The States Can Stop Obama

By Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the “Tea Parties” espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national health care down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of “Don’t Tread On Me” or “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” or “We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Taking It Anymore,” don’t mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage.

The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That’s right, the individual States can stop “Obamacare” and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and “big brother” tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with national health care as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say “No!”

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government.

Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.” Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central
government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotence was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.”

So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsibility and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other…” What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.” The States (and counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.

So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution
protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national health care proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, “The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” It is rather obvious that nationalized health care definitely qualifies as a “federal regulatory program.”

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are “pie in the sky” dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways.

However, in our system of “dual sovereignty,” the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States’ Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

Richard Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and long-time crusader for freedom and individual rights. He wrote the book “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope” and “The Proper Role Of Law Enforcement.” Visit


16 Responses to The States Can Stop Obama

  1. Go Sheriff Mack!

    Go thank Richard Mack personally!

    Starving The Monkeys Continually And Forevermore,
    John and Dagny Galt
    Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  2. Redman says:

    While the stated action/position for the States may be true, with unbounded apathy in the general population, uncritical thinking and analysis by most and ‘wants and needs’ to be provided by Big Brother, it seems doubtful local pols would stand tall and defend the rights and liberties of the people. In order to do the “right” thing without force, it takes a literate, moral and virtuous citizenry; is that what we have in the US of A today? Hardly!

  3. Zzomby says:

    Thanks for the information! For a long time searched. A class site!

  4. Dean Striker says:

    Wow, this is an impressive article. Despite having been an Arizonan from 1964-2004, visiting almost ever nook and cranny of the state, and being politically active, somehow Graham County was traveled least, and this super author was almost invisible.

    It happens tho that we have reservations for March 6th meet at Willie’s Place not far from our home in Texas. Knowing now about Richard Mack added hugely to our anticipation!

    I’ll be passing this link on to next.

    Any Texans here? Info for the meet at

    My link to RSVP (don’t know if that’ll work for you)–V3okD84DCRdhog547dVmbIXVZR88iChfy-C7vxNk7fs96mWuIgAvTJ_53pmPN25Cs

  5. roblorinov says:

    Sadly I must agree with Redman. The unbounded apathy in this nation, the dumbing down of America, the lack of morals and virtues only serves to ensure that we will lay down and take whatever comes instead of STANDING UP! And let’s not forget how BIG PHARMA has fried our brain cells with their “medications” too.

  6. Jerry says:

    If what Sheriff Mack is correct, then why doesn’t someone show the states that they don’t have to take Obama’s baloney? Why are states NOT taking Mack’s advice on how to stop the Obama healthcare plan? Quite simply, it’s because they are all afraid of Obama and his Congressional thieves.

    Until we get some backbone in the state legislatures we will wallow in subservience to a pretender in the White House and vindictive tin pot dictators in the House and Senate.

  7. suddencall says:

    Ill. tried that on emissions control.The feds told them that they would pass laws to comply or they would lose all fed funding.Guess what happened next? you get your car inspected or else.

  8. Dean Striker says:

    Jerry, keep in mind that the states are run by the elected officials where dumbed-down before they ever had a chance to be elected. Some of us, hopefully increasing, are getting the picture and doing our best to refute the brainwashing. Whenever there are at last enough, then and only then can we realize a new truly free country, state, county and town.

    And yes, apathy prevails. Seems to me that arises from a widespread feeling of frustrated helplessness and futility. Right here on DumpDC and increasing numbers of other websites, we’re seeing a huge move toward changing that apathy. We have been amiss in letting it slide for so many years.

    I’m betting on utter economic collapse being the time to make the big switch to Voluntary associations, refusing Force as an immoral standard.

  9. MiliLib says:

    Umm, thanks Richard, but you missed a few things. First, Patrick Henry was never a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Remember, he “smelt a rat.” Woops.

    Second, you aren’t a sheriff anymore and you’re just re-treading the information that everyone else has already espoused in order to pimp your new book, which badly needs editing.

    I was in your campaign for governor in Utah and saw how you put money before honor. It’s a shame so many people are still beguiled by your b.s.

    I heard you had a real job selling cars? What happened to that?

  10. Dean Striker says:

    Militant Libertarian, huh? I’ve been Libertarian from it’s beginning, and sadly watched it splinter and become impotent. Your rant against Sheriff Mack is a good example, serving no purpose which might help DumpDC find a way to action.

    Stick to the article, please, and join in with the effort here to cure a huge problem.

    • MiliLib says:

      I was on his campaign committee and watched him heartlessly steal money from old women and people who could barely afford it all so that Mack could make a few bucks with this little PrePaid Legal scam. You can give him all the cash you want, but people should be informed that this used car salesman who rides on the coattails of something his partner did twenty years ago is nothing more than a con man looking to sell some (badly written) books.

      “Sheriff” Mack is no hero.

      • Dean Striker says:

        Mack’s not running for anything so far as I know, his good thoughts need to be spread, and your contribution toward the +/- of his ideas may help.

  11. Dean Striker says:

    The meet at Willie’s Place today was very good, with Tim Baldwin and Debra Medina, then Richard Mack made his presentation and case based on the oath of all Sheriffs to the Constitution and the people (not to Congress or the Federal government!), the ultimate autonomy of Counties and the alliance of the Sheriff’s Posses with the militia protecting the people from tyranny from all.

    • Dean Striker,

      Thanks for the positive report from Texas! Hope you gave all our Brothers and Sisters big hugs for us!

      Starving The Monkeys Continually And Forevermore,
      John and Dagny Galt
      Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  12. longviewcyclist says:

    Thanks for this. A sliver of hope, at least.

    I wonder, though…if certain states are successful in keeping their citizens from having to buy health insurance, would they also be able to keep their citizens from having to pay the associated taxes to the IRS?

  13. […] Read More Here easytoolbox […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: