In response to proposals circulating in Washington D.C., several states are trying to pass amendments to their constitutions that would outlaw mandatory health insurance.

These proposed amendments predate President Barack Obama’s health plan, dating back to 2006. Arizona lawmakers, fearing adoption of such measures in their own state, responded by placing the amendment on the 2008 ballot, according to The New York Times. Though the bill was defeated, it lost by only 9,000 votes out of a total of more than two million. Now controlled by Republicans in both chambers, the Arizona Legislature has put the amendments back on its ballot for 2010.

Proponents of the measures argue that they are trying to protect state and individual rights. Attempts to nullify a potential federal law, however, remain controversial. According to Mary Beth Norton, the Mary Donlon Alger Professor of American History, questions of federal power have been frequent themes in American history. She cited the 11th Amendment, which was ratified in 1795 to overrule a U.S. Supreme Court decision, as one of the earliest examples of states contesting federal power and South Carolina’s secession from the Union in 1860 as an extreme example of this trend.

“There is nothing new about states wanting to reject something that the federal government wants to do. ... This is shaping up to be a really classic conflict,” Norton said.

Many have argued that the federal government has no right to regulate healthcare. However, Professor Josh Chafetz, law, and Norton both agree that federal regulation of a healthcare system would not be unconstitutional. According to Chafetz, the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and healthcare qualifies as interstate commerce. He cited Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where the U.S. Supreme Court said Congress could ban marijuana even when some states had approved its use for medicinal purposes.

“The Preamble says that the Constitution is intended to promote the general welfare, and it can certainly be argued that healthcare is promoting the general welfare,” Norton added ... “[The Constitution] was intended to override state independence ... It doesnt matter whether it is health care or something else.”

According to Chafetz, these proposed amendments have no chance of passing and are symbolic at most. Since the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government ultimate power in areas where it can legislate, the arguments for the proposed amendments would, according to Chafetz, have no legal bearing.

“From a constitutional law perspective, it’s a fairly simple issue,” Chafetz said, “[The simplicity of the legal perspective] says nothing about the wisdom of the law, but as far as constitutionally, it’s a fairly simple issue.”

Norton agreed, offering the following warning for supporters of the amendments: “Memo to the states: feds always win. They did then, and they will now.” When asked how these proposed state amendments might affect Obama’s health care plans, Michael Schillawski ’10, speaking on behalf of the Cornell Democrats, said “They won’t. This is just another example of Republicans trying to galvanize their base rather than guaranteeing quality, affordable health care for every American.”

However, Chafetz believes such measures could have a concrete effect that goes beyond their symbolic message: they could create litigation that would tie the courts up for years and delay healthcare changes.

According to Konstantin Drabkin ’11, president of the Cornell College Republicans, elected officials — in order in order to fulfill their obligation to their constituencies — are trying to send a “calculated political message.”

“All across America, there is an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the current healthcare proposal,” Drabkin said, “Americans are concerned that the realities of the bill are not matching the rhetoric they hear on TV... No one is going to secede any time soon, but Washington should still take note.”