From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (the online version of which, perhaps un-coincidentally, has the most awful, hope-destroying comment sections I've seen anywhere on the internet):
As Gov. Scott Walker contemplates whether to create a state health care exchange under Obamacare, he will have to contend in the coming legislative session with nine lawmakers who have said they back a bill to arrest any federal officials who try to implement the health care law…All nine also told a tea party-aligned group they backed passing so-called "right-to-work" legislation; allowing people to carry guns without having to get permits from the state; allowing people to buy raw, or unpasteurized, milk; and blocking state funding for the federal Real ID law that requires states to develop more secure driver's licenses.
But their stance on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, could cause the most fireworks in the upcoming session. Walker must decide by Friday whether the state will create a health care exchange under the health care law or leave those duties to President Barack Obama's administration.
Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) is one of the nine from Wisconsin who told the Campaign for Liberty he would back legislation to declare Obamacare illegal and allow police to arrest federal officials who take steps to implement it in Wisconsin. He said he believes the health care law is unconstitutional, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that it passes constitutional muster.
"Just because Obama was re-elected does not mean he's above the Constitution," Kapenga said…The other current and newly elected lawmakers said they supported the entire agenda the Campaign for Liberty, according to the group's website.
The Campaign for Liberty and others endorse a notion being promoted by conservatives called nullification that holds that under the 10th Amendment states can ignore federal laws if they choose. The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds like we've got some real experts on the Constitution at work here. Their convenient "interpretation" of the 10th Amendment is well researched, I'm sure, so we can all sit back and let states decide which Federal laws they will enforce. It's amazing that no state has ever thought of this before. Or if they did, it certainly must have gone well.