In 2010 about 20% of eligible Missouri voters went to the polls. Not surprisingly, a majority of that 20% were the foaming at the mouth Tea Partiers and other like-minded souls who were all riled up by anti-Obamacare agit-prop of organizations like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity (not to mention the simple fact of the first black president). One of the results of that election was that a crop of impenetrably hard-right pols were introduced into the Missouri legislature.

As a result, the real work of government has been left to patronage groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which supply anti-union, anti-education, anti-environmental “model” legislation that best serves their anti-worker, anti-tax, corporate purposes. Since such corporate groups are so willing to do the hard work for them, the junior Representatives have been free to ride their favorite hobby horses into the legislative arena. Most recently we’ve seen bills to combat the non-existent threat of Sharia law and bills that the promote hard-currency schemes of paranoid gold-bugs – oh, and don’t forget the bill that would allow bullies to torment gay classmates with impunity.  

Now State Rep. Kurt Bahr (R-19) has married the desire to carry water for the corporatocracy with the 10th amendment fetishism of many of those on the right-wing fringe. Well in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision about the constitutionality of Obamacare, this former intern of U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) (says it all, doesn’t it?) has introduced HB1534 which asserts that if anybody in Missouri tries to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), they will be subject to criminal charges. Bob Priddy at the MissouriNet Blog sums up Bahr’s position:

So let’s see if we understand Rep. Bahr. He has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States says there are three separate and co-equal branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial. Rep. Bahr argues that a legislature in one of the 50 states can make a judicial ruling as it affects only the people of that state. (The PP&ACA is so unconstitutional that anyone implementing any part of it is a criminal.) It appears he should start getting ready to issue warrants because some parts of the Affordable Healthcare Act already are being implemented in Missouri.

Wouldn’t you know that, first-time around, the rampaging GOP nullifiers in the House passed this piece of idiocy 109-41. Details of the debate, including some very amusing audio, can be heard here. It’s worth reading (and listening to); Rep. Chris Kelly aptly sums up the Democrats’ frustration with Bahr’s thick-headed embrace of nullification, declaring that “this is breathtaking in its contempt for the Constitution of the United States.”

Bahr’s last (first? middling?) stand also works well with the goals of the mostly anonymous corporate types who finance organizations like ALEC. Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has argued that the rabid anti-Obamacare frothing of politicians like Bahr is just another facet of the attack on workers that the corporate elite is waging through their GOP proxies. Writing about why the GOP is doing little to actually promote job creation, but lots to benefit “job-creators,” he states that Republicans aren’t just stepping on the brakes because they want our Democratic president to fail:

When it comes to jobs, there’s more to the story than the normal political desire to defeat someone of the other party. Republicans like employers, those noble “job-creators” vexed by bureaucracy and regulation. They don’t like workers.

If jobs are hard to come by, then employers have more power, just as it’s a lot easier to say “take this job and shove it” if you know they’re hiring down the street. That’s another reason Republicans want to keep unemployment high.

This also helps explain the Republican resistance to universal health care. If you must rely on your employer for health insurance, that helps keep you in your place, and your employer literally has power of life and death over you.

Bahr’s spite-fueled legislative tantrum directed at the ACA may be feel-good medicine for those who are inclined to constitutional posturing, but it is also intended to insure that it is the unfettered market – that is to say, employers, and ultimately, the corporatocracy – that will have the ultimate power over our lives. Quillen correctly observes that the model that the right embraces is that of the Deep South where the Republican “oligarchs”:

… want “a compliant, poorly educated, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible.

Dare I mention that, when it comes to the legislative crop of 2010 we get a do-over this November?

In honor of Martin Luther King Day, the PBS Newshour rebroadcast a segment originally shown at this time last year in which school children read Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It was, as you might expect, both a charming and moving exercise. As I listened, however, I was suddenly struck by the specific phraseology in one of the refrains where King had begun to develop the variations on the “I have a dream” theme, especially the words I have bolded below:

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” – one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

Let’s see – where I have I heard folks talking about “nullification” before. Could it have been the Tea Party – those folks who pretend to be so outraged when anyone points out that there are often hints of petty racism in their rhetoric? Could it have “dripped” from the lips of some of our own Missouri legislators – Jane Cunningham and Jim Lembke perhaps?

Nullification is a constitutional theory, based on a questionable interpretation of the 10th amendment, that holds that individual states can abrogate federal law; in its most extreme form, it stipulates that states are voluntary participants in the federal union and can withdraw their allegiance as they desire. It formed the theoretical basis for the Confederate secession and should have been laid to rest by the civil war. According to the Constitutional Accountablility Center:

… the tactic was most aggressively advocated for in the 1820s and ’30s by pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun (who started the short-lived Nullifier Party), extended by the Confederate secessionists in the 1850s and ’60s, and then reinvigorated by segregationists in the 1950s and ’60s.

There you have it – a theory utilized by slaveholders and bigots.

But, you say, aren’t Tea Partiers and their representatives like Cunningham and Lembke using nullification to protest laws like Obamacare that affect all races? Indeed. But isn’t it interesting that the Tea Party grew out of opposition to a mild, centrist health care reform law that would bring millions of uninsured into the health care fold, while helping slow increases in health care costs overall. Didn’t you find the violence of the opposition surprising? Don’t you – at least secretly – suspect that the general rage might have had something to do with the fact that the law in question is the signal achievement of America’s first black president?

And, of course, there’s the fact that many on the right are convinced that big government programs benefit brown people at the expense of whites. Just a few days ago, in fact, one of the GOP presidential contenders let the cat out of the bag once again. Rick Santorum, speaking on the topic of welfare in Iowa declared that:

I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.

This in spite of the fact that only 9% of food stamp recipients in Iowa are black, or that most welfare recipients in the U.S. are white.

So was Mr. Santorum revealing his own racism, or pandering to what a 2010 survey described as the “racial resentment”  of his Tea Party leaning audience? Actually, I ‘m not sure it makes much difference. What the revival of nullification talk tells us, among many other things, is that we still have a way to go before Martin Luther King’s vision of the peaceable kingdom is fully realized.  

The number ten is not brought to you by a popular children’s program on public television because republicans want to defund that, too.

Your republican run Missouri General Assembly at work wasting time on a jobs bill meaningless legislation, introduced last week:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1010

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BAHR (Sponsor), KOENIG, SCHOELLER, LEACH, CONWAY (14) AND LONG (Co-sponsors).

2098L.02I                                                                                                              D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the federal health care reform law, with penalty provisions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.325, to read as follows:

           1.325. 1. The general assembly finds and declares that:

           (1) The people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more;

           (2) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves; and

           (3) The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act interferes with the right of the people of the state of Missouri to regulate health care as they see fit, contrary to James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the federal government are “few and defined”, while those of the state are “numerous and indefinite”.

           2. The general assembly declares that the federal law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates the true meaning and intent given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

           3. It shall be the duty of the general assembly to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act within the limits of this state.

           4. 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 section is guilty of a class D felony.

           5. Any public officer or employee of this state 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 section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

           6. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private cause of action against any person violating the provisions of subsection 4 or 5 of this section.

[emphasis in original]

There is the small matter of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution, in case no one in the General Assembly has bothered to read it:

Article VI

….This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding….

[emphasis added]

“….The general assembly declares that the federal law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act….is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates the true meaning and intent given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state….”

Declared to be invalid in this state?

Uh, the United States Supreme Court gets to decide that, not the Missouri General Assembly:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply….

Ignorance of two centuries of American history gets us where we are today.

You’ve got to believe that the surfeit of zombie movies of late is no coincidence.

Senator Jack Goodman (r) prefiled SJR 3, which would go on the ballot if passed by the General Assembly, to assert “sovereignty” for Missouri when it comes to federal law.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 [pdf]

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR GOODMAN.

Pre-filed December 1, 2010, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

0132S.01I

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article IV of the Constitution of Missouri relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IV of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article IV, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 54, to read as follows:

Section 54. 1. The attorney general shall seek appropriate relief on behalf of the state and its officers to preserve and protect the state’s sovereignty when the attorney general determines in his or her discretion that such suit is necessary and proper or when the attorney general is directed to seek such relief by an executive order of the governor, a concurrent resolution of the general assembly, or a petition of the legal voters as provided in subsection 2 of this section that expresses the belief that the federal government has taken steps that require the state or a state officer to enforce a provision of federal law that lies outside Congress’s enumerated powers and intrudes on the sovereignty reserved to the states by the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

2. The people may direct the attorney general to seek relief by initiative. Initiative petitions directing the attorney general to seek relief against the federal government shall be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state. The total vote for governor at the general election last preceding the filing of such petition shall be used to determine the number of legal voters necessary to sign the petition. In submitting the same to the people, the secretary of state and all other officers shall be governed by general laws. Every such petition shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than six months before the election and shall specify in a clear and concise manner the particular federal action for which the attorney general is directed to seek appropriate relief. Any petition approved under this section shall be passed by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

Ah, nullification.

Batshit crazy republicans (ah, a redundancy) will think this is a good idea as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House. Once that changes they’ll go strangely silent on the matter.

Judicial Supremacy and the Supremacy Clause

January 4, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

….Allowing states to selectively nullify federal law has been generally abandoned for good reason, and Baude’s legal theory was thankfully and permanently buried by the Civil War. Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote that “I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an act of Congress void. I do think the union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states.” He was right. Somebody has to be able to provide authoritative resolutions to conflicts arising from competing legal interpretations between different levels of government, and the Constitution logically locates the resolution of disputes about federal law in federal institutions.

[emphasis added]

You think that’ll stop delusional tenthers from trying?

I live in a middle class neighborhood in West St. Louis county. Most of my neighbors send their children to the local public schools; indeed, many of them chose to live here because of the reputation of those schools. A fair-sized number of the people in the neighborhood are seniors who rely on Medicare and Social Security. These folks, of whom a majority seem to consider themselves moderate, common-sense Republicans, quite regularly vote to send the extreme, right-wing GOPer Todd Akin to Washington as the House Representative for our 2nd district.

I wonder if Akin’s responses to a questionnaire circulated by Liberty Central, a right-wing, agitprop group headed by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Curt Justice Clarence Thomas, might not give some of them a wake-up call. If Akin’s more hardcore views were to become widely known and their implications openly discussed, he might not enjoy as much support. Specifically, Akin responded to this question with an unequivocal “No”:

3. Should Congress to use the “general welfare” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8) to regulate aspects of our lives, such as agriculture and education, that are traditionally under the authority of the private sector, state and local government.

Unlike some of the respondents who hedged their answers, Akin is firm in his rejection of a federal government role in public welfare. In response to a question which asked whether be believed that “government is eroding the Founder’s vision of faith, family, and culture,” Akin wrote that:

I believe the purpose of government is to protect God-given rights. Beyond that it is an intrusion and an overreach.

Since Akin recently declared that he believes that we should leave health care for the uninsured to “charity,” we can deduce that his concept of “God-given” rights is somewhat restricted. More importantly for my neighbors, though, is the fact that, as Think Progress observes, his hard-line, “tenther” position “would make essential programs like Medicare and Title I education funds difficult or impossible to administer.” Life in the comfortable West County suburbs, with their good schools, and contented, prosperous seniors, could get just a little rougher if we were to revert to our hardscrabble, pre-New Deal, American roots.

Steve Benen remarked that he wondered “if the electorate fully appreciates what’s become of Republicans’ ideology in recent years,” and links to an article on TPM that enumerates a few of the harmful changes to our way of life that Akin’s position would entail. I am sure that most of the knee-jerk Republicans that I meet out here in West County might be just a little discombobulated if they knew what kind of radical they have been voting for.

It seems to be a commonplace among St. Louis area Democrats that Todd Akin got himself elected by downplaying his Christian dominionist leanings in the past. Now that the Tea Party is providing cover, many GOP pols are daring to dust off some of the more discredited views that they’ve kept hidden away from their larger public. Akin is no exception; from a Christian stealth fighter his image is morphing into that of an anti-government zealot who would willingly destroy the social welfare staples that have propped up the middle class throughout the second half of the 20th century.

Editorial note: Second paragraph edited for clarity.  

Our Republican dominated state legislature couldn’t manage to pass a meaningful ethics bill, but, as I am sure you know by now, they did join Arizona and Florida in placing an essentially empty measure on the ballot (the August Primary ballot in Missouri) that is meant to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known popularly as Obamacare*. Three states, Virginia, Idaho and Utah have already enacted similar legislation. So Missouri must be coasting on the leading edge of a cresting wave of anti-Obamacare sentiment, right?

Wrong! A recent report notes that of the 40 states identified by the health insurance industry front group, The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as likely to take steps to oppose the federal legislation, 24 have rejected anti-PPACA legislation – including such deeply red states as Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. In seven states the legislation has been tabled or otherwise put out of its misery, and three states, Texas, Rhode Island, and Montana, never got around to doing anything at all. Meanwhile, plans for implementation are proceeding apace in all 50 states – including Missouri which seems to have a few adults left in government.

If Missourians vote for this amendment next August, they will have identified themselves with a very small and retrograde group of states – and while it is fun to go along with the crowd, it’s not so much fun to crawl out on the bleeding edge practically alone and find out you’re a laughing stock – but, of course, that’s a risk folks run when they jump to “defend” the Constitution before they have taken the trouble to figure out just what the Constitution actually says.

So where does this leave our anti-Obamacare stalwart, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, and the weirdly anonymous donors (insurance industry or industry stooges?) who are financing his intended lawsuit against the PPACA? FiredUp! has suggested that Kinder may be getting cold feet or, at the very least, stalling for political advantage. It is, though, becoming more and more apparent that this paticular pander is akin to shooting at a moving target, and, in the end, he may not get all the bang that he expects for his donated bucks – or any bang at all perhaps?

* Obamacare … yes, I know that the Teople (i.e., Tea Party People) use it as a pejorative, but I like the term and see nothing wrong with it. Obama’s a relatively good guy as far as I’m concerned, and he should get credit for taking this issue on and getting something, imperfect as the PPACA may be,  out of our ossified, corporate-owned congress. Calling the PPACA Obamacare can be seen postiviely as one way to recognize his role.

The Summer of 2009. I can picture the conversations taking place in republican back rooms across the state of Missouri: “Hey, I’ve got a great idea, let’s do everything we can to appropriate teabagger ranting and turn it into bills for the next session of the General Assembly.”

That would explain a lot.

And so would this:

“…The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of people who consider themselves Republicans,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters…”

Question. Where were all these teabaggers from January 2001 to January 2009?

The House third read and passed HJR 88 today:

HJR 88 Proposes a constitutional amendment asserting the state’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Sponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) Proposed Effective Date: Referendum

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) ……….etal. LR Number: 4464L.01P

Last Action: 04/08/2010 – Third Read and Passed (H)

HJR88

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR THIRD READING

You’ve got to especially love the understanding of Missouri’s Constitution this little portion of teabagger rhetoric belies:

…(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”….

Did any of the sponsors or those who voted for it bother to read this section of the Missouri Constitution?:

Missouri Constitution

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

Oopsie. Do you think the intent of our merry band of tenthers and teabagger enablers is a backdoor attempt to remove the establishment clause from the Missouri Constitution?

The joint resolution as passed by the House:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 88

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NIEVES (Sponsor), JONES (89), EMERY, SCHARNHORST, SELF, LOEHNER, RUESTMAN, GATSCHENBERGER, SCHAD, SCHAAF, FLOOK, DUSENBERG, SATER, PRATT, TRACY, POLLOCK, KRAUS, STEVENSON, ERVIN, LEARA, GRISAMORE, ALLEN, BURLISON, NOLTE, DAVIS, WELLS, LAIR, SCHIEFFER, FISHER (125), ZERR, SANDER, SMITH (14), PARKINSON, BIVINS, KOENIG, SCHOELLER, DETHROW, FUNDERBURK, SCHLOTTACH, FLANIGAN, MUNZLINGER, McGHEE, KINGERY, VIEBROCK, WETER, FAITH, NANCE, DUGGER, THOMSON, WILSON (130), DENISON, SMITH (150) AND GUERNSEY (Co-sponsors).

4464L.01P                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. 1. The state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.

           2. The state of Missouri shall:

           (1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

           (2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:

           (a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;

           (b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;

           (c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;

           (d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees;

           (e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;

           (f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;

           (g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”;

           (h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;

           (3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

           (4) Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America;

           (5) As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (a) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;

           (b) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers;

           (c) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America;

           (6) The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subparagraph (3) of this subsection shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.

Let’s see. Guns! Check. Abortion and stem cells! Check. Cap and trade! Check. Health care reform! Check. Gay marriage or civil unions! Check. Hate crimes? Check. Religion! Check. Home schooling and parochial schools! Check.

What? Nothing about supporting public education? Oh, right.

Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group that has more women than men; is mainly white and Republican and voted for John McCain, and strongly supports Sarah Palin…

And apparently the republican majority in the Missouri House would be in that 13%. Yesterday’s perfection vote in the House [pdf]:

On motion of Representative Nieves, HJR 88 was ordered perfected and printed by the following vote:

AYES: 090

Allen Ayres Bivins Brandom Brown 30 Brown 149 Bruns Burlison Cooper Cox Cunningham Davis Day Deeken Denison Dethrow Dieckhaus Diehl Dixon Dugger Dusenberg Emery Ervin Faith Fisher 125 Flanigan Flook Franz Funderburk Gatschenberger Grisamore Guernsey Guest Harris Hobbs Hoskins 121 Icet Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kingery Koenig Kraus Lair Largent Leara Lipke Loehner McGhee McNary Molendorp Munzlinger Nance Nieves Nolte Parkinson Parson Pollock Pratt Riddle Ruestman Ruzicka Sander Sater Schaaf Schad Scharnhorst Schlottach Schoeller Self Shively Silvey Smith 14 Smith 150 Stevenson Stream Sutherland Swinger Thomson Tilley Tracy Viebrock Wallace Wasson Wells Weter Wilson 119 Wilson 130 Wright Zerr

NOES 069:

Atkins Aull Biermann Bringer Brown 50 Burnett Calloway Carter Casey Chappelle-Nadal Colona Conway Corcoran Curls Dougherty Englund Fallert Fischer 107 Frame Grill Hodges Holsman Hoskins 80 Hughes Hummel Jones 63 Kander Kelly Kirkton Komo Kratky Kuessner Lampe LeVota Liese Low McClanahan McDonald McNeil Meadows Meiners Morris Nasheed Newman Norr Oxford Pace Quinn Roorda Rucker Salva Scavuzzo Schieffer Schoemehl Schupp Skaggs Spreng Still Storch Talboy Todd Walsh Walton Gray Webb Webber Whitehead Witte Yaeger Zimmerman

I guess this means that the House republicans have to say, “We’re all teabaggers now.”

This morning the Missouri House took up debate on HJR 48, 50 & 57, a state constitutional amendment nullifying federal health care reform legislation.

Our good friends at Fired Up via Twitter:

Uninterested in dealing with actual state issues, MO House turns its attention back to federal legislation…    about 13 hours ago   via DestroyTwitter  

From the beginning:

republican Representative [speaking as an advocate of the resolution at the opening of the debate]: …Democrat  Congressman Bart Stupak, if you’re pro-life you will vote for the health care freedom act and against Obamacare….

Representative Cynthia Davis (r – let them eat McDonalds), debating HJR 48, 50 & 57

There was a flood of something, and it wasn’t water. Representative Cynthia Davis (r – let them eat McDonalds), fifty-five minutes into the debate:

…Representative Cynthia Davis :  Good morning, I rise to speak on the HJR.

Speaker: Proceed, lady.

Representative Cynthia Davis : Thank  you. Mister Speaker, a lot of people are confused about what is the role of the national government and what is the role of the state government. Truth is, the national government has no business doing education or health care. It’s not in the Constitution. You know, a river is a beautiful thing when it stays within its boundaries, but when it’s unlimited it’s called a flood.  And a flood is destructive. And it’s not pretty anymore.  [inaudible] Also, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama. It has to do with choice. It has to do with liberty. And it has to do with our freedom and our right to govern ourselves. The national program really has nothing to do with protecting insurance companies either. You know, I moved here from Massachusetts. And they forced everybody to get on the insurance program and they still have not achieved that goal. And if Massachusetts had such a great plan show me where are the people clamoring to move into Massachusetts? The bigger question I want all of you to consider today is why would any state legislator want to give up our liberty? You know, we’re vested with the duty of protecting our citizens and protecting their liberty is foundational.

Some of you may have not heard my bullying story. When I was in seventh grade I learned a lesson about bullies that I’ll never forget. You know, the national government is strutting around like a big bully. And unless we say no, we’re gonna get hurt. There was a time in junior high when all the classes had to pass in the hallway. There was a girl who, apparently, didn’t like me, though I will never know why. But she would sneak up behind me and stick her foot in front of mine and trip me. So I’d fall or sometimes almost fall. And then I’d go home and I’d tell my mother. Mom, this girl tried to trip me again today.  And my mom said the only way to stop it is if you stand up to her and hold firm. Well there was one day when we were passing through the hall, through the classroom and, and, and I, I noticed her tripping me and, and I turned around and what happened next was a blur.  But, it was good. It was good ’cause I stood up to her and, and the, we were ushered to the principal’s office and the principal called my mom and said, your daughter was engaged in a fight. And my mom was never more proud of me. And that girl never tripped me again.

And that is what we’re confronting with this resolution to try and tell the federal government, you can not bully us, we are gonna stop you right here, right now. We’re gonna protect our citizens.

This HJR is our only and last hope for protecting Missourians, to keep their freedoms and their rights.  Thank you….

“…Also, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama…”

You weren’t listening to your colleague at the start of debate, were you?

“…It has to do with choice…”

So, if you support the resolution you’re pro-choice?

“…And it has to do with our freedom and our right to govern ourselves…”

Question. Didn’t we elect our members of Congress? Just asking. Oh, you meant they should all be republicans just like you.

“….[blah, blah, blah] your daughter was engaged in a fight…”

You’re not advocating violence, are you?

“…our only and last hope…”

Obi-wan would be so proud.

What the House passed and sent to the Senate today:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NOS. 48, 50 & 57

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

3173L.02P                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, relating to prohibiting laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. 1. That a law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

           2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

           3. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

           4. This section does not:

           (1) Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;

           (2) Affect which health care services are permitted by law;

           (3) Prohibit care provided under workers’ compensation as provided under state law;

           (4) Affect laws or regulations in effect as of January 1, 2010;

           (5) Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

           5. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Compel”, any penalties or fines;

           (2) “Direct payment or pay directly”, payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service;

           (3) “Health care system”, any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants;

           (4) “Lawful health care services”, any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services; and

           (5) “Penalties or fines”, any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this resolution shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended as follows:

1. That government may neither penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance, nor infringe upon a citizen’s right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.

2. This section shall permit courts to enforce contracts voluntarily entered, and the General Assembly to regulate the health insurance industry.”

Here’s hoping the Missouri Senate sits on it.

Earlier, I noted that State Senator Jane Cunningham attended Todd Akin’s kill-health-care-reform pep rally to push her Health Care Freedom Act. This bill would put a constitutional amendement on the Missouri ballot this fall that is based on fringewingers’ wistful reading of the tenth amendment, which they insist permits states, Civil War to the contrary, to opt out of federal legislation they don’t like – in this case, health care reform legislation.

The Beacon’s Jo Mannies reported that Cunningham got a standing ovation for this ill-conceived, last-ditch effort to subvert the will of the people who voted for Obama and his promises of health care reform. Do you wonder whether any of those fools applauding Cunningham had the teensiest, tiniest idea about what effect opting out of health care reform could possibly have on Missouri were it to prove possible?

Just take a look at this interactive map prepared by the Center for American Progress. Under the health care reform proposed by the Senate, 200,957 more people in Missouri would be newly eligible for Medicaid, individuals who will continue to be uninsured given the status quo.  The loss of federal funds for Medicaid that would result from “opting” out would mean that Missouri’s uninsured would continue to exceed 700,000.

Nor, as has been amply demonstrated over the past few years, can Missouri effectively address the problem of the uninsured at the state level.  As Ivor Volksy of the Wonk Room puts it:

Political considerations, special interest influence and budgetary strains have doomed previous state-based health care reform efforts and governors who believe that nullifying federal reform is in the best interest of their citizens are placing politics ahead of sound policy.

Substitute “legislature” for “governors”, and you have Missouri in a nutshell, with its 2008 nonelderly, uninsured rate of 14.5% – a rate that is probably quite a bit higher right now.

The Senate health care reform package would extend Medicaid coverage massively, providing subsidies that would reduce costs for state governments, employers, and individuals. It would also include incentives and reformulated payment systems that would work to make Medicaid more efficient. And yet there are people who will stand up and applaud a ideological nitwit like Jane Cunningham for her efforts to deny Missouri citizens needed benefits that give us good returns on our tax dollars.  

Since President Obama was to be in St. Louis today on Wednesday pushing for health care reform, Rep. Todd Akin (R – 2nd) thought he would jump the gun and rally the president’s right-wing foes via a video town hall in St. Charles. Attended by about 2,200 people, the event consisted of presentations of the same ol’ same ol’ talking points by Akin and a handful of other retrograde Missouri politicians, including Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, and, via video, Akin’s congressional fellow travelers,  John Shimkus, (R-IL) and John Shadegg, (R-AZ).

According to KSDK TV, Akin was in his usual obstructionist form:

I want to say and I want to be completely clear, … That the bill that we’re talking about today is the worst bill that I’ve seen in all my time in Congress.  In fact, it is so bad, it is at least two times worse than the next bad bill, which was the cap and tax bill to supposeably fix global warming.

Not exactly the most profound or relevant analysis – but then this was Todd Akin speaking and we all know that unsubstantiated invective and slogans like “cap and tax bill” seems to work very well with his support base. Other speakers hit the grace notes; State Senator Jane Cunningham, for instance, pushed her tenther legislation “which could potentially stop socialized medicine mandate at the state level.” The real knee-slapper, though, came when Akin:

… credited divine intervention with the January election of Scott Brown, R-Mass., which deprived Senate Democrats of the 60-seat majority needed to block filibusters. Akin said he hoped God would intervene again to prevent a health care bill from getting through Congress.

Amazing how small and parochial the God of some of these so-called Christians seems to be.

It is instructive – and sad – to compare this event to the President’s appearance, and to think that there are people who are happy to be led down the garden path by fools like Akin and pals. Sadder still to think about what we all stand to lose because we live in a place where this type of idiocy is taken seriously by anyone.  

UPDATE:  Today (Mar. 12) on the Dianne Rehm show, a caller from St. Charles reported that Akin went even further out onto the thin ice of tasteless absurdity by comparing the passage of health care to that good old Republican fall-back,  9/11. The response, from even the conservative commentator, was to condemn Akin’s excess as insane, childish and, at the least, manipulative. Rehm seemed to have trouble believing that there were people present at that rally that cheered Akin – I have trouble believing that there people in my district that voted for him.