Ed Morrissey posts about the Wisconsin Attorney General asking for authorization to sue over ObamaCare today. The interesting part is the AG’s take on the legal process and why he thinks suits will be successful:
Based on my preliminary review of the Act, I have concluded that a sufficient legal basis exists to contest the individual mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty under the Act. It is not clear that Congress has an enumerated power under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution to impose this requirement on a citizen. Further, the tax imposed on a citizen for failure to carry such insurance may not comport with the requirement that any direct tax be apportioned among the states in accordance with Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
In addition, I am very concerned that the Act upsets the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states that was envisioned by the Founders. The federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers. For Congress to act, it must have power given to it by the U.S. Constitution. Any power not given to the federal government resides with the states under the Tenth Amendment, unless the exercise of state power is limited by a state constitution. What Congress has approved in the Act is a sweeping mandate that every citizen in the country purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The power asserted here is unprecedented and unique. The United States Supreme Court has not had a prior opportunity to evaluate an equivalent exercise of power by Congress under the Act. As the state attorney general, I have a unique obligation to ensure that the citizens of our state, through their elected representatives, retain the power to determine our own laws without encroachment from the federal government, except as authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Importantly, the Wisconsin Legislature has never enacted a law to require our citizens to carry health insurance or face a penalty.
As the state’s lawyer, I take very seriously my duty to protect our State’s sovereignty. Although several states have initiated legal action and there are likely to be more challenges to the Act made by other states and individual citizens, I believe that Wisconsin must act to protect its sovereign interests and the interests of the citizens of this State by bringing an action to contest the constitutionality of the Act. I therefore request authorization under section 165.25(1m) of the Wisconsin Statutes to bring such an action.
In addition there are the group of 13 Attorney Generals who have filed suit in Florida (PDF here)
Then we have Georgia where the AG there refused to file suit….but hold your horses:
Gov. Sonny Perdue is butting heads with the state’s top lawyer, threatening to “go it alone” and sue the federal government over a new federal health care law. And, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and other Republicans leaders are urging Perdue to file suit anyway.
Attorney General Thurbert Baker on Wednesday declined the Republican’s governor request to sue over the health care law, arguing the state doesn’t have a “a viable legal claim.”
“I cannot in good conscience file a lawsuit against the United States that I believe has little or no chance of success and will undoubtedly consume significant state resources in a time of severe budgetary crisis,” Baker wrote in a letter to the governor. Baker is seeking the Democratic nomination to succeed Perdue.
But Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley fired back that the state could “go it alone” with an outside counsel.
“His refusal to participate doesn’t preclude us from going forward,” Brantley told reporters.
Late Wednesday, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Senate Republicans urged Perdue to file a lawsuit, calling the federal health law “an unprecedented attack on our citizens’ liberty and our state’s sovereignty.”
Attorney General Jim Hood has decided that it is too early to file a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippi that would challenge the constitutionality of the new health care reform law.
In a news release sent to WTVA this afternoon, the attorney general said, “the matters are too complex, too time consuming, and too expensive to make an uninformed decision on potential constitutional issues that will more than likely be in litigation in various state and federal courts over the next several years.” He says, “careful consideration of all of these matters will allow the state of Mississippi to reach a wise decision as to whether we expend our scarce resources on a lawsuit.”
Governor Barbour has said that if the attorney general did not agree to file a suit by noon Thursday, then he would file one himself.
Here is the Virginia complaint also.
Being a resident of the Socialist State of Kalifornia I thought this was amusing….our AG, Jerry Brown, would consider bringing the suit:
California Attorney Jerry Brown said late Tuesday he’d consider challenging President Obama’s “universal coverage” health-care law at the behest of some of the state’s Republican leaders, but he didn’t sound enthusiastic about it (to say the least).
Ever the team player, Brown expressed his willingness to explore the state’s legal options in regard to the federal health care package. “I’ve instructed deputies in my office to carefully review these claims in light of applicable constitutional principles,” Brown stated.
Ain’t going to happen with the Democrat Ahnuld in power.
The Socialists have a fight on their hands either way….which is a good thing.
See author page
yes we need activist judges to control this legislation
You come up with a lot of dumb statements, john ryan, but the “need activist judges” tops them all. When you have a judicial branch that operates on politics, and not interpretation of the law… merely because *you* want it to be so… the final nail is in the coffin, and there is no longer any justice or oversight.
Jerry Brown must just about be done with his “investigation” of ACORN…
Like I said the other day, this is gonna be a civil war with paper not guns.
Remember when Obama singled out the Supreme Court judges during his state of the union when the bill initially failed.
I realize that a non-lawyer commenting on a legal issue is like asking Barney Frank how to pleasure a woman. Nevertheless, and depending on how the MSM covers it, I see two positive things coming from this.
First, I think it will centralize the whole debate by clarifying what Obamacare really is, and why it’s so terribly wrong: forcing consumers to purchase good/services from the private sector, by law.
Second, by questioning the constitutionality of this law it will give rise to a legal dispute over whether or not Obamacare is an unprecedented display of State power over its people, or simply the continuation of a post-New Deal model that has imposed forced-savings (SS), and forced-selling of assets (Gold Act), to name only a few.
I don’t think the MSM will be covering this one like they did the passing of the bill. And I don’t think anybody on the mainstream left or right is going to be talking about this one like they did the passing of the bill.
Everyone had fun debating whether or not Obamacare was good or bad policy. Liberals get to use words like “progress” and “change.” Conservatives got to use words like “socialism” and “apocalypse.”
But it’s much less fun to talk about a Democratic majority who votes to regulate a capitalist mode of production by legal force. Liberals are left to face up to their VERY long history of ignorance, and naivete. Conservatives are left….well, let’s face it, most conservatives will still call it socialism.
Keywords: left-wing capitalism. Very big f’ing government. anti-socialism. propaganda.
Nothing is going to happen in North Carolina because 8-term Democrat Bubba Owens is blocking any and all attempts at state sovereignty.
He needs to get gone.
You don’t need an activist judge. You need a Judge who understands what Aritcle II is and Article VI is and what role Congress should play in Article I as well as the President in Article II.
This Usurper (a/k/a Barrack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro) and his democratic congress coup de’tat is acting like King George I against the colonists before the beginning of the American Revolution, it is OUR TIME time to FIGHT to put the proper balance of the Constitution by our vote, our protest and by the Courts. If arms come to that effect, so be it. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. Tea Party Movement is the true movement – not hip hop movement. This is the movement like the Civil Rights Movement and American Revolution and the liberals know it.
Just b/c we fell down and let this marxist, socialist, and fascist who resembles FDR and Hitler to reign in, does not mean we can’t retake our country back again. When FDR died, the States passed a Constitutional Amendment to limit President’s terms to only 2. Nixon had to resign under pressure even though he was cocky as you know what after the Watergate Scandal happened. Well Hitler acted like a punk and committed suicide to end WWII. (Deserves him right).
The founding fathers said it best:
• John Quincy Adams, the Sixth President of the United States and one of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution, states “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association – will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”
• Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution, states “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
@Danny D, I thought you did very well giving Barney some “pleasuring” tips, so to speak. LOL
This is, in some way, like things coming to a head. There is a need for the SCOTUS to step in and draw a definitive line, or else Congress and this (or any ensuing) executive branch can run roughshod over a nation with legislation.
But, there is always two caveats to remember.
1: When you ask, you may not always get the answer you want to hear. Why?….
2: Because presentation is everything. An incomplete, or ill-thought out brief presented to the SCOTUS can do more damage than good. Because it creates a precedent upon which to run even wider in powers.
I’m really hoping they have some serious thinkers on the briefs. States rights and commerce on their own aren’t going to cut it, and can have some serious counters with precendents already on the book (Lopez, Morrison being the two biggest).
Then there’s the more wild and untamed area of opinions.. the unfunded mandate charge. That may prove to be a very large inroad, especially when combined with unequal application via all the states.
Bottom line is, we have to wait for the agreement to hear arguments. Naturally, Obama’s attorney’s will just file motions to dismiss and not address them. Once they agree to hear arguments, then the details of what, how, when and what precedents start emerging.
Like I said, I hope they don’t have a bunch of “billy bob’s” working on this….
The corrosive power of the bill will rot it in place with a little time. You think that the numbers for repeal and replace are high today, just wait a few months. I do think the federal mandates are un-Constitutional.
There is also the issue of driving the insurance companies out of the market with mandates. Along these lines …
The Power To Destroy Private Insurance Companies ?
Chief Justice John Marshall was at his axiomatic best in the Supreme Court opinion set forth in McCulloch v. Maryland. He propounded several interesting and profound axioms in that decision.
Axioms are, by nature, universal in extent and everywhere applicable, if they are true; a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….” … Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government.
So the question is, does government have the right to make business conditions so intrusive, so abusive, that the very business sector can be destroyed for the purpose of rendering the only way a service is to be provided the citizenry, is by the supply of government? Can the Obamacare mandate that insurance companies be made insolvent for the government’s pleasure to takeover and run the industry?
I think not.
@MataHarley,
You have no idea how much I agree with you, and not just in my fear that they are billy bob’s, but opportunists. One thing that gives me hope is that even if this is just an exercise in personal political ambitions, the AGs will go to great lengths to make sure there is transparency in the dispute, and not give up easily.
@bill-tb, I think you make a good point and I hope you’re right about the repeal and replace, and I like your question about insolvency and I have a lot of my own questions with regard to just what the clauses are. But I’m going to wait before I jump on board with this notion that the intent of this bill is to “to make business conditions so intrusive, so abusive, that the very business sector can be destroyed for the purpose of rendering the only way a service is to be provided the citizenry, is by the supply of government?” Will diversified corporations have a more difficult time handling tax burdens, or will their alternative streams of revenue offset losses? Will new insurance models and smaller risk-seeking and privately owned providers be encouraged to enter the market? And if so, will their product negate the necessity for public options by lowering prices via free-market dynamics? These are actually all possibilities; but if the bill had eliminated the likelihood from them happening in the fine print we will have a socialist takeover…..mark my words. And I would demand to know why the Repubs didn’t fight those issues.
Here is Montana’s AG standard response to the multitude of inquires and encouragement to join the fight on behalf of Montanans. Dem. Gov. Sweitzer has done a few good things, but I don’t see him stepping in on this one.
March 25, 2010
Thanks for expressing your concerns about the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation.
We have reviewed the legal arguments that are being used to challenge the legislation, and have concluded that it is highly unlikely it will be found unconstitutional. This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues. As a result, Montana will not be joining the lawsuit that several state Attorneys General have brought.
People can certainly disagree over whether the health care legislation is good policy. That does not mean, however, that the State of Montana should spend taxpayer money to file a lawsuit that we do not believe has legal merit. Like the Republican and Democratic Montana Attorneys General who served before me, I try hard to keep my personal political beliefs out of legal decisions.
My staff and I are busy and working hard to protect the interests of Montanans. The courts will have the opportunity to judge the merits of the challenges to the health care legislation without the involvement of Montana. If we are correct and the courts reject the challenges, we will have saved valuable Montana taxpayer resources. In the unlikely event that the Courts declare the legislation unconstitutional, their decision will apply to all Americans – including all Montanans – even though we weren’t a party to the lawsuit.
Sincerely,
STEVE BULLOCK
Attorney General
There are several reasons why this lawsuit will fail.
1) The easiest lawsuits to win are those that are very narrow in scope — like violation of a specific statute. From what I can tell, the con AGs are trying to invalidate several statutes and alterations to existing statutes relying on theories that have no precedents in Supreme Court jurispridence.
2) There is nothing inherently “local” about health insurance such that the feds cannot regulate it under the Commerce Clause powers. Just because the feds have not done it up to now does not mean that it cannot be done.
3) Under the Spending Clause, the feds can put pretty much whatever rules they want on the states when the states take federal money. Much of Obamacare consistes of directives to states.
4) The 10th Amendment is inapplicable due to 2 and 3. Unlike the Brady bill case where the feds put an unfunded mandate on the states, there is a Spending Clause link. Unlike the gun free schools case, there is also a Commerce Clause impact related to medical care, insurance, and uninsured medical care.
5) The states can eliminate the need for a mandate on individuals. The court will expect that they will have done that, or at least tried unsuccessfully, in order to prove that (a) there is an issue requiring judgment and (b) to mitigate damages. Which leads to . . . .
6) The question of standing to sue. Many of the statutes, like the mandates to buy insurance, do not go into effect until 2014. The judge will need to know who, exactly, has been harmed by a mandate that is four years in the future. Four years from now, the plaintiff, for all we know, might be dead, or the law might be entirely different, or they might hae a change of heart and have insurance, or they might be covered by a spouse’s policy (because the spouse does not want to take the chance that dumb-dumb might get sick without insurance). Courts do not take up interesting philosophical questions if there is no real live controversy. This would fall right under that catagory. One of the genius moves by the Dems, i.m.h.o., was to delay the effectiove date of parts of the statutory scheme. For this very reasons: there is no actual harm created by a mandate that is several years in the future.
7) There is a high presumption that statutes passed by Congress are constitutional. Courts do not likely entertain lawsuits that are efforts by one or two individuals to overturn the decisions of the duly elected Congress. Yes, the activist Rhenquist and Roberts courts are more inclined to substitute their judgment for that of the individuals we the people elected to govern us. But these lawsuits probably won’t even get that far.
8 ) I am not the least bit impressed by the lawyering on this so far. To start with, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an attorney to do research and imnvestigate his case thoroughly before filing a lawsuit. How can you investigate the impact of a statute, for example, that does not go into effect for four years? How do you file a well reasons lawsuit before the ink is dry on the statute? I am willing to bet that the attorneys who filed the lawsuits have no idea what is in the statutes. Why? Because they are not even completed yet and, further, the feds have not yet written the regulations interpreting and applying the statutes, which may alleviate some of the supposed “hard” from the buy insurance mandate.
What I am saying, cons , is don’t go betting your food stamp cards that these statutes will be overturned. And if any con lawyers tell you there is a “great chance” of succeeding, you will know they are a bald faced liar and not to be trusted. I put the odds at 1 in 9 that any piece of this statutory scheme gets permanently overturned by a court.
Patriots, many of you called, faxed, emailed our Governor Schweitzer and Attorney General Bullock’s office’s as to “Why” Montana has not joined with so many other states in opposing this Healthcare Mandate on individuals……
Well, some of you received the reply below. Very nicely crafted ( Democrats are good with words..) it almost makes him sound so hmmmm….”Fiscally Responsible?” Please don’t entertain that thought. Attorney General Bullock also voted down any Coal drilling recently that could bring big $$ to Montana, fortunately, Schweitzer did ( they do like to throw Some crumbs our way to avoid all out Constituent anarchy…) The REASON for this whole United of the States to send this lawsuit to Washington DC – was to send a very clear message that we are not going to “play dead and roll over”….yeah, we knew it was going to be OUR beliefs of what the Constitution is saying VS there Multi-lawyered up Version…but it was to make a “show” of States Rights…So don’t believe the triped up message below…just remember who the message bearer is and what he truly believes in…and it is NOT Montana or YOU. Be brave, bold and be vigilant folks….
Not a chance in hell, I hope I’m wrong mind you, that a judge strikes this down.
The SC messed up the Chrysler bankruptcy big-time last year, that told me all I needed to know about how rigged the game is.
🙄
Like I said the other day, this is gonna be a civil war with paper not guns.
Remember when Obama singled out the Supreme Court judges during his state of the union when the bill initially failed.
Paper? You really mean that? A “civil war” without guns? That statement is laughable.
No wonder modern day “conservatism” is morally bankrupt. The modern day “conservative” will do anything to avoid a fight.
But go ahead and keep writing your congressman or woman. It worked so well for us this past weekend!
Ivan
Your hints at violence has gotten old. You don’t even realize that it is those who think like you, are the ones the ProgDems are HOPING and PRAYING you do what you “think” you “need” to do. They are baiting you, and you swim at the worm anyway with your mouth wide open.
You are a fool, and your kind will be the death of us all.
Keep it up. I’ll fight your kind harder than I’ll fight the NeoFascist’s, and I will win.
STFU and use your brain.
Events will overtake the legislation. Have you noticed that even as the federal government takes longer and longer to get things done (even simple things like home weatherization) than they used to? At the same time the strain on the world financial system is becoming ever greater and events on that front are moving faster and faster. For example, the G-20 countries need to borrow about $5 trillion to finance their collective budget deficits this coming year. Worldwide savings is only about $2 trillion. The governments will have to print the other $3 trillion (or go broke… history says they print). That won’t end well, and among other things it will demolish the accumulated savings of the baby boom generation (as well as those older). And people in DC are not going to react in anything like an intelligent manner as these problems unfold. I expect to see a combination of economically illiterate proposals (like Obama’s latest suggestion to mandate reduced mortgage payments for the unemployed) combined with thinly veiled opportunistic looting (like the bailouts). Worry about feeding your family in 2012 before you worry about some cockamamie health care mandate for 2014. Half the health care system may be gray market by then anyway.
Ivan,
The other side, is definitely baiting us, that is why Pelosi and her screwballs came out amongst the Tea Party protesters with a great big Mallet – they were loaded with cameras and truly wanted some kind of “physical reaction” — it’s all a plot – don’t fall for it. We will change things around…don’t know the timetable but we will, and our kids and grandkids will remember that we did FIGHT – just not physically….We may be the generation or two that has to take the time to re-do it. We were all asleep for too long but they have awakened the sleeping giant.
Brob,
It’s not really about the “lawsuit” we know we have only a chance in hell …it’s the IDEA that states are joining together to do something! There is power in numbers, it will hold things up – which is great, and it will bring more awareness to what the MAJORITY of folks are protesting this heathcare “enforcement.”…
We were all asleep for too long but they have awakened the sleeping giant.
I wish you were right, but I’ve seen this play out before:
1.Republicans win back the House (just like 1994). Make great gains in the Senate.
2. Come January 2011 Republicans bluster and talk big about reducing the size of government (just like 1995).
3. Obama rolls the Republicans in the House like a wet blanket and chides them for being “obstructionists” (just like 1995).
4. Republicans discover “Bi-partisanship” and work with the Obama administration, further advancing Obama’s socialist agenda.
Just like the rest of the mid-90s.
Let’s face it, the Republicans are not a true opposition party. They had a great chance to prove it in 1995-2001 and all they did was pass Welfare Reform, which was recently overturned.
👿
@Ivan
And what end do your “plans” entail?
Death? Jail? having our message/cause buried under emotional and physical outbursts, thus losing everything by playing into their hands?
Grow up.
@Patvann,
First, I think we need to marshal our forces and engage in a NATIONAL STRIKE.
Perfectly legal. Nothing wrong with it.
And it beats the pants out of doing NOTHING, which is what “phoning your representative” has done for us in the past.
Look at how TARP was dealt with. Phone calls 300-1 against TARP. How did that turn out for us? Hmmm? And the vast majority of people who voted for TARP went back to D.C.!
Look at this past weekend. We overloaded the DC switch board! Did that stop them?
Nope. Didn’t slow them down a bit.
You offer NOTHING but failure.
I offer hope.
Your “national strike” is shortsighted and unsustainable. To have any impact, it would require more than a day or a week. It would require at least 3 months of EVERYONE (60%, of non-gov working-stiffs) going without pay, to make any sort of impact with the government.
Your fixation on this tack concerns me.
While I feel your angst, and would love nothing more than a chance to “show them”, we MUST be realistic.
There is and old Chinese saying:
“If you invite the tiger in to live with you, you can’t kick it out…one must entice it.”
It took 40 years to get here, is it OK with you if we try to reverse it in 10? We need your help.
I know the Republican party has never totally reversed a Democrat program….Lets work together to help them…(and make them!)
But we CAN NOT fall for the Demo-Fascist trap of becoming violent, or skipping the essential steps.
Patience, young one. Work within the system, and hold their feet to the fire. You will NEVER get all you want (or need) in one fell swoop. If you try, you will be discounted, and left for dead.
Now…regardless of my pontificating, it is wrong of you to insist that YOUR way is the ONLY way…flexability, patience, and adaptability is the key.
Your fixation on this tack concerns me.
And your inability to take your head out of your behind concerns me more! 😆
tell me, what is so “violent” about a day of National strike? Or did you overdose on the stupid pills today?
Your “pontification” is boring as you, as always, offer nothing **new** to your failed policy of putting pen to paper.
Actually, you meet the clinical definition of insanity. You keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Duh.
Well, pop was right, some people get it, and some people are just plain stupid (that would be you Pat).
@Patvann: I’ll explain Ivan’s shortsightedness: It’s easier for him to promote some pie in the sky idea than to deal with the everyday reality of the current political situation.
It’s just like the birthers (not that I accuse Ivan of being one, though I wouldn’t be surprised).
We can count out AZ. Our Dem AG refuses to sue. He plans to be the Dem nominee for Governor. He’s lucky he got elected AG, and–he’ll be lucky not to be fighting over this the rest of the year. No point in going through the hassle of petitioning for a recall election as that action wouldn’t be finished till November anyway. Sometimes our ways of changing laws and officials has really bad results, but for the most part I think if your state doesn’t have a recall/impeach procedure you should work on that immediately.
Well Ivan..
Thanks for the name-calling. Did Daddy teach you that too? How about you knock that crap off, as in the end, we are on the same side. Save your disparagement for the liberals.
The Dem’s could care less what we do. Strikes, phonecalls, letters, you name it.
But our actions got the attention of many who have stayed away from the process. Now that those people have awakened, we will vote the bastards out. Their actions have caused their polling numbers to fall through the basement. Pelosi is at 11% approval, Reid is at 6.
A one-day walkout?
We would be laughed at, and many would be fired.
Do you REALLY think they would have NOT signed the Bill had we not shown up for work for one day? The Mexicans did that here in CA, a couple years back and everyone else enjoyed the clear freeways. Funny thing…they didn’t change anything at all, and if-fact it backfired badly.
Inversely, do you think the vote would have been as close as it was without our efforts?
Thanks for the name-calling. Did Daddy teach you that too? How about you knock that crap off, as in the end, we are on the same side.
Good point! Let’s see, though, who started this pissing match, shall we?
From post #`16:
STFU and use your brain.
So you can dish it out little man, but you can’t take it?
How about you learn to respect people with different opinions before you go mouthing off? You want respect? Starting showing it.
Until then, lay off the Richard-Cranium pills.
Mike said:
@Patvann: I’ll explain Ivan’s shortsightedness: It’s easier for him to promote some pie in the sky idea than to deal with the everyday reality of the current political situation.
Ah, Mike the poster-boy for “inaction” chimes in!
So tell me Mr. Country Clubber, what real solution do you offer to turn this around?
We saw your granny-letter writing campaign was an unmitigated disaster, so what else do you have up your sleeve Rocky?
@Ivan: I worked on conservative campaigns and in close proximity to leaders like Reagan, Goldwater, Ashbrook, Buckely, Schlafly, Crane et al. since the 1980’s. I’ve advanced conservative ideals by working in government at every level from the Court House to the White House.
Calling me a “Country Clubber” is just further proof that you offer us nothing but insults.
I have yet to hear one good idea from you.
Meanwhile, my letter to the editor was published today. What have YOU done to get the message out?
You’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I have yet to hear one good idea from you.
Subjective. Your ideas have proven to be ineffective. Mine haven’t been tried.
Meanwhile, my letter to the editor was published today. What have YOU done to get the message out?
Yeah, I’ve had plenty of “letters to the editor” published in my local rag. Never made a dime’s worth of difference in any election from what I can tell.
So you got a letter published? You want an award for emulating some Granny/Shut-in? Go tell it on a mountain Mr. ineffective. 😆
You’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Given, that we’ve been “fighting the good fight” YOUR WAY, and have nothing but DEFEAT and RETREAT to show for it, I think the movement has had just about enough of the likes off “Granny Mike the shut-in” and his letter writing campaign.
But by all means, Mr. Name-dropper, go ahead and keep putting pen to paper and wake me when you’ve turned back the socialist tide. 🙄
@Ivan: I get letters published all the time. I’ve shared some of my bio with you but not all.
Perhaps I should inform you that I made it a point to personally confront the top GOP candidates for President in 2008 and press them directly on how they intend to implement a conservative agenda.
I donate to candidates I like, I worked on campaigns, I blog ceaselessly. I’m the paid veteran of a number of statewide campaigns.
Remind me again what you have done?
I’ve got no more time for your insults and cheap shots. You haven’t said one thing that alters my earlier conclusion:
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION!
@More billy bob gems of “wisdom”:
Interesting concept, considering your condemnation is based on shell complaints, sans expanded arguments if the courts agree to hear them. However the complaints I’ve read are not narrow in scope, and address not only states rights, the feds constitutional ability to demand that citizens purchase a product or goods, but also unfunded mandates. Hardly “narrow in scope”.
Again you profess to be able to prematurely write, or rewrite, SCOTUS decisions from your Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole world. Forgive me if I leave that decision to the higher or High Court, and not to you.
Well now, that may depend upon just how much their mandates cost vs how much the states receive in federal funds. Thus the unfunded mandate complaint. Again, you are not even a single appointee to SCOTUS. You are playing way outside your pay grade.
Again you presuppose opinions. Granted that in the late 30s and early 40s, several precedents expanded the Congressional authority of the Commerce Clause to a point that I philosophically
agree– meant DISagree – is in harmony with the founders intent. But we do live with the repercussions of the High Court… whether right or wrong. And while I may disagree with the court on many occasions, I do admit that get most of it right, and are a serious a’political deliberative body.But to assume that Lopez is pat, or cut and dried in any way is in error. As Rehnquist noted in his opinion:
And in fact, the government argued the “cost of crimes” and it’s economic repercussions for it’s Commerce Clause defense in Lopez. May I remind you that government lost that argument? Rehnquist addressed this ill-thought out power grab by saying:
Thus I do not share your convictions that the Commerce Clause is cut and dried, most especially using Lopez.
No… state law does not usurp the federal mandate that all individuals obtain qualified health insurance. There are various opt out options, but not out of individual mandates, but the way they are able to obtain that qualified health plan.
First of all, you do not take into consideration included in their complaint is an unfunded mandate. Secondly, a state is harmed by business tax revenues being reduced by the legislation even days after enactment… MA by potentially losing their medical devices employers who are looking at leave the country. Caterpillar, who’s costs will immediately be affected by $100 mil this quarter along, and what layoffs and/or downsizing will affect their state revenues. The same with the Vermont and Colorado ski resorts.
Again, it all depends on how the argument is framed. And you are making snap decisions based on no factual input.
Pretty “presumptive” of you to again make that call. Again, you have no idea of the specific brief arguments as only a complaint has been filed. Which brings me to your next gem….
FRPC notice pleadings merely need to be determined as actionable. You, of all people, should know this. If you had read the specific complaint(s), you’d know the amount of minimal research provided (of which these have been worked in in preparation since the end of Dec, because I posted on them back then….).
Secondly, you suppose that the attorneys, in this case most of them AGs, have not read HR 3590, which has been available for reading for months now, and prior to the Senate’s passage. Assigning your own bad habits to others here, are we, billy bob? They’ve been well aware of the enacted statute, and it’s effect on their state and economies.
What I haven’t seen incorporated is a challenge to the legislations control over premiums offered by private insurers, and the fact that the secretary retains authority to decide if a premium is “fair”. This, however, may have to emerge after parties with standing… i.e. the private insurers themselves… are affected directly. Or, as you say, when the effects of the legislation go into effect.
Other than that, I wouldn’t bet that any motion for summary judgment by Obama’s attorneys is automatically granted. As with most judicial actions, unless the arguments against the complaint is abundantly clear and inarguable, the courts will lean to the side of the plaintiffs in their right for recourse. Just as they should.
On your last… and, as usual… “you cons” addition (you really are a one trick monkey, ya know), I haven’t heard any legal types lend certainty on the challenges outcome either way. Only you seem to presume the ability to predict, with certainty, the courts. And this you do at the complaint only stage. A complaint that you deem as “narrow” in scope. That, in itself, says you are commenting on documents you haven’t read, nor feel it necessary to do so.
I will say that if Obama puts together a team of lawyers of your misplaced confidence and lackadaisical attitude, I’d be betting the challenge being decided in the states’ favor.
Stand4freedom:
Montana has been poorly governed lately, poorly represented in DC and I did not vote for either the current Governor or Mad Max Baucus. I am Montana born and bred and a rancher when I am not a Soldier. Montana has a wealth of resources in the Land, it’s Citizens and it’s potential for growth economically but chronically votes stupid and selects the worst for leadership in both the Statehouse and in DC.
Challenging the Fed .Gov over States Rights and Sovereignty is unfortunately not within the measure of the Governor, our Senators and our House Members courage, sense of patriotism or mindset. They are political hacks of the third rate variety and have more ambitions than common sense and have served Montana poorly as a result of that.
You and I share the same beliefs, the same sense of disgust at the Federal Government overstepping Constitutional Authority and the utter dismay and bitterly felt disappointment of watching our Governor, Atty General and elected representatives fall short of their duties. they are varmints of the political variety and not Patriots, political Whores and not Statesmen.
We will get it sorted out upon my return but for now it is just damned pitiful.
The democrats are “acting” surprised that so many people are protesting the Healthcare decision. What did they expect? Did they expect people to sit back and continue to take all their lies and false promises???We got Change for sure. Guess the democratics’ cry for change didn’t state it would be good or bad for the country. I hope the lawsuits filed by the states will work. Passing the socialistic Healthcare plan without the consent of the majority is uncontituitional to say the least. Thank God people don’t accept everything that is thrown their way especially those things that aren’t right .
@mike: I donate to candidates I like, I worked on campaigns, I blog ceaselessly. I’m the paid veteran of a number of statewide campaigns.
Wow, you really are a legend in your own mind! I’m impressed at how highly you rate yourself!
Given all the effort you have done at being a tough-campaign Granny, no wonder the “conservative” movement is dead-in-the-water. 🙄
In case, Mike, you haven’t been paying attention these past few years, the Republican ticket in four of the past five campaigns has LOST the popular vote.
The demographics are and have shifted permanently against the Republicans as all they have to embrace is Free Trade, an unmitigated disaster if there ever was one, internationalism, open borders and the leadership is owned by the banks and Wall Street.
The Republicans will continue to lose in the Presidential elections until they get rid of the faux-conservatives and put in populists who actually care about the American worker, not padding the pocket of some rich-fat cat who wants to move American jobs to Mexico or China.
The 2004 election was an anomaly, it was a war-time election. The only elections Republicans can now win are the off-year elections where no one is paying attention.
I want to change that. I want a more grass-roots, activist party. You, with your Granny/Shut-in tactics are the “status quo” who lose election after election after election.
Guys like you and your “in the box” thinking are the past. 😈
@Ivan: You have yet to tell me ONE THING you have done to win even one election.
In short, you are a waste of time and space and no longer deserve any more of mine.
Grow up.
Sharon krumland, you are seeing one of the biggest liberal traits-denial. Many actually believed this would bring heaven on earth. Now they really don’t care about helping the average Joe, but that is what they tell themselves. It is all about their egos. By helping us poor peasants they affirm their belief that they are morally superior to the masses and are exalted and elevated individuals. Liberals are narcissists. It is almost always about them and their psychotic need to feel good about themselves. They rarely do anything for anyone but themselves. Still, they are convinced they do what they do for the masses.
This is why when you try to point out the harmful effects of their actions they either go ballistic or go into full denial mode, or both. By questioning them you are questioning their intelligence, their insight, motives, and morality. If they are not the hero, then then they are the villain and they are NOT capable of accepting such facts.
Here is an example. I saw a bumper sticker that asked , “Who would God bomb?” Such shallow and simplistic thinking is typical of the left. It makes them feel morally superior without any understanding of the Bible or any deep thought. Even a biblical ignorant like myself understands that God recognized evil and dealt with it accordingly. Floods/ Fire and brimstone? God didn’t need to bomb anyone. God has his own way of dealing with evil. Yet this ignoramous went about their business smug in their self perceived superiority. What I found amusing is that they also advertised their business on the vehicle. That may work with like minded or uninvolved individuals, but drives away those with a different opinion. So they would rather drive away buiness than be tolerant. What does that tell you about such people?
@Mike said: You have yet to tell me ONE THING you have done to win even one election.
In short, you are a waste of time and space and no longer deserve any more of mine.
Grow up.
Let’s see, I worked Reagan’s campaign in 1980 (I think you were just a little snot at the time) and in 1984…Bush the Elder in 1988, Buchanan in 1992….blah, blah, blah.
I did all you did. Phone calls, banking, canvassing, registration drives, etc. Been there, done that. 😥
The difference is that I grew up and realized that before we can take our nation back we need a Political Party which represents Americans over the internationalists-you know your good friends? 😈
You can’t refute my hypothesis. Republicans don’t win the popular vote in Presidential elections. They run horrifically boring candidates like Bush I, Bush II, Robert Dole and his in-the-closet Veep candidate Kemp and that old crank-case McCain. These men, while superior to what the scum of the Democratic party has to offer, are more identified as being pawns of the establishment and the bankers and Wall Street traitors.
2012 will be another unmitigated DISASTER for the Republican Party. Why? Who wants to vote for the Republicans? You have to have a reason other than “Well, we’re not Obama.”
That dog don’t hunt in America any more.
To excite conservative voters you need to run populists, not pawns of the establishment.
Right now, that is all the Republican Party has going for it: we’re not Obama.
And that won’t win in 2012.
@Ivan: No, I was not a “little snot” at the time Reagan won in 1980.
In fact, I was at the convention in Detroit that nominated him. I was also organizing on the statewide level in Ohio to pin down the electoral votes of that key state in 1980. Which state were YOU working in?
I’m thrilled to hear that you actually DID do some work on behalf of candidates in the past.
But that just makes me all the more chagrined that you seem to have dumped all the tried and true methods of electioneering, which were key to electing Reagan in the first place, and now seem focused solely on the moronic idea of a national strike.
Your attack on the GOP would destroy the only home conservatives have in electoral politics and condemn us all to servitude in the socialist state that Obama and the Dems would build on the ruins of the former two party system.
As I have said before, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
P.S. Buchanan? I should have guessed. Thank you for subjecting us all to 8 years of Bill Clinton.
Patvann: thanks so much for telling Ivan to STFU. He’s been annoying the crap out of me for quite some time, constantly trying to stir it up in a way that true patriots find abhorrent.
@Ivan:
So then, are you saying you regret:
?
@Ivan #31:
If you’ve already iterated those ideas, I haven’t paid attention and missed it; other than your seeming advocacy for going third party. Mind letting us know what your winning strategy is for pushing the country back in a conservative direction?
But that just makes me all the more chagrined that you seem to have dumped all the tried and true methods of electioneering, which were key to electing Reagan in the first place, and now seem focused solely on the moronic idea of a national strike.
No, they don’t work ANY MORE. They used to work, but they don’t any more. The Republican Party is now a permanent MINORITY party. Why? Because of people as off-putting as yourself. I realize guys like you are now the hard-core of the party. You see nothing wrong with all our jobs leaving for China and Mexico. You don’t care one bit that the entire world treats the US like a third-world dumping ground for all their problems (Mexico).
That is why the only reason the Republicans are doomed in 2012. They don’t represent the average American and his concerns. You guys could care less about our inner-cities being turned into trash. You could care less that L.A. resembles Tia Juana more than the US.
All you care about is adding a few more cents to your dividend check.
Your attack on the GOP would destroy the only home conservatives have in electoral politics and condemn us all to servitude in the socialist state that Obama and the Dems would build on the ruins of the former two party system.
Sorry, to paraphrase Mr. Reagan, I didn’t leave the Republican Party, it left me.
And when one votes for the lesser of two evils they are still voting for evil.
Look, I don’t want to destroy the Republican Party, I want to change it so it doesn’t pander to the narrow business interests above what is best for the nation.
You on the other hand are perfectly content to fight for the status quo. That’s your prerogative.
I on the other hand represent change. You offer nothing new.
@Wordsmith. If you’ve already iterated those ideas, I haven’t paid attention and missed it; other than your seeming advocacy for going third party. Mind letting us know what your winning strategy is for pushing the country back in a conservative direction?
Hello Mr. Smith. No, I don’t want to go third-party, unless given no option. I don’t want to destroy the Republican Party, I want to change it.
Right now the party is dying. Since 1992 we’ve had five presidential elections. The Republican Party has only won ONE of them in the popular vote, the 2004 contest. And that election was an anomaly given it was an election set in the middle of a war.
First we need to dump the dead wood in the party that represents the past: Gingrich, Romney, Bill Bennett, McCain, Bush etc. We need new and vibrant blood that isn’t beholden to the Banks and Wall Street. We need a populist. Someone who’ll tell BOA, Citi, GS and the rest to go phuck themselves when they come hat-in-hand. Currently none of our leaders has the gonads to do that.
We need to renounce the free-trade which has shipped millions of our jobs over to Asia and Mexico. We were told we’d have an economic utopia back in 1991-92 and it hasn’t panned out like they said it would. Time for a change as Clinton said.
We need to reform the Republican Party into a true opposition party. Right now, I see them as more of the same of the Dems, just to a lesser degree.
We also need elect leaders who just don’t pay lip-service to the base! Look at our horribly flawed immigration policy. George Bush was a DISASTER when it came to immigration! And many in the base punished the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 by not bothering to get out and vote or donate money due to this one failing alone.
In 2006 our conservative base was STRONGLY in support of ending illegal immigration. Every poll said so. And Bush and his Republican allies in the Congress took a mulligan on that issue.
And we paid a price for it.
Have a good night Mr. Wordsmith.
Must be a full moon tonight…