GOP: Golly, we’re raising a lot of money after ObamaCare ruling

posted at 12:41 pm on July 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Golly isn’t exactly the word in the quote that BuzzFeed uses to describe the volume of Republican fundraising in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare.  Instead, GOP consultant Wesley Donohue summons up a colorful metaphor that’s obviously a euphemism foranother colorful metaphor:

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ObamaCare Thursday offered an immediate financial boost to Republican candidates at all levels, GOP operatives and fundraisers told BuzzFeed.

While both the Romney and Obama campaign boasted that the decision had juiced their small contributions, the spillover to candidates for the Senate and House appears, by the early anecdotal evidence, to have been more pronounced for Republicans. Many Democrats, after all, continue to avoid talking about the unpopular legislation, while Republican candidates have now sharpened their mission: To repeal ObamaCare.

South Carolina-based Republican consultant Wesley Donehue said it was the best week of fundraising for his clients since Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie,” at President Barack Obama in 2009.

“We raised a crap ton of cash for clients at all levels of government, from State Senate to U.S. Senate,” he said.

The Senate races are a key to the issue of overturning ObamaCare.  Republicans don’t need 60 votes to get rid of most of the bill — and they didn’t before the Supreme Court decision, either.  What passed into law with reconciliation can get repealed through the same process.  The court’s ruling does, however, make it a lot more politically viable to use reconciliation and repeal with only 51 votes.  The GOP needs to actually win enough seats to get to 51, a prospect that dimmed slightly when Olympia Snowe unexpectedly announced her retirement.

This fundraising boost, especially down-ticket, shows that the Tea Party activists have begun to re-engage.  Many of them expressed disappointment over the nomination of Mitt Romney, and one of the great questions of this cycle was whether they would engage at all.  Had the court overturned ObamaCare, the issue that galvanized the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010, they might have felt comfortable sitting out the 2012 election, at least in terms of fundraising and organization.  That’s no longer the case.  The only path to repeal now is by winning the Senate and the White House, and they appear to have realized it.

On the other side, the Washington Post notices a strange whiff of desperation after the administration’s big legal win on Thursday:

Leaked details of a plaintive phone call from President Obama to some of his biggest donors this weekend offered a rare and revealing look into the typically private rituals of big-dollar campaign fundraising.

The pitch also affirmed the campaign’s anxiety about lagging behind in the money race.

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again, and even the White House can’t help but notice it.  I’m sure a few colorful metaphors are being put to use in the offices of Team Obama these days, too, but probably in a much different context.

On the subject of “colorful metaphors,” there is only one reference this Trek fan can make.  Since this contains metaphors even more colorful than above, observe the PG-13 content warning, please:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again

“What 2010 election?” – state run media

Lost in Jersey on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

we can do this.

rob verdi on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Must be Bush’s fault! – Low info voter

Hey, Obama inherited this mess of an economy, so start “paying your fair share” if you don’t have health insurance. Logic!

1984 in real life on July 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I think it is down-ticket races that are going to shock the Democrats this fall. The extent to which they lose seats in states, counties, and municipalities across this country is, I believe, going to be absolutely stunning.

It isn’t just insurance mandates that have people upset. Tax increases, Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development nonsense, general fiscal irresponsibility, etc. all have people upset even at the city council levels.

Sure, places like California will be immune from the nonsense for at least one more election cycle, but I believe we are going to see deep and epic Democrat losses at the state and local level across America this fall.

We need to rip these people out of government all the way down to the office of district dog catcher.

Even in non-partisan races, look up the political donation histories of these people.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM

we can do this.

rob verdi on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Yep. I’m willing to wear out my shoe leather if that’s what it takes.

gophergirl on July 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM

….g o o o o l l l l l y!…I wonder why?

KOOLAID2 on July 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM

THIS is the make/break month for Obama. The second quarter economic numbers are going to come out this month if they are bad, it could well be over for Obama. The reason is that even if the numbers in October are good, it’s too little too late. One quarter doesn’t make a trend, and people will not trust the administration not to have doctored the numbers.

If the Q2 numbers are bad, Obama is toast.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I know I gave another $120 to my GOP Congressman, after he sent a robocall and two emails strongly condemning the SCOTUS ruling and demanding a full repeal of the law. Pelosi was recently in Philadelphia for a stealth fundraiser for his opponent.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

People, start focusing on your state and local races. If you aren’t working, start getting active in your local city council and planning commission meetings. Don’t go in there ranting and raving, but if you get a chance to speak, focus on what our priorities should be. FOCUS!

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/07/02/manufacturing-activity-contracts-stocks-tumble/?mod=yahoo_hs

“The ISM manufacturing index for June came in at 49.7, lower than expected and signaling manufacturing activity has fallen back into contraction territory.”

bayview on July 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

THIS is the make/break month for Obama. The second quarter economic numbers are going to come out this month if they are bad, it could well be over for Obama. The reason is that even if the numbers in October are good, it’s too little too late. One quarter doesn’t make a trend, and people will not trust the administration not to have doctored the numbers.

If the Q2 numbers are bad, Obama is toast.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Manufacturing is reported down today for the first time in 3 years. It could pick up some by the fall, but not enough to add any significant number of jobs.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

…eagerly awaiting this friday job report.

rubberneck on July 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I dumped another $50 into the Romney hat. But my local politicians are safe, even my local Congressman Mike Honda who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. There was a time that such a membership would have him turned out of office before the communists took over the Democratic Party.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Chevy Volt: 149 bph and 273 crap tons of torque.

forest on July 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM

On the subject of “colorful metaphors,” there is only one reference this Trek fan can make. Since this contains metaphors even more colorful than above, observe the PG-13 content warning, please:

Ha! That is exactly what I thought of when I saw the phrase ‘colorful metaphors’. Love that movie.

changer1701 on July 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

“What 2010 election?” – state run media

Lost in Jersey on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

+1

cmsinaz on July 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Romney has outraised Obama in the Philly suburbs, a huge reversal from 2008. I think Obamacare is a big reason for this. These suburbs are home to thousands of people who work in insurance, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals and they do not want this law to put them out of busienss and out of work.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Speaking of colorful metaphors, I’m surprised the DNC tweeting “Constitutional b**ches!” after the SCOTUS ruling didn’t result in a tsumami of cash flowing into the hopey changey coffers.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Do tell… have a link?

Chuck Schick on July 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Manufacturing is reported down today for the first time in 3 years. It could pick up some by the fall, but not enough to add any significant number of jobs.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

AH! Another accomplishment Obama can boast about! Is it small wonder the jug-eared Kenyan refuses to answer questions from the press these days? He’s too thin skinned and too much of a failure to answer the questions they would ask.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Please all here from TX don’t forget we vote for senator in dear kay’s seat July 31, early July 23-27! Please consider Ted Cruz! He would be great in dc, IMO.
Thanks.
L

letget on July 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Crap ton of liberal tears in November.

Mmmmmm. . . yummy.

RedNewEnglander on July 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Manufacturing is reported down today for the first time in 3 years. It could pick up some by the fall, but not enough to add any significant number of jobs.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Expect a number of really bad job reports until end of August. The numbers will be fudged to create an artificial impression of skyrocketing market right before the election.

Archivarix on July 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

letget on July 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM

At this point which Republican is probably not as important in the overall scheme of things than just getting the boobs with D after their names the hell out of government, AT ALL LEVELS. Don’t just concentrate on federal politics. Who are the candidates for your county commissioner, school board, planning commissions, courts, etc.

ALSO (and this is REALLY IMPORTANT) the person running for Secretary of State in your state. That is the person who controls the elections and the “Progressives” have been making a major push to get their people into that office in every state of the union even if they don’t get the leadership positions. Google “Secretary of State Project”. They have a facebook page, too.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I was reading that Obutthead’s campaign was refusing to release his fundraising numbers in the wake of the SC ruling–must be down, down, downer.

stukinIL4now on July 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM

The Senate races are a key to the issue of overturning ObamaCare. Republicans don’t need 60 votes to get rid of most of the bill — and they didn’t before the Supreme Court decision, either. What passed into law with reconciliation can get repealed through the same process. The court’s ruling does, however, make it a lot more politically viable to use reconciliation and repeal with only 51 votes. The GOP needs to actually win enough seats to get to 51, a prospect that dimmed slightly when Olympia Snowe unexpectedly…

Several pundits have said only the funding portion of the bill can be repealed under reconciliation, which is fallacy. The whole thing should be thrown out. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see a gutless republican majority go with this line of thinking.

Red Creek on July 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Drove my Chevy to the levy….

Tim_CA on July 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Yep gave $200 to Mitt and $200 to my Rep Congressman who is on record as saying repeal of Obamacare is the key issue for him. We must win this one now as VP Joe says “This is a BFD”.

Natebo on July 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM

As you may recall, the destruction of the tea at the Boston Tea Party was an act of violent protest against both the British Crown as well as to the East India Company, which held the monopoly on all the tea that the colonists were forced to buy.

There was no ‘free market’ in tea. The colonists were compelled to buy only the tea supplied by the Crown and its aristo-owned subsidiary, the East India Company. Thus, both the Crown and the Company profited from the monopoly.

Additionally, due to the Currency Acts of 1751, 1764, and 1773, colonial scrip was no longer used as a mechanism of payment for the tax and the tea, thus squeezing the money supply of British Pounds, gold and silver, and Spanish Dollars.

To quote Ben Franklin:

All debts public and private could only be paid with “proper” English money, but the issuance of it into circulation in the colonies was stringently controlled by the Bank of England. Benjamin Franklin described the result:
“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to the extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”
Source: The Silver Bomb, [McDonald & Whitestone]

The result of all this pre-Revolution taxation abuse was the inculcation into our Constitution the notion of limited taxation powers granted to Congress, in three forms only:

1. A direct tax, which must be apportioned,
2. An indirect tax [such as an excise or 'event-oriented' tax] which is voluntary, like a sales tax.
and
3. by the 16th Amendment, an Income Tax.

By judicial fiat, the Roberts Court has created and conferred an extra-Constitutional unlimited taxation power upon the Congress.

This new power is exactly like the taxing power of old; the power of applying a mandatory, non-apportioned direct tax upon all citizens, based upon an indirect-tax construct, that enriches a set of private, government-sanctioned monopolies as well as the government itself, and sets up a bureaucracy that can freely grant exceptions and immunities to politically connected favorites.

The lawless injustice of the Roberts decision and its future destructive consequences are immeasurable.

Beyond the scope of the Affordable Care Act [ACA], is now the standing taxing authority granted to Congress to duplicate this taxing methodology to any part of human behavior that can be imagined.

The ballot box is now considered the mechanism that can be best used to reverse an out-of-control and lawless government bent upon trashing the Constitution.

But even with Conservative and principled office holders, a stretch for all, the Roberts decision would still stand, and our Republic would remain damaged and altered.

A Constitutional Amendment to correct this offense would be inadequate, since the Roberts Court has thrown the Rule of Law into the gutter. There was no– and is no– authority for Roberts to do what he did, yet he did it; and it is now considered “law”.

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Speaking of colorful metaphors, I’m surprised the DNC tweeting “Constitutional b**ches!” after the SCOTUS ruling didn’t result in a tsumami of cash flowing into the hopey changey coffers.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM

That right there was funny. Except they probably already have the tee shirt.

bluealice on July 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The “Law of Unintended Consequences“…?

Seven Percent Solution on July 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Must not the 800,000 youthful illegals deemed “job seekers” be added to the unemployment rate thus guaranteeing an increase in that number when released?

hillsoftx on July 2, 2012 at 1:15 PM

stukinIL4now on July 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I SURE hope so! bho said he would not give the d’s running any of HIS money for their election/re-election. Hateful, nasty, selfish little worm isn’t bho?
L

letget on July 2, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Romney has outraised Obama in the Philly suburbs, a huge reversal from 2008. I think Obamacare is a big reason for this. These suburbs are home to thousands of people who work in insurance, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals and they do not want this law to put them out of busienss and out of work.

rockmom on July 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM |

Can you elaborate more on this? Are we talking Bucks County? Montgomery County? Delaware County? All fo the above?

Do you have a link to the above information? This is HUGE if its true! Bucks County is pretty much the bellweather county to determining who wins PA. A Republican can win PA without Montgomery and Delaware Counties. If what you say is true, Romney will definitely have a shot at winning PA.

Firecracker729 on July 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The Voyage Home was great.

“We raised a crap ton of cash for clients at all levels of government, from State Senate to U.S. Senate,” he said.

….and that’s all most of the gop “leaders” care about.

We must almost defeat the gop “leadership” like we have to defeat Obama and his party cultists.

*NOBAMA 2012!!!
Say Goodbye to the Communists!!

*we’ll clean the gop mess up along the way.

PappyD61 on July 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Serious question. Obamacare is clearly not popular with the public. It isn’t big pharma that is throwing money at the GOP. The messaging about this not being a tax but, rather a penalty for not paying the tax (which is purchasing health insurance) is not selling well. At what point to Dem strategists become concerned about Obamacare on the fortunes of the vile creatures with D behind their name?

My prediction, the DNC convention will soon be small enough they can fit the proceedings into the “Queen City” ballroom at the airport Holiday Inn.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I think it is down-ticket races that are going to shock the Democrats this fall. The extent to which they lose seats in states, counties, and municipalities across this country is, I believe, going to be absolutely stunning.

It isn’t just insurance mandates that have people upset. Tax increases, Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development nonsense, general fiscal irresponsibility, etc. all have people upset even at the city council levels.

Sure, places like California will be immune from the nonsense for at least one more election cycle, but I believe we are going to see deep and epic Democrat losses at the state and local level across America this fall.

We need to rip these people out of government all the way down to the office of district dog catcher.

Even in non-partisan races, look up the political donation histories of these people.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM

From your post to God’s ears….

….well the real one not Obama.

PappyD61 on July 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Why would anyone assume Olympia Snowe would vote for repeal? She voted it out of committee; she could have prevented this entire debacle in the first place.

No wonder she’s retiring.

BKeyser on July 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Tea Party candidates gained so much ground in the House and Senate that they forced Boehner and McConnell out of their offices?

THAT would be freaking sweet.

PappyD61 on July 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Speaking of colorful metaphors, I’m surprised the DNC tweeting “Constitutional b**ches!” after the SCOTUS ruling didn’t result in a tsumami of cash flowing into the hopey changey coffers.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM

That’s probably because the majority of people impressed with that tweet are broke college kids still looking for summer work.

BKeyser on July 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again

This is why the Roberts ruling was brilliant. I said the same thing last week. Obama is a dead man walking.

John the Libertarian on July 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Zoinks! And I haven’t even sent in my donation yet Scoob.

kirkill on July 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Of course politicians are raking in more money. It’s all part of the scam. The media hypes the issues and the politicians keep score by the amount of money and power they can fleece from the citizens. A loss (like the Obamacare ruling) is a political win for one team and a monetary win for the other. Occasionally they flip the script but the cycle just keeps grinding on through pages of American history. Everyone stop hyperventilating like your opinion matters.

Mmm...Burritos on July 2, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Take heart, for now they can tax us for being unemployed. Pelosi will come out with that any moment now.

dogsoldier on July 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

This is why the Roberts ruling was brilliant. I said the same thing last week. Obama is a dead man walking.

John the Libertarian on July 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Consequences aside, Roberts’ ruling last week was bad law. The role of the SCOTUS is not to sit down and figure out a way to make the government’s case for them. I’m especially troubled if the cause of his joining the left on this ruling is that he didn’t like the press he was getting.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Take heart, for now they can tax us for being unemployed. Pelosi will come out with that any moment now.

dogsoldier on July 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Not a tax on the unemployed, a penalty for the free riders who don’t work!

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scoring-romney-running-mate-choices-portman-moderate-choice-142015423.html

Pretty decent article with rankings from FreedomWorks/Club for Growth, etc.

Let me go out on a limb and say it’s going to be either Rubio or Paul Ryan picked for the Veep position.

I think I’d personally (with some reservations) go with Paul Ryan.

PappyD61 on July 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Please all here from TX don’t forget we vote for senator in dear kay’s seat July 31, early July 23-27! Please consider Ted Cruz! He would be great in dc, IMO.
Thanks.
L

letget on July 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Our tea party is hosting a forum for the two of them this Saturday night. I have a CHL test otherwise I’d be there. I think Cruz has the momentum especially after this death sentence that Roberts handed down. Since TX will get a R senator no matter what, I’ve given to the other senate races where we have a chance. I swore I’d never give to Scott Brown again but then I wasn’t facing upcoming death panels either.

TxAnn56 on July 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM

we can do this.

rob verdi on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Yes. We will do this.

davidk on July 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Consequences aside, Roberts’ ruling last week was bad law.

No, it was NOT. Roberts’ did exactly what he was supposed to do in this case. Remember, the onus is not on the Supreme Court to find a way to strike a law down, the onus is on them to find a way that it can be constitutional REGARDLESS of popularity.

I will once again remind people of what was said back in 2010:

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.

This was in 2010 and this is essentially the crux of Roberts’ argument. The Congress CAN HOODWINK THE PEOPLE and call it something other than a tax when it really is a tax. The Supreme Court did its duty in exposing to the people that this is a tax. Now it is up to THE PEOPLE to do their job and decide if they want it or not.

People get used to a “somebody should do something” sort of life and want Congress to repeal it or the SCOTUS to strike it down but it is OUR responsibility in cases like this to throw the bastards out.

People, you have been lied to by Congress. Now, lets get busy and do OUR job as a check on federal power.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ed, this is classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yDTCXy6VQ_c

PappyD61 on July 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I forgot the reference link for the above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM

From the underlying article:

“The SCOTUS ruling was a huge fundraising gift for Republicans,” said Republican digital consultant Vincent Harris, whose clients include conservative Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz. “I can’t recall the last time I saw an issue so galvanize the conservative base online to generate donations.”

It certainly was funny how all of the MSM shows walked around this mound of poo by discounting the effect. Whistling past the graveyard, says I. What says ye, matey?

Also, anyone post the actual recording of Obama’s desperate palaver on AFOne yet? Ya just gotta know it’s out there somewhere.

Case o’ Newcastle for the link anyone. Beuller? Bueller?

The War Planner on July 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Just keep this image in mind: http://news.investors.com/EditorialCartoons/cartoon.aspx?id=616754

The same statement could be made with the Constitution and Old Glory.

davidk on July 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Not a tax on the unemployed, a penalty for the free riders who don’t work!

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Yes. that’s what it is.

dogsoldier on July 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

If you don’t make enough to file a 1040, you have no tax liability or penalty for not having insurance.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM

How could the light bringer be outraised? ALL he DOES is RAISE money and pander.

It seems our ship of state has been on autopilot slowly meandering the ocean while our Senate refuses to do it’s job and our Executive panders and raises money. The House continues to attempt to pass bills and is demonized for it.

rustynca on July 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Mike Church: What Professor Barnett, who argued the case on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, that’s NFIB, said was that the Roberts Court told the future congresses that their power to spend has been checked. You see, I can’t see how you can reconcile that, though, because the Affordable Care Act compels spending. Then he presented the caveat, but it doesn’t apply to the new spending under the act. I don’t understand.

The Health and Inhuman Disservices Department is fastidiously out there playing public sector venture capitalist of choice for new hospitals, new clinics, new pharmaceutical companies, new research companies. They’re already doing it. Again, they’ve expanded the sphere. If you wanted to circumscribe or stop future spending, then you would strike the commerce power to spend on the things that had come before by reaffirming that you could spend on Medicaid under the Commerce Clause. You’ve now set it in stone. Barnett sees it half full; I see it half empty.

I want to get Professor McClanahan in on this, my good friend Brion McClanahan. His latest book, Forgotten Conservatives of American History, written with the great Clyde Wilson. At MikeChurch.com, we have autographed copies that Professor Wilson and Professor McClanahan have both autographed. Brion, first of all, good morning and thanks for joining us.

Professor Brion McClanahan: Good morning. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Mike: I don’t know if you got to hear Professor Barnett, or if you just heard my recount of Professor Barnett. What say you?

Professor McClanahan: It really doesn’t matter. The whole piece of legislation is a disaster in so many ways. Of course, I even said before the Supreme Court ruled on this case that it really doesn’t matter in that way, either. If they ruled it was unconstitutional or constitutional, it’s not even their purview to do this. This is really a Tenth Amendment issue.

I was listening yesterday to Rush Limbaugh and others on talk radio. Of course, it’s all over Facebook, “What are we going to do about this? This is a disaster. I don’t know what to do. We’re going to elect Republicans. That’s what we’re going to do.” Of course, that’s not what you need to do. The states need to grow a backbone and say, “We’re just not going to enforce it. You ruled its constitutional. So what? It’s not constitutional in our state.” We need to dust off this idea of nullification again. I think Scott Walker in Wisconsin actually brought this up, we’re just not going to enforce it in Wisconsin. That’s what we need to be doing now and forget about the Supreme Court.

This idea that it cuts spending power or increases taxing power, they’ve been doing this for hundreds of years. Since the early Marshall court, they’ve been expanding the power of the federal government. I don’t know in what way anyone would look at this as half empty or half full. It’s completely empty to me. The bill was unconstitutional from the get-go, whether they’re relying on the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause or whatever stupid clause they want to pull out of the Constitution. They can’t find any authority for it. Of course, they’re reading between the lines. As Jefferson famously said, to paraphrase, “I’ve read between the lines and I found only blank space.” There’s nothing there. This is a completely ridiculous notion to think that this does anything to the power of the central government except increase its power.

Mike: Okay. That was my takeaway from it. Professor Barnett said, “No, seven justices clarified the Necessary and Proper Clause.” I haven’t read the opinion yet. I’ve been really busy working on What Lincoln Killed, so I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. The Necessary and Proper Clause was perverted forevermore by McCulloch v. Maryland. This goes back to 1819.

Professor McClanahan: Right. Marshall screwed that up anyway. Of course, at the ratifying conventions, this was brought up in several states. “This Necessary and Proper Clause is going to be a disaster.” “No, no,” the proponents said. “This is just necessary to put in there because we could have put this after every clause in Article I Section 8.” You can say we have the power to do such and such, to make post roads. Every law that we make shall be necessary and proper to carry that into execution. They’ll put it at the end of Article I Section 8. This was not going to enhance the power of the government at all. It’s just something to put in there that says we can make legislation to do this, but it didn’t enhance the powers of the government. It didn’t increase the powers of the government. On the contrary, it was something that we have to say, because if we don’t say that, how are you going to enact legislation?

Of course, Patrick Henry called these things the sweeping clauses. Over and over again, this was argued that this thing is never going to abuse the powers of the states. Again, that’s the issue here. This is centralization. This is nationalization of the government. The progressives, back in the early 20th Century and late 19th Century, figured out this is how you’re going to have to do this. You’re going to have to start calling this government a national government. Of course, that was the debate in Philadelphia. We’re going to have to go back to that, start calling this thing a national government. We are the American people. The states are irrelevant. They’re just mere provinces of us and we can do whatever we want. We operate on individuals. We can tell individuals whatever we want them to do, whatever taxing authority we have. It’s ridiculous.

Mike: So we have Professor Brion McClanahan on the Dude Maker Hotline with us. I started the program today by saying that at 10:10 a.m. yesterday morning, if you hadn’t already made the decision to get out, many people’s hearts, minds and souls decided that they wanted to get out, that they no longer wanted to be governed by this tyrannical monster that calls itself the federal government of the United States of America. They’re now thinking, “No, Rush, we’re not buying your elect more Republicans crap because that hasn’t worked for the last century.” It certainly hasn’t worked for the last half of a century. There has to be another way. The other thing that we’re hearing and keep hearing, and I’ll play one for you, this is Congresswoman Michelle Bachman saying there’s only one way to get out of this. This is from The O’Reilly Factor last night, Laura Ingraham guest hosting. Michelle Bachman, how do we get out of this?

[start audio clip]

Michelle Bachman: People are angry. They’re shocked. Now what they recognize is that there’s one option left, it’s a powerful option. It’s the ballot box in November. I think more than ever, Democrats and Independents are going to be looking at a Mitt Romney for President because it’s a very clear contrast. It’s Barack Obama and you keep ObamaCare or it’s Mitt Romney and you repeal it. This was my signature issue when I ran for president. I will tell you that Mitt Romney has told me on more than one occasion, looking in my eyes, “Michelle, I will repeal ObamaCare.” We have to not only win the White House, we have to win the Senate and the House. People shouldn’t be fooled into thinking we have to have 60 Republican seats in the Senate. We need 50 plus one.

[end audio clip]

Mike: There you have it. You win another federal election and this will be sunshine and gumdrops.

Professor McClanahan: Right. It’s a completely ridiculous idea. Mitt Romney, how can you really trust a guy that’s been so duplicitous throughout his career? He’s one thing, another thing. He believes in federal power, I should say general power or central power. It doesn’t matter if the Republicans are there. That’s great. They’re going to repeal it, but what are they going to replace it with? They’re going to come up with something that will be almost the exact same thing, they just won’t call it that. To put all your faith in the Republicans is ridiculous. You have to start doing this at the local and state level. Of course, I don’t know how many Americans realize that, but that’s where all the power lies. If the states said, “Enough of this, we’re not following your stupid law,” nullification, which we think is a dirty word, nullification has worked every single time it’s been attempted or threatened in United States history. This is what we should be doing now, just saying, “Forget you, federal government. The states can do this.”

Mike: And that’s what I said on March 22nd, 2010. You people are going to be told to elect Republicans, pursue this in the federal courts. I said no, the way to do this is to have your state nullify this, strike it down, have a ballot initiative. However you accomplish it, that’s the course of action. Of course now, the federal power mongers are taking to all the radio, television and internet airwaves and are saying, “No, no, we’ve got to stick with this. We’ve got them on the run now. Now we can get them at the ballot box in November.” It hasn’t worked.

I pose a challenge to people today. You tell me how you are going to prevent things like this from happening, or try to prevent things like this from happening, from the national government, because that’s what it is now, from the national mob to your children. You may not be able to stop it from us, but please explain to me how you explain to stop this from happening to your children. The word posterity is actually in the Constitution, in the preamble, because they had an eye looking towards the future. To me, that is the challenge. I don’t think you’re going to fix this. I don’t think it’s reparable. I think it has to be disintegrated at some level.

The only way you’re going to accomplish that is by first convincing your friends and neighbors in your states, as Professor McClanahan pointed out, that you have to rethink the problem. Thinking about it like you have been brainwashed and propagandized to think about for the last 50 years plus, since Goldwater lost, has produced today — this is what drives you nuts, Brion. Doing it the way we’re being told to go back and do it by Ms. Bachmann and even my governor, it produced ObamaCare, produced the Pelosi Congress, produced Bush nominating Roberts, and it produced yesterday’s decision. This is what it produced. This is an undeniable fact. So why would you counsel the same course of action. I don’t understand this.

Professor McClanahan: You got me. You’re preaching to the choir. This is showing again that the federal government has as monopoly on its own power. It can pass whatever legislation it wants and it has a Supreme Court that’s often complicit in going along with unconstitutional acts. It doesn’t matter. You can take any issue. We’ve seen it with healthcare. We just saw it with the immigration issue. Take any issue you want. They’re going to say, “Well, we can find the power somewhere in the Constitution because some Supreme Court has said something, some federalist essay that doesn’t even matter says something. We can do it.”

I think that’s the point in all this. They have again decided they have a monopoly on power. You citizens are going to follow that monopoly on power. There’s no check to it. Well, there is. It’s out there, and of course it’s the states. This stuff was talked about in the ratifying conventions. It was promised over and over again the states would not lose their authority in this government, and they have. I think that’s the ultimate travesty in all of this.

Mike: Forgotten Conservatives in American History is the book. One final question, because your prior book was The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. You have an entire chapter in there, not a chapter, but an entire section where you had mentioned, in one of the rare instances, you mentioned a modern case. You did mention ObamaCare and you had written about the powers of the Commerce Clause and what it could be used for. In looking at The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution, what did the Supremes do yesterday to restore — Barnett said they restored the Commerce Clause. I’m like what?

Professor McClanahan: Again, I don’t see how anyone can say that. The Commerce Clause was designed in two ways. One, to of course deal with international commerce. In 1787, when Congress made treaties, they weren’t necessarily sure they could get any of the states to agree to it. They wanted to ensure that they had a single voice when dealing with say Great Britain or France. So that was one thing. The other thing, of course, was when they talked about regulating trade between the states or interstate trade, what they were looking at was having a free trade zone around the United States. They didn’t want the State of Maryland and the State of Virginia passing tariffs against each other so that they couldn’t trade goods.

The idea was to make trade more free, not to make it regulated to the point that you can’t do anything. This whole idea that they can go in and expand this clause like they’ve done, again, it’s ridiculous. They don’t even look at those ratifying debates. They don’t even look at the debates in the Philadelphia Convention. They don’t care. They go back and look at Supreme Court decisions. We’ve now had this mess of case law. It’s ruined the Constitution, of course, ruined the federal republic. It’s gone.

Mike: I’m trying to be fair with Professor Barnett, because he is a frequent guest as well. Professor McClanahan has a different opinion. I tend to agree more with Professor McClanahan than Barnett. Barnett said yesterday the Constitution was saved. You would agree or disagree with that?

Professor McClanahan: Well, I don’t think it’s been saved since 1803. I think it’s a steady decline. You can even go before that. The Constitution has been on a steady decline. I don’t think it’s been saved at all. Take your pick of a president that’s even gone in line with the Constitution or Congress that’s passed constitutional legislation in several, several years. The Supreme Court hasn’t done anything but keep expanding the power of the national government.

Dante on July 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Not to mention the inevitable revision – gotta love those!

tdpwells on July 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

one of the great tragedies of our current situation is that most political people are dumb as a post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/2/romney-adviser-health-care-not-a-tax/

the etch-a-sketch guy is at it again saying that Romney uses the world penalty in MA.

well, the first rule is that he should stfu…give him back office job with no media contact.

but the second if that at the state level the world penalty is fine. MA 1905 put a penalty on people not get a vaccine. Perfectly Constitutional…states have Rights

the feds do Not have the same right

r keller on July 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I am one of those who donated not just to Romney, but to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Buy Danish on July 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I am one of those who donated not just to Romney, but to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Buy Danish on July 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM

And you are the problem.

Dante on July 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Roberts’ did exactly what he was supposed to do in this case. Remember, the onus is not on the Supreme Court to find a way to strike a law down, the onus is on them to find a way that it can be constitutional REGARDLESS of popularity.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM

BS! The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law not to FIND A WAY to throw it out or to uphold it. They are not legislators. Roberts caved because of negative press and IMO that makes him unqualified to retain his job. Thanks to Benedict Roberts, what is to keep the left from pushing through a law requiring us all to buy “carbon credits” or pay a penalty for not doing so? What is to prevent a law requiring we all drive electric cars or pay a penalty for not doing so?

This was a bad ruling no matter how much idiots like you are in love with Obamacare. It was a bad ruling about even worse public policy.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

No, it was NOT. Roberts’ did exactly what he was supposed to do in this case. Remember, the onus is not on the Supreme Court to find a way to strike a law down, the onus is on them to find a way that it can be constitutional REGARDLESS of popularity.

crosspatch

This coming from the guy who has never read the Constitution.

Dante on July 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Gee if it’s a penalty and not a tax, then wouldn’t the GOP congress be within its proper right to de-fund the expenses of the 16 thousand new IRS agents (properly armed of course) needed to police this abomination?

Don L on July 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

And you are the problem.

Dante on July 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM

This coming from the guy who has never read the Constitution.

Dante on July 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Writes the birther Paulian who prefers 0bama to any one but RONPAUL/2012.

cozmo on July 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

When the election comes down to voting for a “piece of sh*t” or a “spoon”, I’d take the “spoon.”

J_Crater on July 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

“What 2010 election?” – state run media

Lost in Jersey on July 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

A reminder…

Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, and three months later, Democrats flipped:

3 seats in the US Senate
49 seats in the US House
628 seats in state legislatures

In the wake of Porkulus and Obamacare, Republicans flipped:

6 seats in the US Senate
63 seats in the US House
680 seats in state legislatures

As Ed wrote in 2010:

GOP wins “all-time high” in state legislative seats
posted at 2:55 pm on November 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
——————–

Who could have suspected that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi would spark a national rejection of their party that outdid Watergate?

Obama has been called Nixonian before, but never in this context. When he charged to victory in 2008, Democrats thought they had unlocked the secret of marrying a progressive to the broad center of American politics. Instead, his radical agenda has alienated the center and leaves Democrats with a sharply reduced national base for their future.

Here’s to the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling leading to a repeat of 2010 in 2012…

ITguy on July 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

the feds do Not have the same right

r keller on July 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I suspect that when the sun sets on America (and it’s nigh twilight time now) many people will find their faith that men to follow the constitution and rule on it was foolish and that our man-made law will be completely trampled upon.

Our rights don’t come from the constitution (which can be altered and misinterpreted by morally corrupt political men) They come from God alone…however, many of us threw Him out a while back for the great sexual and free lunch revolution and revolted against moral authority, and we still curse the traditional churches, as well as the social cons (for reminding us daily of our folly) They knew the avenue down which we were heading.

Don L on July 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again

Jobs report out Friday. And rumors have it being real bad.

2010 in more ways than one.

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

More like groundhog day and I can’t wait for it to be over.

DDay on July 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM

(TEA) Party like it’s 1773…

ITguy on July 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM

With those donation dollars comes a helluva lot of work ethic responsibility including only the highest moral standards.

Speakup on July 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Count me as confused regarding why the poll numbers for Republicans have not budged.

The O-tax is more popular than ever?

I certainly don’t believe fundraising and popularity are completely analogous. But going in the opposite direction?

Something ain’t right and someone is trying to snooker us.

Marcus Traianus on July 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Speaking of colorful metaphors, I’m surprised the DNC tweeting “Constitutional b**ches!” after the SCOTUS ruling didn’t result in a tsumami of cash flowing into the hopey changey coffers.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM

lol

I was reading that Obutthead’s campaign was refusing to release his fundraising numbers in the wake of the SC ruling–must be down, down, downer.

stukinIL4now on July 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM

What makes this so especially funny is that they’ve been claiming they’ve outraised Mitt since the ruling, but, they won’t release the numbers. Why, that corresponds perfectly with how they’re out here trumpeting their great SC victory, the one which declared that 0bamaCare is a tax! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Consequences aside, Roberts’ ruling last week was bad law. The role of the SCOTUS is not to sit down and figure out a way to make the government’s case for them. I’m especially troubled if the cause of his joining the left on this ruling is that he didn’t like the press he was getting.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

If that is indeed what he did, given the current polling numbers, he must be feeling rather foolish now.

As well he should!

kakypat on July 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

THIS is the make/break month for Obama. The second quarter economic numbers are going to come out this month if they are bad, it could well be over for Obama. The reason is that even if the numbers in October are good, it’s too little too late. One quarter doesn’t make a trend, and people will not trust the administration not to have doctored the numbers.

If the Q2 numbers are bad, Obama is toast.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

They can’t be good, the numbers I mean, could be more of the same, but no way they will look any better that what they are now…besides the feds already revised down the GDP (the third revision I think)…Q1 2012 GDP showed 1.9 annualized growth…so, no, there will be no good news for 0 on the ecoomy fromt, unless they really forge the numbers, which is hard to do..tweaking, yes, downright forge, or cook the books a la Greece, impossible, too many economic vigillantes on our side of the aisle to let this pass unreported..

jimver on July 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM

This is beginning to look like the summer of 2010 all over again

It better be better than 2010, otherwise we don’t pick up enough seats in the senate to repeal.

No, it was NOT.

Crosspatch

Yes, it WAS, no matter how many times you try to spin otherwise.

xblade on July 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Yes, it WAS, no matter how many times you try to spin otherwise.

xblade on July 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Well it is you who is spinning here.

The penalty is a tax penalty. It is paid as a tax penalty. If you do not file taxes, you do not owe a penalty. For example, say you don’t work, don’t make enough to file income tax but also don’t have insurance, you have no penalty.

What Roberts ruled was that no matter what the Democrats in the Congress or White House attempt to claim, this is a tax. He has exposed their lying for what it is. The administration themselves made this very same claim and the Justice Dept. said that it doesn’t matter what they CALL it, it is effectively a tax, which it IS. Congress has the right to tax and that power is basically limited only by the people’s willingness to tolerate it at the ballot box.

So he has exposed the Democrats’ duplicity for what it is and the rest is now up to us.

Can you show me what part of it is not a tax?

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

They can’t be good, the numbers I mean, could be more of the same, but no way they will look any better that what they are now…besides the feds already revised down the GDP (the third revision I think)…Q1 2012 GDP showed 1.9 annualized growth…so, no, there will be no good news for 0 on the ecoomy fromt, unless they really forge the numbers, which is hard to do..tweaking, yes, downright forge, or cook the books a la Greece, impossible, too many economic vigillantes on our side of the aisle to let this pass unreported..

jimver on July 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The numbers will get worse because as we approach January 1, investment will decline. In the final quarter we will see people taking their profits in order to get them taxed at this year’s rate and avoid next year’s rate. I would say now is a good time to short a broad index because I believe it is going to be a bloodbath in the final quarter unless Romney is several points ahead in the polling by then.

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Gosh, I feel like I’m sitting on the sidelines living in Connecticut. I have no hope of being able to vote for someone who isn’t a RINO or a flat out Democrat. I get to watch the political process play out all over the country, except here. Sigh! I gave to Scott Brown last time, just because.

I don’t know if I can support Linda McMahon, not sure if she’s real or crazy.

jaimo on July 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I hate to break it you guys but CP is right here. Now I hate this law with every ounce of my body and my heart sank just as much if not more so than anyone else here when I heard that it had been upheld. But the logic behind Roberts ruling was sound in that if the “mandate” could be reasonably interpreted as a tax then the law should be constitutional. The label really doesn’t matter but the practical result of it’s implementation does in that if it raises revenue it’s a tax. I really wish that Roberts had been more bold and sided with the dissenters because they realize what a disaster this POS will do our liberty and economy. However, Roberts decision means that this can only be remedied politically so it now up to us to address it as such. Make no mistake though, this is not what Obama needed right now politically – people hate this POS and now (along with the flagging economy) this is just one more reason to vote for Romney. I thought this on Thursday and I still think it now – Roberts could very well have just handed Romney the Presidency.

volnation on July 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

But the logic behind Roberts ruling was sound in that if the “mandate” could be reasonably interpreted as a tax then the law should be constitutional. The label really doesn’t matter but the practical result of it’s implementation does in that if it raises revenue it’s a tax. I really wish that Roberts had been more bold and sided with the dissenters because they realize what a disaster this POS will do our liberty and economy.

volnation on July 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I may be confused by you said.

Are you saying that Roberts was correct to uphold the law, if he was reasonably convinced that 0bamaCare’s mandate was a tax? If so, then why would you then say that you wish he had struck it down?

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

lol sorry about my horrible proofreading! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

What I’m saying is that if Roberts had already concluded that the penalty/mandate in effect acted as a tax and was therefore a “tax” for the sake of analyzing the constitutionality of the law, then he could logically conclude that the law passed constitutional muster since the CC wasn’t in play and because the Congress clearly has the ability to levy and collect taxes. That’s why I said that his logic was sound, even though I disagree with the outcome.

It’s kind of like this: a guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with his best friend. In a fit of rage he grabs his gun out of the nightstand and changes his friend from a rooster to hen. While I might not agree with what the guy did, I understand how in a fit of rage he could do it.

So, while I disagree with the outcome, I at least understand how Roberts came to his conclusion.

volnation on July 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

So, while I disagree with the outcome, I at least understand how Roberts came to his conclusion.

volnation on July 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

So, you don’t agree that Stephanopoulos was right when he argued with 0bamessiah about the mandate being a tax in actuality, then?

By your reasoning, if you and Roberts believe that George, not 0bamessiah, was right, then you agree with Roberts that 0bamaCare was/is Constitutional, and therefore you must believe Roberts made the correct ruling, which would leave you to explain what your problem with the outcome is…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

volnation, scratch what I said, I see that I misread you…

Bizarro No. 1 on July 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

One – Roberts ruling was incorrect in that congress specifically said this was not a tax – and in fact it does not act like a tax whatsoever. I realize that Congress and Obama were being too clever by half, but the fact is this is not set up as a tax – it then taxes inactivity which is not allowed under the most liberal interpretation of the Consitution’s taxing authority. So Robert’s re-writing of the statute was unnecesaary. If it wasn’t then the Amendment giving us the income tax was unnecessary – and it clearly was necessary. So Robert’s re-wrote the statute as well as misinterpreted the taxing authority. Then the fact that he did this to maintain the stature of the court is a joke – as it clearly did not do that – strike three.

Two – I don’t trust a GOP anymore than I trust a democrat – but I do see that the arguments about power and the size of the state being discussed with more ferver than I can ever remember. We need to keep pushing every button – we need to elect Romney, we need a GOP senate, we need to advance nullification. We need to keep taking over the GOP with every election. We will not become Greece or France without a fight. So then get small govt types voted in in your state. We didn’t get here in just 5 or 10 years – it will take some time to turn it around. We win with Mitt – and get 3 SCOTUS picks for Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy. If we bat 2/3rds we get Robert’s re-focused. If it was going to be 6-3 he never would have flipped.

Zomcon JEM on July 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Can you show me what part of it is not a tax?

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Maybe Mitt’s ex employee can:

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate ‘Very Similar’ In Obama, Romney Bills

Those similarities, he said on Friday, extend to the individual mandate.

“Basically the way it would function is you have a form 1099-HC, which is like a health care form you get from your insurer every year, and you would attach it to your taxes,” he said, describing how the mandate would work nationally. “That form would show you have health insurance and you’re fine. If you don’t have health insurance, you fill out a form on your taxes … which computes whether you’re exempt from the penalty, [which would be the case] if your income is too low or insurance costs too much. Finally, if you don’t have the form and you’re not exempt, there will be a penalty on your taxes.”

DannoJyd on July 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM

A Constitutional Amendment to correct this offense would be inadequate, since the Roberts Court has thrown the Rule of Law into the gutter. There was no– and is no– authority for Roberts to do what he did, yet he did it; and it is now considered “law”.

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Unfortunately you are correct here. The fact is that the Roberts ruling has removed any and all constraints on the Congress. All it has to do is find a “compelling national issue” and then require that citizens engage in some economic activity or face a penalty that will be defined as a tax. Never mind that this is a direct, unapportioned tax on individual citizens, it now has the Supreme Court precedent to make it legitimate. Even though it is not and is not even close to original intent (and, yes, that’s important if you value your liberty and freedom). The Roberts decision essentially swept away all vestiges of the Constitution except, maybe, the Bill of Rights, but only because he hasn’t had a case come before him in which he can also crap on that as well.

If this stands, there are fewer and fewer options becoming available to freedom loving citizens of this country.

AZfederalist on July 2, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I really don’t care about the similarities to Romneycare. Dems make them and conservatives make them. I care more about the differences. Sheesh, we’re out of primary mode now and all you do is use the same arguments used back then. There ARE differences. There were far fewer uninsured in MA in both numbers and percentage terms and it’s disingenous of DWS to say only 1% of Americans will pay the tax/penalty because that was the number in MA.

And Romney didn’t expand govt like Obamacare does with well over a hundred new boards, commissions, and panels.

And Romney didn’t make the pronouncements of the IPAB board MANDATORY instead of its previous advisory capacity. In fact Romney didn’t institute anything like the IPAB board AT ALL.

Oh, and don’t gloat tooo much over Obama’s whining about contributions. It’ll encourage the moonbats. Besides the Obama campaign has outspent the Romney campaing in the swing states over 6:1 on ads.

MaggiePoo on July 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

And Romney didn’t expand govt like Obamacare does with well over a hundred new boards, commissions, and panels.

MaggiePoo on July 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Go vote for him to give him the chance to do exactly that. He won’t surprise me…

The Etch-a-Sketchy campaign of Mitt Romney

DannoJyd on July 2, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Can you show me what part of it is not a tax?

crosspatch on July 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

A Mitt employee DEFINITELY CAN! LMAO!!!

Conservatives to Mitt
: Quit Now If You Won’t Fight Obamatax!

Told Ya So!

Now be shocked and awed by the precognitive abilities of the AWE inspiring Danno Man! /s

DannoJyd on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 AM