Seven months of silence is too long.

That was the message Patrick Wright told the Senate Family and Human Services Committee this week.

Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, filed suit last year against the Department of Human Services over how 70,000 home-based day care workers were unionized and became state employees. Their union dues are taken out DHS subsidy checks given to the day care workers who take in low-income parents getting help from the state.

DHS employees and representatives of the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council have refused to answer questions to media. DHS even told legislators it couldn't say how the MHBCCC was still active months after its funds were cut by the legislature, citing the impending lawsuit.

Then, DHS came up with a way it could comment.

A DHS spokeswoman said at a later hearing that they had sought an Attorney General opinion and were able to answer questions. However, the spokeswoman said, all questions would have to be put in writing, given to the chair of the committee and then submitted to DHS. Then DHS would seek the AG opinion regarding whether the department could respond.

 "The time has come for it (the executive branch) to defend itself for its actions," Wright told the committee. "If this is not an underhanded scheme to favor a political ally at the expense of low-income families and taxpayers, could it please explain why? If this is not an assault on the power of the legislature, please explain how expanding the class of people who can be unionized and ignoring the appropriations process shows the proper respect for that branch of government. Seven months of silence is too much."

Wright warned the committee of the ramifications if "stealth unionization" continued where anyone who has a business whose clients get aid from the government could become a government employee.

"Doctors, landlords, grocers, merchants - could all be next. Whose business doesn't, in some way, shape or form, have some sort of clientele that doesn't get aid from the government?" Wright said.

AVERAGE TEACHER'S SALARY: $57,000

Michael Van Beek, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy's director of education policy, told a House Education Committee this week that the state's average public teacher's salary was $57,000.

Van Beek also made his case that school finances are not as dire as portrayed during state budget cut discussions.

Van Beek stated that total school revenues (state, local, federal - all of the tax dollars) going to schools since 2000 were up 14 percent after adjusting for inflation. He stated that state tax revenues have declined 7 percent since then. Van Beek told the committee that state-based school revenue was down after adjusting for inflation, but that there had been a ten-fold increase in federal money.

Rising school employee health insurance costs are now $1,200 per pupil and have grown 44 percent since 2000, after adjusting for inflation, Van Beek said. He showed results from a Mackinac Center survey that showed teachers only pay 4 percent of premiums (for a family plan) whereas the state average is 22 percent and the national average is 26 percent.

Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama's plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide "civil disobedience" that can derail Obamacare.

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland; State Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood; and State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, have each introduced similar constitutional amendments that seek to trump the national health care bills.

For example, Sen. Kuipers' bill would prohibit a federal law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It also prevents anyone from being penalized for ignoring the federal law.

"Where this is going, I don't know," Kuipers said this week. "You don't know until the states try to do it."

According to a 10th Amendment think tank, 26 states have attempted their own versions of Kuipers' bill. Arizona has had its version passed by both houses of Congress, and it will be voted on by residents in November. Virginia also had both houses of Congress pass a similar bill, and it is awaiting the governor's signature.

Constitutional law experts say state law does not take precedence over federal law.

"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.

Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.

"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

Michael Boldin, founder of the 10th Amendment Center — a public policy think tank in Los Angeles — said there are cases where state resistance has stymied federal law.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states opposed it with their own state laws, and the act has not been implemented, Boldin said.

"Basically a bunch of people all across the country are saying, 'No. We aren't going to go along with it,' and getting state government to back them," Boldin said. "They (federal government) didn't threaten to take away funding. They didn't send in armed guards. They just repeatedly delayed implementation. In fact, it (REAL ID) is null and void.

"The real success in these actions is 'we the people' saying we are in charge and the federal government is not going to force things down our throat."

Boldin said medical marijuana could also be a route that the states go in their battle against Obama's health care plan.

In California and Michigan, the state law is in conflict with the national law on marijuana. In both states, the federal government can prosecute for medicinal marijuana use even though the state allows it.

"You can have a situation where federal law prohibits something that states permit," Roosevelt said. "That means that the state won't arrest or prosecute you for it, but the federal government still might. State law can't protect you from federal law. But enforcement of marijuana laws is a low priority for the federal government, so effectively you might be safe — I think the Obama administration actually had a policy statement about how they weren't going to devote resources to this in California."

Boldin said that is why it is important for as many states as possible to join the other states if they want to make Obamacare realistically unenforceable.