• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Alabama's Anti-Obamacare Amendment?

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,765
516
126
I was reviewing the list of state-wide amendments that will be on the ballot, and I came across a little gem in Statewide Amendment 6. Its description reads as...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.
The meat and potatoes of the bill goes on to state...

(a) In order to preserve the freedom of all residents of Alabama to provide for their own health care, a law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
(b) A person or employer may pay directly for health care service sand shall not be required to pay penalties or fines or 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.
(c) The purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.
It seems that (a) is attempting to go against the individual mandate and (b) is trying to outlaw the fee if you don't have health insurance.

Thoughts?
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Florida has the same thing on it's ballot. Too bad neither mean anything - they are both symbolic and overridden by Federal law.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
(a) In order to preserve the freedom of all residents of Alabama to provide for their own health care, a law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
Meaning hospitals don't have to treat even cases where inability to pay is an issue.
 

nickbits

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2008
4,125
1
71
Sounds like they are pre-voting for if/when Romney issues his Obamacare waivers.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,370
171
106
Meaning hospitals don't have to treat even cases where inability to pay is an issue.

I was going to say would this not make hospitals have to take in people through the ER that can't prove they can't pay.

So yea this is badly written and opens up a mess.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Yeah, it won't do anything but provide unwitting conservatives another reason to show up to the polls. Our travesty of a state constitution does not supersede federal law, thank God.

I will be voting NO.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
obamacare shouldn't exist in the first place. Alabama needs to take a stand and say no to obama, he is blatantly attacking the Constitution
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,765
516
126
Yeah, it won't do anything but provide unwitting conservatives another reason to show up to the polls. Our travesty of a state constitution does not supersede federal law, thank God.

I will be voting NO.
This is a bit off-topic of my original point, but have you read amendment 4? It's originally mentioned as removing racism from Alabama's constitution, but the actual wording sounds far worse than some segregation that isn't even enforced.

Section 256 currently reads:

The legislature shall establish, organize, and maintain a liberal system of public schools throughout the state for the benefit of the children thereof between the ages of seven and twenty-one years. The public school fund shall be apportioned to the several counties in proportion to the number of school children of school age therein, and shall be so apportioned to the schools in the districts or townships in the counties as to provide, as nearly as practicable, school terms of equal duration in such school districts or townships. Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.
Here's the proposed version:

Section 256. It is the policy of the state of Alabama to foster and promote the education of its citizens in a manner and extent consistent with its available resource,s and the willingness and ability of the individual student, but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense, nor as limiting the authority and duty of the legislature, in furthering or providing for education, to require or impose conditions or procedures deemed necessary to the preservation of peace and order.

The legislature may by law provide for or authorize the establishment and operation of schools by such persons, agencies or municipalities, at such places, and upon such conditions as it may prescribe, and for the grant or loan of public funds and the lease, sale or donation of real or personal property to or for the benefit of citizens of the state for educational purposes under such circumstances and upon such conditions as it shall prescribe. Real property owned by the state or any municipality shall not be donated for educational purposes except to nonprofit charitable or eleemosynary corporations or associations organized under the laws of the state.
They remove segregation, but also all the wording of requiring the state to provide education to the children of its denizens. The second paragraph is making me wince a bit. It's essentially extended eminent domain to educational purposes, and also note that it does not prohibit the state from supporting religious educational institutions. I might be reading a little too much to get the last part, but I see how one could easily weasel it in based on the wording.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,368
4,322
136
This is a bit off-topic of my original point, but have you read amendment 4? It's originally mentioned as removing racism from Alabama's constitution, but the actual wording sounds far worse than some segregation that isn't even enforced.

Section 256 currently reads:

Here's the proposed version:

They remove segregation, but also all the wording of requiring the state to provide education to the children of its denizens. The second paragraph is making me wince a bit. It's essentially extended eminent domain to educational purposes, and also note that it does not prohibit the state from supporting religious educational institutions. I might be reading a little too much to get the last part, but I see how one could easily weasel it in based on the wording.
I think your reading it right. Yep, got to support the separate but equal religious based schools. Some things never change in the south.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
This is a bit off-topic of my original point, but have you read amendment 4? It's originally mentioned as removing racism from Alabama's constitution, but the actual wording sounds far worse than some segregation that isn't even enforced.

Section 256 currently reads:

Here's the proposed version:

They remove segregation, but also all the wording of requiring the state to provide education to the children of its denizens. The second paragraph is making me wince a bit. It's essentially extended eminent domain to educational purposes, and also note that it does not prohibit the state from supporting religious educational institutions. I might be reading a little too much to get the last part, but I see how one could easily weasel it in based on the wording.
Yeah, that one is a travesty. I will vote no simply because it is a choice between removing already defunct racist language and supporting public schooling for all children. I'll take the black eye in the media anyday. We will get another chance to remove that language without dealing a blow to education in our state.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,765
516
126
Yeah, that one is a travesty. I will vote no simply because it is a choice between removing already defunct racist language and supporting public schooling for all children. I'll take the black eye in the media anyday. We will get another chance to remove that language without dealing a blow to education in our state.
Actually, I reread everything, and I think I misread it originally. There are actually two different racist portions in the Alabama Constitution in regard to Section 256. Section 256 itself has a racist portion and so does Amendment 111 in regard to Section 256. The portion that I quoted actually already exists as part of Amendment 111; however, it removes this:

To avoid confusion and disorder and to promote effective and economical planning for education, the legislature may authorize the parents or guardians of minors, who desire that such minors shall attend schools provided for their own race, to make election to that end, such election to be effective for such period and to such extent as the legislature may provide.
I think I have to revert my opinion on this proposed amendment. I don't agree with the wording of the section that I quoted, but it's already "on the books."
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
Obamacare is probably the catalyst for a wave of state nullification actions. They'll be overruled by the SCOTUS, but if the state's refuse to enforce on nullification grounds, what's the Federal gov't going to do, invade? put on economic sanctions? They'll be stuck and anything to force a state will have them losing a lot of capital with an increasingly disillusioned populace.
 
Feb 4, 2009
28,660
9,252
136
Obamacare is probably the catalyst for a wave of state nullification actions. They'll be overruled by the SCOTUS, but if the state's refuse to enforce on nullification grounds, what's the Federal gov't going to do, invade? put on economic sanctions? They'll be stuck and anything to force a state will have them losing a lot of capital with an increasingly disillusioned populace.
I'd guess that first there would be talk, then States openly not complying would lose highway funds and such (this is what made the drinking age 21 everywhere), then I'd guess federal courts would appoint people that would be willing to carryout the law. I doubt it would ever get this far
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Why not just cede? I'm OK with it, do any of you other non Alabamians care if they left the union?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Why not just cede? I'm OK with it, do any of you other non Alabamians care if they left the union?
This may come as a surprise to you, but Alabamians, like many Southerners, are very patriotic. Secession simply isn't popular here. We may not be thrilled at what the rest of the country does or thinks of us, but that doesn't mean that we aren't loyal to the union. We tried that route once. You broke it, you bought it.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,765
516
126
You're probably not going to be surprised, but it passed 59% to 41%. This could be rather interesting.

Oh, and the anti-racism one didn't pass 61% to 39%.

EDIT:

I noticed another one with some rather interesting language in it... amendment 7. I voted NO on this one, because I didn't approve of the use of the word "reasonable" describing laws that could restrict voters. As a software engineer, "reasonable" is not allowed in a requirement, because it's too subjective. Also, the amendment states that insane people and felons that commit an act of turpitude cannot vote. I'm a little weary on classifying mentally insane so simply, and I really don't agree with stating that a felon that commits a morally reprehensible act cannot vote. The amendment doesn't appear to ever allow them to vote regardless of whether or not they serve their time. It simply states "No person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, or who is mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights or removal of disability." First off, a felon shouldn't ever have their civil or political rights removed.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY