At least 4 states seek to repeal ObamaCare

[rbell]

Good for them. At least 4 states in our union have a modicum of sense.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/3/voters-in-3-states-to-consider-opting-out-of-obama/

Unfortunately, some folks still don't get it:

There's just one problem, say opponents of the state ballot initiatives: The entire strategy is "an exercise in futility," in the words of Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat. Federal law trumps state law, meaning that the measures are certain to be overturned even if they win 100 percent of the vote.
"No state has the authority to selectively ignore federal laws of its choosing, no matter how much some people may dislike them, and any attempt to do so will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts," said Mr. Henry, who opposes State Question 756. The only practical outcome of the vote, he added, would be a "costly legal battle."

So states can't oppose something that is unconstitutional by nature?

What a monumentally ignorant point of view.

 

[Aaron]

"Federal law trumps state law" is a lie. The feds have no jurisdiction in this matter.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I doubt the states have a chance. Very tough for a state to overturn a federal law .... just about impossible. Is there a clause in the law that says states can opt out?

 

[rbell]

I doubt the states have a chance. Very tough for a state to overturn a federal law .... just about impossible. Is there a clause in the law that says states can opt out?

I don't know...maybe the 10th Amendment? Seems pretty solid ground to me...

Not to mention the lunacy of the federal government forcing you at the point of a gun to buy a certain product (not to mention the inherent corruption built in--as the government enacts policies designed to ensure that all but the government's version of said product fails; thus forcing us, at the point of a gun, to buy a certain consumer product from our own government).

 

[rbell]

"Federal law trumps state law" is a lie. The feds have no jurisdiction in this matter.

If you mean to say what is true...I agree. Of course you're correct.

If you mean to tell us what will be decided in court...I wish you were right, but I doubt you will be.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

States cannot unilaterally decide what is constitutional. That is the job of the SCOTUS.

 

[carpro]

States cannot unilaterally decide what is constitutional. That is the job of the SCOTUS.

That's the reason for all the challenges...

And that's where this issue will end up.

 

[Aaron]

States cannot unilaterally decide what is constitutional. That is the job of the SCOTUS.

Do you live on Venus, or something? The Constitution was ratified and can only be amended by the states. So they, and they alone, decide what is Constitutional and is not.

The job of the Supreme Court is to judge a statute by the Constitution as ratified by the States, not to reinterpret it, or make decrees.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There are two ways to amend the Constitution and both are difficult methods:

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

It takes years to get an amendment through the process. We can judge how difficult it is by how few amendments have made it through the process. It just isn't going to happen on heath care, IMHO.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Do you live on Venus, or something? The Constitution was ratified and can only be amended by the states. So they, and they alone, decide what is Constitutional and is not.

The job of the Supreme Court is to judge a statute by the Constitution as ratified by the States, not to reinterpret it, or make decrees.

Wrong as usual. They can ratify amending the Constitution, but cannot rule of the constitutionality of law under the founding document as it stands.

So how's the weather on Pluto?

 

[sag38]

I'm glad these states have filed law suits for indeed they will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices are more clear headed than the politicians who passed this mess. I knew we were trouble with Queen Nancy said that it needed to pass so that we could see what was in the bill. And now we are finding out about the 1099 requirement. Everyone know about that one? It's going to create a nightmare for businesses and for the IRS.

 

[carpro]

I'm glad these states have filed law suits for indeed they will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices are more clear headed than the politicians who passed this mess. I knew we were trouble with Queen Nancy said that it needed to pass so that we could see what was in the bill. And now we are finding out about the 1099 requirement. Everyone know about that one? It's going to create a nightmare for businesses and for the IRS.

There are many such:

http://biggovernment.com/egeorge/20...-promises-made-promises-not-kept/#more-177061

Healthcare Reform: Promises Made, Promises Not Kept
by Dr. Elaina George


The implementation of the healthcare reform bill that was passed in March has now begun. Unfortunately, it is becoming obvious that the promises made such as: a) you can keep your physician and medical plan if you like them; b) your healthcare costs will go down; c) there will be no healthcare rationing; and d) everyone will be covered simply were not true

 

[Don]

Just saw on Fox News that the 3M company is discontinuing retiree healthcare specifically because of the new healthcare law. They're now going to offer a lump sum payout to their retirees and let them shop around.

 

[rbell]

There are two ways to amend the Constitution and both are difficult methods:

It takes years to get an amendment through the process. We can judge how difficult it is by how few amendments have made it through the process. It just isn't going to happen on heath care, IMHO.

But...since the 10th Amendment has been ratified...and since this socialist trash heap posing as health care legislation walks all over the 10th Amendment...the constitutionality isn't really that hard of a question. A new amendment isn't needed.

It comes down to simply honoring the amendment that already exists.

I'm glad these states have filed law suits for indeed they will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices are more clear headed than the politicians who passed this mess. Now we are finding out about the 1099 requirement. Everyone know about that one? It's going to create a nightmare for businesses and for the IRS.

Spot on, except for the last sentence: The nightmare will be for businesses...the IRS will have a field day. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

 

[sag38]

How is the IRS going to keep up with the millions and millions of additional 1099's that will be sent to them? They won't be able to. But, it will be used as a selective tool to harass and prosecute selective business and individuals who fall within their cross hairs. God help those who do.

 

[rbell]

I knew we were trouble with Queen Nancy said that it needed to pass so that we could see what was in the bill.

I'm still shaking my head over that one. First, I can't believe that an elected official could possibly make such a stupid statement.

Secondly, anyone who would hear a person say that, and then vote for that person, lacks the most basic judgment skills one needs to function as an informed voter.

I would respectfully ask anyone who hears Pelosi's statement, and then votes for her--do us all a favor and volunteer to refrain from voting. Someone who is that uninformed and displays such a profound lack of sense shoudn't vote: by voluntarily refraining from voting, you lessen the chances of colossal mistakes in the voting booth that could wreck our country--legislatively, fiscally, judicially, morally.

I know that Pelosi's views are dangerous and anti-liberty--but I still can't believe she would say such a profoundly stupid thing. What on earth was she thinking? I can come up with only two scenarios:

1. She meant what she said---she honestly thinks that the best way to make new laws is to cobble together a 3,000 page document that you haven't read--and pass it; then, watch what happens, and you'll know what was in it by the results.
2. (More likely) She knew that there are enough stupid people in the country to simply take what she says, carte blanche, and never question it. In other words, "You people should trust me with every shred of your possessions, liberties, thoughts, and actions. I'll take them, and give you back what I think you need." In other words, this was nothing more than a naked, corrupt, centralized-government power grab...and Pelosi didn't even think enough of the general public to come up with a creative explanation, justification, or lie.

It amazes me that anyone would even try to defend one of the most outlandish statements I've ever heard from the world of politics.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I don't know...maybe the 10th Amendment? Seems pretty solid ground to me...

...if you haven't read the rest of the Constitution. Take the General Welfare Clause in Article 1, Section 8. The General Welfare Clause is part of the Taxing and Spending Clause. There was a debate among the Founding Fathers over this. James Madison argued that any spending under the General Welfare Clause must be related to an enumerated power. Alexander Hamilton opted for a broad view of the Clause. In Helvering v. Davis, which upheld the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court ruled that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress a plenary power to provide for the general welfare. Hamilton's view has prevailed.

The Tenth Amendment is nothing but a truism. It was really unneeded because even without it, Congress would only have the delegated powers in the Constitution.

 

[Aaron]

Wrong as usual. They can ratify amending the Constitution, but cannot rule of the constitutionality of law under the founding document as it stands.

So how's the weather on Pluto?

In typical Socialist fashion of one who depends upon judicial activism to force his agenda, you are attempting to say that the Supreme Court has carte blanche to simply decree an act that is clearly an overreach of congressional power as constitutional. They cannot.

The fact of the matter is, the states can and are exercising their constitutional recourse to check the totalitarianism of your party, a rogue SC not withstanding.

And, though crabby may find solace in the presumption that amendments are time consuming, where the population is polarized and so much hangs in the balance, if an amendment further limiting the power of congress were proposed right now, I'd venture it would be ratified before the year is out.

However, such an amendment would be superfluous. The contitution does not give the feds the authority to do what they're doing. It is a rogue congress, banking on a rogue judiciary, the ignorance and passivity of the population to submit, and the thuggery of the executive branch for enforcement. Checking that kind of abuse is never pretty.

 

[rbell]

...if you haven't read the rest of the Constitution. Take the General Welfare Clause in Article 1, Section 8. The General Welfare Clause is part of the Taxing and Spending Clause. There was a debate among the Founding Fathers over this. James Madison argued that any spending under the General Welfare Clause must be related to an enumerated power. Alexander Hamilton opted for a broad view of the Clause. In Helvering v. Davis, which upheld the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court ruled that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress a plenary power to provide for the general welfare. Hamilton's view has prevailed.

There is absolutely no way any of our founding fathers would recognize the "general welfare clause" as interpreted by socialists such as our new SC justice Kagan. They would cover her in laugh-spittle for even suggesting such a ridiculous thing. What passes for "general welfare" today is government intrusion on an unprecedented level. You mean that the threat of fines and jail can be used to force me to buy a specific consumer product? Riiiiight.

BTW...keep in mind that the Preamble (and yes, I can read, and did read it, several times) says promote the general welfare...not provide.

It's my job to provide for me and mine. Not the government's.

The Tenth Amendment is nothing but a truism. It was really unneeded because even without it, Congress would only have the delegated powers in the Constitution.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Do you seriously think that there would be part of the Bill of Rights put in for flippant reasons? Please. You can do better than that. At least be in the same area code as facts.

You want a truism?

"With government money comes government control."

There's one that should scare the democrat out of you.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In typical Socialist fashion of one who depends upon judicial activism to force his agenda, you are attempting to say that the Supreme Court has carte blanche to simply decree an act that is clearly an overreach of congressional power as constitutional. They cannot.

The fact of the matter is, the states can and are exercising their constitutional recourse to check the totalitarianism of your party, a rogue SC not withstanding.

A 10th grade civics class would have done you a world of good. SNIP