State House Republicans Want to Nullify Health Insurance Reform

Rep. Paul McEachern's Take On The Bill (4.00 / 2)

Rep. Paul McEachern gave what many called the best floor speech of the year when he took on the nullification bill last week.   The Portsmouth Herald reported that he called the amendment "probably the most audacious proposal I have ever seen in this chamber."  He titled the opposition as having "the euphoria of the rhetoric," and it was clear that rhetoric was empty in substance but full of politics.

Concerning the part of the bill that would charge government officials with felonies if they enforced the law of the United States, Paul said "This has no business being in this chamber."  He added, "I was astounded when I read the bill.  I think they were serious..." but "...this was from the outer fringes."

The debate was a sight to behold.  The good, the bad, and the ugly.  

Paul McEachern is thinking of not running again.  His first term was in 1963, with a total of five between then and now.  He was twice our Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee, running against John Sununu and Judd Gregg.  He's golden in his "older age."  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:37:41 AM UTC

I thought at the time, when Paul and John attended out DFA meetup (0.00 / 0)

in Newmarket, that Paul was the better candidate and I haven't changed my mind.  Lynch is an autocrat.  He may be a kinder, gentler autocrat, but he's got a dictatorial streak that is not pleasant to perceive.

---

by: hannah @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 09:51:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is eerily reminiscent (4.00 / 2)

of the takeover of Maine's GOP platform.

This is the end result of a collapsed GOP ideology and leadership, which vacuum has been filled by hate radio delirium.

I repeat what Jennifer says: imagine this in the majority.  Or don't imagine - just head on over to Arizona to see for yourself.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:49:27 AM UTC

Here's Paul's whole speech. (4.00 / 3)

Madam Speaker, Members,

I would like to talk on the amendment before us today.  As has been said here, Congress passed a health care reform act and the president signed it and it is now the law of the land.  And like any legislation that we passed and the Senate endorses and the Governor signs, it has a presumption that it is constitutional and it is the law of the land.  I would say that the amendment before us is probably the most audacious proposal I have ever seen in this chamber.  

And I would like to just quote a few key words from the amendment.  As has been said, if you want to dress it up, it's a nullification act.  Now what it says is this, speaking of the national health care reform, that that is declared to be invalid in this state, that it shall not be recognized in this state.  It goes on.  It is specifically rejected in this state.  And it still goes on and it says that it shall be null and void in this state.

But it doesn't stop there.  It says that any official of the United States of America shall be committing a felony if he attempts to enforce it.  And any official of New Hampshire will be committing a misdemeanor if they attempt to enforce it.  I don't know why it takes it a little easier on the state official than the federal official.  

But it isn't a challenge to the health care act.  It's a confrontation.  And it's a confrontation with the federal government.  If it were just a challenge and it would be challenged in the courts, the outcome is certain.  Every now and then we read about someone who goes to court for income tax evasion or something like that and they challenge the constitutionality of the income tax.  And we know how that ends.  

And state governments all over this country have forced citizens to buy automobile insurance.  In New Hampshire we don't do that but we force our citizens to buy SR 22 insurance if you have been in an accident.  So that the history of this nation says that this constitutional challenge will fair.  That's foregone.  

But I guess it's the euphoria of the rhetoric, of the anarchy, that we're entertaining that's attractive in this amendment.  And all I can say is we have such a great democracy and we have been so successful that we can entertain those words in this chamber.  Aren't we lucky to be able to entertain those words.  But I just remind you that when we take the oath of office we pledge allegiance to the United States and to the constitution and this morning we took a pledge of allegiance to the flag, pledging our allegiance.  And in the afternoon, we're entitled to turn around and say that we're going to charge government officials with felonies if they enforce the law of the land.

That is secessionist.  That is a shot at Fort Sumpter and all of the great history that we brag about.  This has no business being in this chamber.  The sponsors are lucky that they have the great privilege of having it in the chamber, but it's up to us to say, "Cease fire.  We're not seceding from the Union.

We're going to do our best to do the New Hampshire way and enforce the law of the land in New Hampshire whether we like that law or not.

Thank you Madam Speaker.

---

by: Bill Duncan @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:23:23 AM UTC

Shoulda (4.00 / 1)

Been governor.
We'd be in a lot better shape today.
Thanks, Bill.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:28:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's not too late (4.00 / 1)

It's not too late for Paul to make another gubenatorial bid :-)

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 04:06:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Run For NH State Representative, Burt! (0.00 / 0)

...We need your voice in Concord again, and the one you'd be running against in New Castle/Rye was one of those speaking for nullification!  He had also taken to the floor to try to kill House Bill 436 last year, and earlier this Spring tried to repeal marriage equality.  

Beside the fact you're a very good guy.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Burt! (0.00 / 0)

You have changed your mind about secession! Excellent!!!  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 20:32:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it is worth noting that the law of the land addresses (4.00 / 1)

what our agents of government are supposed to do to insure that our bodily integrity is protected from injury, disease and malignancies.  Absent the perception of a threat, no person is subject to being provided with health care.  On the other hand, it is both right and proper that, in anticipation of the probable need for some surgical or medical assistance, each adult person who is able should contribute money to support the system.  That, like the income tax, the contribution to health care is essentially voluntary is not being bruited about for obvious reasons.  Nevertheless, just as no income tax is extracted from individuals who have no income to report, there's no enforcement mechanism for extracting a medicare tax or ensuring the purchase of "private" insurance policies.

Conservatives, who perceive government as an essentially coercive and extractive institution (a secular version of the religious mission), have a hard time comprehending that they are who govern and the agents they select are merely tasked with doing what they are told.  They do not understand that the law for individuals and agents is different; that the law prohibits certain individual behaviors (anti-social and anti-personnel acts or crimes) and mandates the behavior of agents, whom we pay to carry the mandates out.  They do not understand that the latter is why, when the agents of government look the other way and don't do the job (perform the inspections of work places, for example), we consider them to be corrupt.  When one understands that, then one has to conclude that the conservative preference for the agents of government doing little or nothing is actually an agenda to promote corruption.  

---

by: hannah @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 10:14:10 AM UTC

Excellent Points, Hannah... (0.00 / 0)

...right on.  Write on!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon May 17, 2010 at 12:35:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

in the Senate Commerce Committee.., (0.00 / 0)

The Senate Commerce Committee saved the legislature from a hour or two of further verbal warfare by concurring with the House amendment to SB455.  The Republicans can now only STFU: there is nothing more they can do to this bill.

(It is theoretically possible that the Senate might overturn the recommendation, but that is unlikely.)  The amended bill will be on its way to Governor Lynch's desk sometime soon after Wednesday morning.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Tue May 18, 2010 at 21:09:44 PM UTC

GOP win/lose (0.00 / 0)

Any one notice the GOPers are sore losers----and sore winners!

---

by: tchair @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 00:31:40 AM UTC

Let's be fair. (0.00 / 0)

When they lose, of course that's hard on them.

When they win, they will be governed by Republicans. You think THAT isn't worth a bit of griping??

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 00:35:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]