If passed by the Alabama House and approved by voters on July 31, the bill would insert this passage into the state’s governing document: “A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health-care provider to participate in any health-care system.”
While there may be implications for Medicare and other such programs, this bill was passed with a singular intent: to allow Alabamians to opt-out of the health-care reform bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.
State Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, who sponsored the bill, says it would allow the state to challenge the federal law as a violation of the 10th Amendment.
That’s logic Alabama can do without.
Let’s ask the senator, those in the Senate who voted for the bill, and those voters who would support the amendment to consider this part of America’s governing document, the U.S. Constitution.
Using the English of its day, Article VI, Clause 2, is clear: “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
What part of “supreme Law of the Land” and “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” does the Alabama Senate not understand?