Mar 08 2010
The Revolt Over Obamacare Is Spreading
Liberals who think they can Rahm through government rationed Health Care are being sent a loud message from the states -Â who are lining up to legally block Obamacare:
The Virginia Legislature this week is poised to become the first state to pass legislation that says citizens cannot be required to have medical insurance.
Dozens of other states are considering similar measures, possibly setting the stage for one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era.
If states are allowed to opt out of the mandate, the foundation of Obama’s effort would be undermined, turning the nascent revolt here into one with national implications.
You have to keep asking ‘what’s the point of this obsessive madness?” Obamacare is not going to be accepted. There are numerous legal ways to throw up roadblocks even if it is passed by Hyper-Partisan, ruthless measures. All of it can and will be delayed until there is enough change in DC to roll it all back – probably to deafening cheers from the American people.
The madness driving the aging and deluded liberals in DC is just pathetic. They keep pretending that if they just get the votes it will all be set in stone. Â It won’t be, but the liberals will have erected the tomb stone for liberalism, that much is for sure. In fact, they may have already set that stone in place and dug the hole. They are simply waiting for the voters to fill it in – and then move on without any regrets.
There is no way to force change from DC. You can get people to agree to change, but you cannot wave your magic wand and tell people they must do what you say. The more you try the more people will stand up to take that silly wand out of your hands and smash it (probably over your thick head).
This Congress is done – it is the lamest of lame ducks. The Democrats are done, and Obama is done. Why continue to fight the majority of Americans? You can’t win. If Obama wants to, he could regain some support, but that would require him to bow down to us. I don’t think he has it in him (he only bows to foreigners).
About when Obama was elected, someone ran a cartoon of the Constitutional Convention (I think) showing some delegate pointing out, “Shouldn’t we have something in there to handle the electorate voting in a f***ing moron?”
Lately, I regaining hope that the common-sense of American voters really does render such a provision unnecessary.
We make make mistakes (sometimes HUGE ones) that come with a hefty cost. We don’t necessarily commit to them forever.
–
Oh, for an edit or preview function…
I know, AJ; with your science and engineering background you’d rather encourage people to
“Get it right the first time!!!”
🙂
AJ,
Mark Steyn has this one right. This is about power.
The point of the Obamacare bill is to destroy private health care so the public option is the only option.
Paul,
Actually I never knew readers couldn’t edit! Will see if we can fix that.
AJStrata
Well, in truth AJ, one can edit.
You can just instruct them to actually carefully read their comment, in full, before clicking on the “Submit Comment” button.
(Of course, this does nothing about the gremlins that insert typos after you have done so. I’ve yet to figure a way to placate them. 🙂
–
I do not get the same sense at all. Unfortunately, I think Obama is riding to success. I suspect the Senate bill is going to pass in the House. ( I hope I am wrong!!!)
House Dems that don’t like the bill are objecting to particular measures, they are not however, saying things like: “I will not vote for this because the American people have demonstrated that they do not want it” or “I will not vote for this because it will destroy what is good about our present system.” I would feel better about our chances if they were taking conservative limited – government stances.
Dems at odds will ultimately fall in line and vote one for the party. The calculation is that enough voters will change their minds about the legislation after its voted in. And this is likely to happen. Some of the less onerous measures will kick in immediately. By design, offering nice suff right away, the legislation will peel away some negative feelings.
The Left will be pleased, and the angst that the Centrist/Moderates have been feeling will dissipate. (Remember they voted for him and are subconciously itching to have their decision vindicated.)
Only those that are ideallogically opposed will remain standing, and aside of changing the House and perhaps the Senate in the fall, will be too few to repeal this monster.
The fight in the future will be between conservative states and the federal government, and that will make for interesting politics. Thank God for Texas!!!
The real plan is to pass this rippoff and destruction of healthcare and then legalize the 30 or 40 million illegals who will be new recipients of free healthcare and give them voting rights.
They will then be happily organized by the community organizer and be Dem Party voters for life demanding ever more “Freebees” from the Federal Gob’t and thus from those of us who are still employed!
Sounds like Lindsay Graham is working to help out on that front.
If it weren’t an election year John McCain would be assisting in the destruction of America also!
Time is running out though thus the mad dash to pass this quickly followed by Amnesty and an executive order granting voting rights if its’ not in the Amnasty Bill!
dhunter … they have only a few more months to get it done, and then they are out of a job.
Watch out for Democratic members of Congress who lose Primary elections this year. What they might do when they have nothing to lose is unpredictable.
[…] http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12968 […]
The only reason Texas hasn’t passed something like this is that the Texas Lege only meets in odd-numbered years, so they’re off this year.
It’s actually a really good idea, I wish the Congress would adopt it. When they’re not in session they’re not causing trouble.
Btw – I agree with AJ, this thing is falling apart. Just wait till Massa goes full-retard on Glenn Beck tomorrow.
Liberals attacking liberals – get your popcorn ready!!!
” The Virginia Legislature this week is poised to become the first state to pass legislation that says citizens cannot be required to have medical insurance.
Dozens of other states are considering similar measures, possibly setting the stage for one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era.
If states are allowed to opt out of the mandate, the foundation of Obama’s effort would be undermined, turning the nascent revolt here into one with national implications.”
Question…if the VA legislature pass this legislation, does it mean that its constituents are exempted from pay those taxes, fees, and penalties as spelled out in the ObamaCare bill?
I see that Jed Babbin wrote about the problems between WH and Rahm.
Hope Rahm stays to destroy Obama’s WH even more.
I hope WWS and AJ are both correct.
“Question…if the VA legislature pass this legislation, does it mean that its constituents are exempted from pay those taxes, fees, and penalties as spelled out in the ObamaCare bill?”
The last time a question like that came up was in 1861, and it resulted in some considerable unpleasantness.
Hot Air has this
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/08/dem-congressman-we-may-have-as-little-as-201-votes-for-obamacare/
Looks more and more like it will not pass the House.
Congressmen in red states are not even appearing with Obama.
I will be interested to see his reaction when he finally realizes its over.
I meant congressmen in red “districts” are not appearing with Obama.
oneal lane:
If it were that simple, the bill would be passed by now.
Dem congressman: We may have as little as 201 votes for ObamaCare
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/08/dem-congressman-we-may-have-as-little-as-201-votes-for-obamacare/
““Question…if the VA legislature pass this legislation, does it mean that its constituents are exempted from pay those taxes, fees, and penalties as spelled out in the ObamaCare bill?â€
The last time a question like that came up was in 1861, and it resulted in some considerable unpleasantness.””
HHHMMM….what’s the point in getting it passed at the state level?
Now I understand why we ain’t seeing “progress” from Austin this year.
With nine days left, the odds get better each day for both the House and Senate to get closer to getting the votes.
So I wouldn’t be surprised that they will get it enacted and signed as law by March 18th.
Every time I hear a congressman, that voted no last time, interviewed on tv I get a sinking feeling. It’s like
“well, it may be better to do something rather than nothing”
As in “destroy the economy of the USA” or nothing.
They don’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
I did a quick search and found this Wikipedia summary on similar issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
To my surprise, this area of legislation is far more active than I would have suspected, given the dearth of any local news or action here on the topic.
This debate on the Xth Amendment points to a typical problem in law. Some enterprising legislator or bureaucratic gets a rule implemented setting a boundary or prohibition. When the rule gets violated, someone gets upset. They start looking at the rules description of the consequences or punishment, what lawyers call the “remedy.” If you breach a contract, in most circumstances, the remedy is damages, as in the payment of cash. In rare circumstances, the remedy is a court order to do what the contract requires you to do, called “specific performance.”
The problem with the Xth Amendment and many of prohibitions and limitation in the Constitution is that there is no description of the remedies, that is the consequences for violating the law. That is why Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison spent long time describing the Supreme Court’s role in declaring misadventures by the Congress as unconstitutional and then ordered nothing be done for Marbury. The Constitution provided no remedy to get Marbury the job that he thought to which he was entitled by operation of the Constitution.
That lack of a stated remedy in the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is why the Warren Court decided to no admit evidence obtained without a warrant. The Warrant Court was inventing a remedy.
In most of these debates over what the Congress can and cannot do, we have had an ongoing problem that the only limit on Congress’s political motivation to give away the farm for its own political gains with a reckless disregard for the Constitution is a Marbury v. Madison intervention by the Supreme Court. As we saw with McCain-Feingold, that is a long and unreliable path: first the law was acceptable; then it was unconstitutional.
I don’t know that state legislatures under the Supremacy Clause are the greatest solution for this. To me, the problem is that the Senate no longer represents the states. The states get no say in federal policy.
The XVIIth Amendment (1913), repealing the direct election of Senators, lead to our current system. In that day the problem was that the states had unreliable means of electing Senators. The methods ranged all over the country. The winning pitch for the Amendment was that the system was broken and direct elections would fix it. No doubt the system was broken. I believe that the fix was worse than the problem. What would our system be like today if the XVIIth Amendment had followed in the pattern of the XIIth Amendment (1804) (fixing the method of electing presidents to prevent repeats of the 1800 election debacle). The XVIIth Amendment fixing how the states had to elect or appoint senators would have truly empowered federalism.
Instead, the populist, and if I understand correctly, the Progressives of that era won the debate.
Instead of following our Founders and looking at how to structure a system of checks and balances that cause the natural tensions to preserve the Constitution and adjust the equilibrium, we have a system that has fallen out of equilibrium. All politicians’ incentives are to knock it further out of equilibrium.
Imagine a debate that would focus on repealing the XVIIth Amendment, rather than a debate over entitlements. If the Wikipedia article is correct that more than half the states want legislation giving the states more power, what ability would we have to engage the debate now?
Forget entitlements. Forget immigration and its unequal effects on Texas or Arizona compared to Maine. Forget raising or lowering taxes.
Imagine the debate is focused on how overburdened the states are. How the states are being deprived of revenue to meet their citizens needs because the states are now beggars to the federal government. How the states have little choice in making their budgets because of federal mandated programs like Medicaid. Imagine what creativity could be unleashed if the states could increase their revenue because the federal government’s taxes were pushed downward. Raising federal taxes would harder, because the senators would have to go back to their constitutients at the statehouse to explain why money in Washington is better than money in the statehouse.
Imagine the citizenry’s ability to vote with their feet and leave taxing leviathans like New York and California for better tax climes.
Now the tax climate is so homogenized that it is hard to get relief.
I don’t think the state legislatures’ proposed solutions are very wise in the Constitutional framework. The focus is too temporary and does not address the real structural imbalance.