is now up to the political process to repeal the act and replace it with measures that address the health care crisis within the confines of the Constitution. We must continue to oppose this act and multiple overreaching regulations proposed by the Obama administration that cross the line of federal power.”

Oklahoma was one of the 25 states that filed federal lawsuits in 2011 challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. As readers may remember, Virginia and Florida also filed complaints with Florida taking the lead.

In a statement issued after the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare ruling, Oklahoma’s Governor Mary Fallin echoed the Attorney General’s remarks regarding the myriad problems with the federal health care program:

Oklahomans have voiced their opposition to the federal health care bill from the very beginning, having approved a constitutional amendment to block the implementation of this bill in our state. We believe that, rather than big government bureaucracy and one-size-fits-all solutions, the free-market principles of choice and competition are the best tools at our disposal to increase access to health care and reduce costs.

I’m extremely disappointed and frustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the federal health care law. President Obama’s health care policies will limit patients’ health care choices, reduce the quality of health care in the United States, and will cost the state of Oklahoma more than a half billion dollars in the process.

This decision highlights the importance of electing leaders who will work to repeal the federal health care law and replace it with meaningful reform focused on commonsense, market based changes.

When the Oklahoma state House of Representative re-convenes in a few months, Representative Ritze is confident that he and his fellow constitutionalists in state government can push through his nullification bill. In a statement to The New American, Ritze described the difficulty faced by those state lawmakers who would stand up to the bully on the Potomac: 

So many state legislators are afraid to stand up to Congress. When you have something totally unconstitutional you have to take a stand and if the people don’t do it all at once, then we [the state legislatures] will do it incrementally, the same way the federal government has brought socialism to the states over the years.

Finally, Representative Ritze sees hope on the horizon for the continuing sovereignty of Oklahoma, “We’re looking at possibly adding three to six constitutionalists in the Oklahoma State Legislature next time. With such a strong Constitutional and spiritual grounding, it will be hard for enemies of freedom to shake us.”


  • Comment Link jacob lehew Monday, 11 February 2013 13:03 posted by jacob lehew

    to charles huffman up here... ??? really?? He's being the triator?? how about hussein obama kissing the hand of a foreign leader who is muslim!! thats a traitor!!!!!! you people make me sick!

  • Comment Link Jon Roland Sunday, 22 July 2012 09:25 posted by Jon Roland

    The bill might appeal to the legally ignorant but it is foolishly misconceived. The press comments about nullification in history are also incorrect. Nullification is the abandonment of attempts to enforce something, not the acts of resistance to it, and that resistance is passive disobedience, not repeal. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were a protest, not a nullification effort.

    If any state official tried to enforce a penal statute against a federal agent, the case would be immediately removed to federal court and dismissed, so it could never be enforced. It is likely that hapless state official would then be criminally prosecuted in federal court for interfering with a federal officer, and that prosecution would be effective. The state would also not be allowed to represent him, so he would be on his own. The resulting publicity might have some effect as political theater, but not as law.

    It also misconceives how the Affordable Care Act would be implemented. It is only about taxing and spending, and all of that can be done from outside the state. The IRS may not levy or lien to collect the individual mandate, now called a tax, but only deduct it from other money it has received from someone, such as through employer withholding. It could enforce collection of other amounts it would claim, but not that portion. The only way to get at the IRS for collecting a deficiency would be to try to nullify the entire federal income tax on compensation for labor.

    Nullification done right is complicated and needs careful planning and execution. There is a competent proposal that might work for some kinds of federal usurpations thoroughly discussed at . That proposal needs to be pushed instead.

  • Comment Link Jack Monday, 09 July 2012 11:28 posted by Jack

    Article III Section 3 as it pertains to your zealous and poor interpretation of the article is troubling. For convenience I have included the Constitutional language as follows:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

    Please enlighten me/us as to where in the above provision does the accusation of treason hold true for Rep. Ritze? Also, are you an Oklahoman? If not, it is my opinion (of which I am entitled) that you have loose footing on which to stand.

  • Comment Link Charles Huffman Friday, 06 July 2012 23:28 posted by Charles Huffman

    Representative Ritze, is taking a unconventional path to the gallows, for treason.
    The issue of States rights was settled in 1865, by force of arms.

    I will personally pay for a plane ticket to Oklahoma, and watch Representative Ritze, being taken into custody by the US Marshall's.

    Representative Ritze, would see Oklahoma ruled by mobocracy.

    Perhaps we should look to the original US Constitution and reinstate slavery in the States that are governed by mobocracy.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in