Boehner: ObamaCare is the law of the land

posted at 8:51 am on November 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

John Boehner has a tough job over the next few weeks — and two years — walking a tightrope between getting acute problems solved while maintaining his credibility with the activist Republican base.  He has the fiscal cliff to resolve without caving on tax increases, investigations to pursue, and more budget negotiations that will at some point require serious entitlement reform.  With all of that on his plate, Boehner doesn’t have much time for fantasy, especially the fantasy that ObamaCare can be repealed.  Boehner told ABC News that the ACA is now “the law of the land,” but that he wants to address parts of it within the context of budget negotiations:

Asked whether he will make another attempt to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, Boehner said “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

Still, there are some parts of the law, he said, that should be on the table as lawmakers work toward a balanced budget.

My friend at Poor Richard’s News is outraged:

Did Democrats roll over and compromise their principles when George W. Bush won re-election?  No, they did not.  They dug in, they hardened their opposition, and they cleaned our clocks in the last two Presidential elections.  Now is not the time to go all mushy.  Now is is the time to fight harder than ever.

Now, I understand that Bohner’s position may be a tactical one.  Practically speaking, with a re-elected Obama and a Democrat majority still in the Senate, a bill to repeal would get no where.  However, that doesn’t mean that every House and Senate Republican’s goal shouldn’t be to pull this weed up from its roots.  Bohner must clarify his position.  This election was not a mandate to keep Obamacare, and if he expects to be the leader of the House Republicans, he needs to be the leading voice of opposition to it. It doesn’t matter how it happens, a single bill or a chipping away at it gradually.  Obamacare must go.

This isn’t a tactical decision.  It’s reality.  The ACA is not a static law; most of its provisions will go into effect in the next two years, and after that repeal will be immensely difficult, thanks to its transformational nature in relation to the insurance and health-provider industries.  It’s going to be too late to “pull this weed up by its roots” by 2017, the next possible spot on the calendar to do so.  By then, we will have to offer a second round of transformation that starts in the context of ObamaCare., and hope we have a Republican President and Republican majorities to even get that process under way.

We had only two ways to stop ObamaCare.  Either we needed a new President with Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, or veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of Congress.  Voters didn’t provide John Boehner with either option.  When we say that elections have consequences, this is exactly what we mean.

Back to the tightrope.  Boehner did draw a line in the sand on tax rates, while leaving open the possibility of increasing revenues through tax reform — which has been the Republican position for almost two years:

 “Raising tax rates is unacceptable,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said in his first broadcast interview since the election Tuesday.

“Frankly, it couldn’t even pass the House. I’m not sure it could pass the Senate.”

That stance could set up a real showdown with the White House given that the president has said he would veto any deal that does not allow tax cuts for the rich to expire. But the speaker said that Republicans would put new tax revenue on the table as leaders work toward a deal.

If I had to guess, both Boehner and Obama will want to go back to the deal that Obama rejected in August 2011, which would still work, and would have fewer political consequences in the wake of the election.  That could get done quickly and would go a long way to bolstering investor confidence that the next four years will be a little more responsible in Washington than the last eighteen months.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

The problem with Boehner et al is that this is all a big game to them. You get together and play on the playing field, but you’re a good sport and when you walk off the field you’re all just good buddies. Watch lawyers. They face off in the courtroom, but they will sacrifice the truth so they can sit down to lunch with each other tomorrow.

They’ve forgotten that they represent us, and the effects of their little micro-deals in chambers become magnified when they become reality in our lives.

AubieJon on November 9, 2012 at 9:32 AM

redguy on November 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Expect to see more and more of this. So sad.

wi farmgirl on November 9, 2012 at 9:32 AM

WAIT – there is more:

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/

TECO Coal Corporation – 90

Southeastern Container – 15

Update: UtahAmerican Energy Inc – 102

The SCA plant in Barton – Plans Staff Reductions

Crouse Hospital Syracuse NY – 70 Jobs

Eagle-Tribune in North Andover – 21

Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs

Groupon – 80

redguy on November 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I think I’ll just reuse my comments from the QOTD.

Asked whether he will make another attempt to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, Boehner said “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”…

@SpeakerBoehner 6:50 P.M.

ObamaCare is law of the land, but it is raising costs & threatening jobs. Our goal has been, and will remain, #fullrepeal.

Congratulations Mr. Speaker, that’s worthy of a Jay Carney crapweasel cya award.

@FloraDuh1

.@SpeakerBoehner If u want the @GOP 2 keep the House in 2014 you better think long and hard about your Obamacare statement 2day

@FloraDuh1

NOW is the time for @ohiogop Discrict #8 to start searching & vetting a candidate to primary @johnboehner in 2014.

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

ROFL by “obstructing” they increased thier majority in 2012 why would voters turn them out for doing what they have been doing.
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Why keep saying this when it isn’t true? Dems will gain between 6 and 9 seats in the House depending on the outcome of recounts.

AngusMc on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

People like bgibbs who openly wish for collapse of the financial system and the pain and suffering that would mean for all Americans are not very patriotic in my opinion.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Yeahhhh, I’m thinking about 1945 or so there were quite a few Germans who wished they hadn’t been so “patriotic” when the new guy told them of his plan to fix the German economy.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

That’s why I said block everything. Reconciliation can only occur when there is a House version and Senate version. The Senate cannot pass anything only on its own.

dominigan on November 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM

That’s not the way Obamacare went down. The Senate can take any House Bill, strip it, put whatever they want in it and pass it.

txhsmom on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Compromise to dems is gop caving

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Yeah yeah Ed… Just like it was too late to repeal Hitlers transformational laws because they were the law of the lad too…

If we can transform there, we can transform back.
Better yet, we can nuke the whole thing, release the regulations and let the doctors as hospitals >gasp< practice medicine instead of bureaucracy.

Submission to tyranny is never right and must be stopped.

Skywise on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

how is it that a better ticket (yes, Romney/Ryan is a better ticket than McCain/Palin – no offense to Palin intended) gets 2.5 million fewer votes?

BD57 on November 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The FACT that Mitt and Ryan got 2.3 million less votes refutes your theory that they were the better ticket. If they were the better ticket they would have got MORE votes than McCain and Palin. I guess logic is still hard for some people to grasp.

unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

What choice is there? We already own the base of the GOP and yet the leadership thumbs their noses at us. They need conservatives to win but but ignore, berate and sabotage conservatives just as badly as the leftists do. I agree most 3rd party runs do not work because they are normally run by fruitcakes and fringe movements like the Libertarians and the Greens.

Do you not remember 2010? It was a landslide for conservatives and our ideas but then after the election we were told to sit down and shut up. The GOP will not change because the people in charge charge like their power.

Sporty1946 on November 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Stop having the Beltway pick our candidates!

We don’t own the GOP… squishy social idiots own the GOP.

If the republicans don’t change to “How does this help the People”, instead of how does this further myself… we are done.

And what have those elected in 2010 done lately? Obamacare still passed, did it not?

We are probably already done.

upinak on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I’ve decided. I’m quitting the Salem products. They were wrong and underestimated Obama during the Obamacare debate. They underestimated Palin. They overestimated Romney. And they’re flaccid squishes.

I’m going to support the strong conservatives in media who can help get things done. Ed et al. are feckless.

JKahn913 on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Funny how no details of any compromise have been advertised yet Boehner is already being branded as a sellout.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Funny how a guy who constantly runs away from every fight, and does a full court grovel in front of Obama when called a mean name, is not trusted to stand and deliver. People can be so judgmental.

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Once the Supremes upheld Obamacare, it was perfectly clear to the electorate that a GOP president was necessary to repeal.

The electorate chose otherwise. Seems to me Obama got his mandate on higher taxes as well.

I say give him both. Elections have consequences.

In fact, I support allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for all brackets, and let the Dems own the consequences. The American people will never learn otherwise.

matthew8787 on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It was said many times that all the marbles were on this election. John is bagging them up and is even going to throw in his favorite striker in an act of unforced compromise.
I have been reading the steps of Obamacare implementation coming in the next two years and of the Stock Market getting ready for a correction. Thinking of all the hidden news, the unrest in the Middle East, the ticking economic time bombs out there. This cliff is going to result in tax increases (some hidden) for eveyone, and so is the AFFORDABLE Care Act (even more than what has been revised). The debt is also going up even with the cuts in Defense, etc.
I also think of something a woman said to me. “There was no way I was going to vote for a rich white man. Obama understands the average person more than Romney”. facepalm

Whiterock on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

With this level of devastation – holding tax rates at their current level won’t do a damn thing…..

Burn it down – raise taxes and let’s get to the depression……

It doesn’t matter anymore……

Perhaps one state in the former United States can be a safe haven???

But it will take people with guts and balls to fight this administration…..

The current speaker of the house IS NOT on that list.

redguy on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

There is no ass kicking that can correct the stupidity of anyone who either voted for Obama, or who stayed home to teach the Republicans a lesson, or who just couldn’t vote for a Mormon.

SWalker on November 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM

On the latter, I agree. If someone didn’t vote for Romney simply because he’s a Mormon, it’s hard to talk that person out of their bigoted views(the same would apply incidentally for folks who oppose Obama based solely on his skin color).

But I disagree about the other two groups. People who voted for Obama because they love big government and the entitlement state will have little motivation to turn out in future elections if those goodies stop coming or are at the very least drastically reduced. It doesn’t mean they’ll become conservatives or vote Republican, but all it takes is the Dems losing a couple percentage points and the GOP retakes power.

As for the folks who lean conservative but who sat home this election, I think the next two years will make them see the error of their ways. A lot of people did the same thing in 2006 and 2008(and I don’t blame them), but once they got a taste of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, they immediately came to their senses and started working toward getting fiscal conservatives elected to office. Hell, an entire movement called the Tea Party emerged. And we’re conservatives. We don’t even do movements.

Doughboy on November 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Boehner: ObamaCare is the law of the land

Boehner (read “Boner“) has to go.

Glenn Jericho on November 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM

People, pay no attention to Ed when he says things like, “We had only two ways to stop ObamaCare. Either we needed a new President with Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, or veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of Congress.”

Learn about our founding; learn our history. Learn that we are not a nation, but a confederation of nations. WE are the ones who have the say, not the government that was created by the people.

I urge you, learn about the Tenth Amendment Center. Give them your support. Click on my name and learn about the Liberty Classroom, and our real history, not the distilled history the establishment has given you. Give them your support. The only way to turn any of this around is by education. Be open to questioning what you think you know.

Here’s a great book for you:

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

and another:

Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Yeahhhh, I’m thinking about 1945 or so there were quite a few Germans who wished they hadn’t been so “patriotic” when the new guy told them of his plan to fix the German economy.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

It is interesting how the same reactions at HA occurred in 2006 and 2008. Time to “Go all galt”, “arm up”, “tree of liberty refreshed with blood of tyrants”, etc. Then 2010 happened and the sentiments were all about how great democracy and the people were. Now we are in 2012 and the 06/08 wackadoodles emerge openly wishing for the country to collapse.
Not a winning strategy going forward.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM

We didn’t elect Romney when we had the chance and the votes. The fact that there is not a Republican President lies within the pettiness and bigotry of the center-right majority. We wouldn’t elect a Mormon so stop the whining and blaming of the MSM or Republican moderates. Obamacare IS the law of the land, not because of a lack of outreach to Latinos or blacks, or because of the leadership of John Boehner. The cause lies within us.

Randy

williars on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I also think of something a woman said to me. “There was no way I was going to vote for a rich white man. Obama understands the average person more than Romney”. facepalm

Whiterock on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

The “rich” man is the only thing standing between freedom and slavery…..

redguy on November 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

If the House is concerned about being effective, they need to refuse to provide funding for many of the liberal spending giveaways. If they worry about their next election, then nothing will get done. If they decide to do what is fiscally right for this country, they’ll dig in. The Dems won’t get out of it scott free. They’ll pay politically in the long run too. The Dems are betting the Republicans will capitualate for fear of losing the House the next time around. Passing bills and sending to Harry Reid may sound like they’re doing something but its proven to be a useless maneuver.

Frankly, I’m hoping that every liberal state and city that espouse the theory of spend more and tax more will collapse under the weight and go bankrupt while the conservative states and cities thrive. A firewall needs to be in place to keep the successful from having the bail out the failures.

iamsaved on November 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Again, we can thank the idiots in the Tea Party, especially the Ohio Tea Party for Boehner. Idiots.

Mr. Arrogant on November 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Yes it is. He just rubbed the noses of those who didn’t vote on Tuesday in it.

cozmo on November 9, 2012 at 8:57 AM

While that may be part of his thinking imho this is just Bohner being Bohner. When the tea party gave him a majority in Congress in 2010 how did he repay them? It wasn’t by reducing government and expense. If he had in reality made a real effort at that the last two years I’d buy your explanation.

chemman on November 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Obamacare is going to stop itself:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=213692

And the collapse of the economy appears to be starting already:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=213731

I am getting repeated reports of large layoff actions, both pending and immediate. Some of these appear to be focused on the impact of Obamacare, some are small businesspeople who are simply quitting and closing up shop due to expected higher tax rates on a forward basis, and some are firms that were hanging on by the skin of their teeth that giving up the ghost.

Yup. Elections have consequences.

gh on November 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Which section of the constitution allows citizens to pick and choose which lawful legislation they are obligated to obey?

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM

What element of English law allowed the colonists to declare independence in 1776?

Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM

“Nullification” dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word “nullification” into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

Today, political decentralization is gathering steam in all parts of the country, for all sorts of reasons. I fail to see the usefulness of the term “neo-Confederate” – whatever this Orwellian neologism is supposed to mean – in describing a movement that includes California’s proposal to decriminalize marijuana, two dozen states’ refusal to abide by the REAL ID Act, and a growing laundry list of resistance movements to federal government intrusion. As states north and south, east and west, blue and red, large and small discuss the prospects for political decentralization, the Enforcers of Approved Opinion have leaped into action. Not to explain where we’re wrong, of course – we deviants are entitled at most to a few throwaway arguments that wouldn’t satisfy a third grader – but to smear and denounce anyone who strays from Allowable Opinion, which lies along that glorious continuum from Joe Biden to Mitt Romney.

Anyone who actually reads the book will discover, among many other things, that the Principles of ’98 – as these decentralist ideas came to be known – were in fact resorted to more often by northern states than by southern, and from 1798 through the second half of the nineteenth century were used in support of free speech and free trade, and against the fugitive-slave laws, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and the prospect of military conscription, among other examples. And nullification was employed not in support of slavery but against it.

Link

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Yup. Elections have consequences.

gh on November 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM

depression here we come.

upinak on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

“Nullification violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”

This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.

Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”

For further evidence, see Brion McClanahan.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

two sides of the same coin…

equanimous on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

What element of English law allowed the colonists to declare independence in 1776?

Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The question you won’t answer is about our constitution.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You know, the fiscal cliff will hit. Everyone’s sacred cows will be sacrificed, and life will go on. This delusion that Boehner can refuse tax increases but that he’ll accept removing deductions for the middle class…it’s laughable.

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

STAND UP TO OBAMACARE, or we get someone else! Fight this program that will bankrupt us and seriously compromise both our medical care and future medical innovation.
We lost the last round because Mitt was mush. But we fight on. Implementation begins, but it will be a rough implementation, and we will uproot the cancer. Don’t give up on this, or we might as well be Dems.

anotherJoe on November 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

“Nullification is unconstitutional; it nowhere appears in the Constitution.”

This is an odd complaint, coming as it usually does from those who in any other circumstance do not seem especially concerned to find express constitutional sanction for particular government policies.

The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist. The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people. Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose and is alien to the structure of that document.

James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.

Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Virginians were given this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the five-man commission that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Patrick Henry, John Taylor, and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

Nullification derives from the (surely correct) “compact theory” of the Union, to which no full-fledged alternative appears to have been offered until as late as the 1830s. That compact theory, in turn, derives from and implies the following:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:

The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

“The Supreme Court declared itself infallible in 1958.”

The obscure obiter dicta of Cooper v. Aaron (1958) is sometimes raised against nullification. Here the Supreme Court expressly declared its statements to have exactly the same status as the text of the Constitution itself. But no matter what absurd claims the Court makes for itself, Madison’s point above holds – the very structure of the system, and the very nature of the federal Union, logically require that the principals to the compact possess a power to examine the constitutionality of federal laws. Given that the whole argument involves who must decide such questions in the last resort, citing the Supreme Court against it begs the whole question – indeed, it should make us wonder if those who answer this way even understand the question.

“Nullification was the legal doctrine by which the Southern states defended slavery.”

This statement is as wrong as wrong can be. Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery. Why would it have been? What anti-slavery laws were there that the South would have needed to nullify?

To the contrary, nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void. In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so. In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act. Who’s defending slavery here?

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM

The GOP should start running occassional PSA’s in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, starting soon and running until Novemer 2014. Let’s keep all of those who sat on their hands abreast of their accomplishment.

Whiterock on November 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM

“Andrew Jackson denounced nullification.”

True, though Jackson was presumably not infallible. (Had nullification really been all about slavery, then Jackson, a slaveholder himself, should have supported it.) His proclamation concerning nullification was in fact written by his secretary of state, Edward Livingston, and that proclamation was, in turn, dismantled mercilessly – mercilessly – by Littleton Waller Tazewell.

“You must be a ‘neo-Confederate.’”

I confess I have never understood what this Orwellian agitprop term is supposed to mean, but it is surely out of place here. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, denounced nullification in his farewell address to the U.S. Senate. South Carolina, in the document proclaiming its secession from the Union in December 1860, cited the North’s nullification of the fugitive-slave laws as one of the grievances justifying its decision.

Don’t expect critics of nullification to know any of this, and you won’t be disappointed.

One of the points of my book Nullification, in fact, is to demonstrate that the Principles of ’98 were not some obscure southern doctrine, but at one time or another were embraced by all sections of the country. In 1820, the Ohio legislature even passed a resolution proclaiming that the Principles of ’98 had been accepted by a majority of the American people. I do not believe there were any slaves in Ohio in 1820, or that Ohio was ever part of the Confederacy.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM

“Andrew Jackson denounced nullification.”

True, though Jackson was presumably not infallible. (Had nullification really been all about slavery, then Jackson, a slaveholder himself, should have supported it.) His proclamation concerning nullification was in fact written by his secretary of state, Edward Livingston, and that proclamation was, in turn, dismantled mercilessly – mercilessly – by Littleton Waller Tazewell.

“You must be a ‘neo-Confederate.’”

I confess I have never understood what this Orwellian agitprop term is supposed to mean, but it is surely out of place here. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, denounced nullification in his farewell address to the U.S. Senate. South Carolina, in the document proclaiming its s.ecession from the Union in December 1860, cited the North’s nullification of the fugitive-slave laws as one of the grievances justifying its decision.

Don’t expect critics of nullification to know any of this, and you won’t be disappointed.

One of the points of my book Nullification, in fact, is to demonstrate that the Principles of ’98 were not some obscure southern doctrine, but at one time or another were embraced by all sections of the country. In 1820, the Ohio legislature even passed a resolution proclaiming that the Principles of ’98 had been accepted by a majority of the American people. I do not believe there were any slaves in Ohio in 1820, or that Ohio was ever part of the Confederacy.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

People like bgibbs who openly wish for collapse of the financial system and the pain and suffering that would mean for all Americans are not very patriotic in my opinion.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM

And I question the patriotism of any stupid greedy person who gleefully re-elected an avowed socialist to second term. These people did not put the well-being of the nation over their own interests so they can go eff themselves and live with the consequences of being stupid and greedy.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

You know, the fiscal cliff will hit. Everyone’s sacred cows will be sacrificed, and life will go on.

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I’ll try to remember that as the unions traipse away holding on to their exemptions and laughing like hyenas.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

KingGold on November 9, 2012 at 9:02 AM

In each of those cases the Republican cross overs that voted for the dim were enough to elect the flawed GOP candidate. Blame it on the pubs who didn’t stay home. I saw a lot of ugliness the last few days blaming various Pub factions that actually voted for Romney. If moderate to leftist Pubs don’t have to stay home and vote for the Pub on the ticket because they find them distasteful why do various conservative types have to vote for flawed Pubs they find distasteful? It is a two way street you know.

chemman on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

“James Madison spoke against the idea of nullification.”

More sophisticated opponents think they have a trump card in James Madison’s statements in 1830 to the effect that he never intended, in the Virginia Resolutions or at any other time, to suggest that a state could resist the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. Anyone who holds that he did indeed call for such a thing has merely misunderstood him. He was saying only that the states had the right to get together to protest unconstitutional laws.

This claim falls flat. In 1830 Madison did indeed say such a thing, and pretended he had never meant what everyone at the time had taken him to mean. Madison’s claim was greeted with skepticism. People rightly demanded to know: if that was all you meant, why even bother drafting such an inane and feckless resolution in the first place? Why go to the trouble of passing solemn resolutions urging that the states had a right that absolutely no one denied? And for heaven’s sake, when numerous states disputed your position, why in the Report of 1800 did you not only not clarify yourself, but you actually persisted in the very view you now deny and which everyone attributed to you at the time? Madison biographer Kevin Gutzman (see James Madison and the Making of America, St. Martin’s, 2012) dismantled this toothless interpretation of Madison’s Virginia Resolutions in “A Troublesome Legacy: James Madison and ‘The Principles of ’98,’” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (1995): 569-89. Judge Abel Upshur likewise made quick work of this view in An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, excerpted in my book.

The elder Madison, in his zeal to separate nullification from Jefferson’s legacy, tried denying that Jefferson had included the dreaded word in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. Madison had seen the draft himself, so he either knew this statement was false or was suffering from the effects of advanced age. When a copy of the original Kentucky Resolutions in Jefferson’s own handwriting turned up, complete with the word “nullification,” Madison was forced to retreat.

In summary, then, (1) the other state legislatures understood Madison in 1798 as saying precisely what Madison later tried to deny he had said; (2) Madison did not correct this alleged misunderstanding when he had the chance to in the Report of 1800 or at any other time during those years; and (3) the text of the Virginia Resolutions clearly indicates that each state was “duty bound” to maintain its constitutional liberties within its “respective” territory, and hence Madison did indeed contemplate action by a single state (rather than by all the states jointly), as supporters and opponents alike took him to be saying at the time.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:49 AM

“Nullification has a ‘shameful history.’”

So we are instructed by the scholars who populate the Democratic Party of Idaho. Was it “shameful” for Jefferson and Madison to have employed the threat of nullification against the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? Was it “shameful” of the northern states to have employed the Principles of ’98 against the unconstitutional searches and seizures by which the federal embargo of 1807-1809 was enforced? Was it “shameful” for Daniel Webster, as well as the legislature of Connecticut, to have urged the states to protect their citizens from overreaching federal authority should Washington attempt military conscription during the War of 1812? Was it “shameful” for the northern states to do everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws (whose odious provisions they did not believe were automatically justified merely on account of the fugitive-slave clause)? Was it “shameful” when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void, citing the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 in the process?

May I take a wild guess that no Democrat in the Idaho legislature knows any of this history?

The “shameful history” remark is surely a reference to southern resistance to the civil rights movement, in which the language of nullification was indeed employed. The implication is that Jeffersonian decentralism is forever discredited because states have behaved in ways most Americans find grotesque. They are states, after all, so we should not be shocked when their behavior offends us. But this is apples and oranges. This outcome was possible only at a time when blacks had difficulty exercising voting rights, a situation that no longer obtains. Things have changed since Birmingham 1963 in other ways as well. The demographic trends of the past three decades make that clear enough, as blacks have moved in substantial numbers to the South, the only section of the country where a majority of blacks polled say they are treated fairly. It is an injustice to the people of the South, as well as an exercise in emotional hypochondria, to believe the states are on the verge of restoring segregation if only given the chance. I mean, really.

By exactly the same reasoning, incidentally, any crime by any national government anywhere would immediately justify a world government. Anyone living under that world government who then favored decentralization would be solemnly lectured about all the awful things that had happened under decentralism in the past.

Supporters of nullification do not hold that the federal government is bad but the state governments are infallible. The state governments are rotten, too (which is why we may as well put them to some good use by employing them on behalf of resistance to the federal government). We are asking under what conditions liberty is more likely to flourish: with a multiplicity of competing jurisdictions, or one giant jurisdiction? There is a strong argument to be made that it was precisely the decentralization of power in Europe that made possible the development of liberty there.

This objection – why, an institutional structure was once put to objectionable purposes, so it may never be appealed to again – never seems to be directed against centralized government itself, particularly the megastates of the nationalistic twentieth century. I rather doubt nullification critics would turn this argument against themselves – by saying, for instance, “Centralized governments gave us hundreds of millions of deaths, thanks to total war, genocide, and totalitarian revolutions. In the U.S. we can point to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and a horrendously murderous military-industrial-congressional complex, among other enormities. Our federal government is so remote from the people that it has managed to rack up debts (including unfunded liabilities) well in excess of $100 trillion. In light of this record, what intellectual and moral pygmy would urge nationalism or the centralized modern state as the solution to our problems?”

In fact, anyone who argues that centralized states have been wonderful, progressive institutions when it comes to the minorities within their borders might consult the Armenians in Turkey, the Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, the Jews in Germany, the Asians in Uganda, or a whole host of other peoples who might have rather a different opinion.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM

bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch… bzzzzt, ouch…

equanimous on November 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM

These people did not put the well-being of the nation over their own interestsagree with my political choices so they can go eff themselves and live with the consequences of being stupid and greedy while I pout the next four years about how unfair life is.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

fixt

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Thanks for all the spam, Dante.

AngusMc on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

“Nullification would be chaotic.”

It is far more likely that states will be too timid to employ nullification. But the more significant point is this: if the various states should have different policies, so what? That is precisely what the United States was supposed to look like. As usual, alleged supporters of “diversity” are the ones who most insist on national uniformity. It says quite a bit about what people are learning in school that they are terrified at the prospect that their country might actually be organized the way Americans were originally assured it would be. Local self-government was what the American Revolution was fought over, yet we’re told this very principle, and the defense mechanisms necessary to preserve it, are unthinkable.

Part of the reason the idea of nullification elicits such a visceral response from establishment opinion is that most people have unthinkingly absorbed the logic of the modern state, whereby a single, irresistible authority issuing infallible commands is the only way society can be organized. Most people do not subject their unstated assumptions to close scrutiny, particularly since the more deeply embedded the assumption, the less people are aware it exists. And it is this modern assumption, dating back to Thomas Hobbes, that – whether people realize it or not – lies at the root of nearly everyone’s political thought. Not only is this assumption false, but (as I discuss in the book) the modern state to which it gave rise has been the most irresponsible and even lethal institution in history, racking up debts and carrying out atrocities that the decentralized polities that preceded them could scarcely have imagined. Why it should be given the moral benefit of the doubt, to the point that all skeptics are to be viciously denounced, is unclear.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Dante is our new manifesto contributor…

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

“The compact theory may apply to the first 13 states, but since all the other states were created by the federal government, we cannot describe these later states as building blocks of the Union in the same sense.”

The Idaho attorney general’s office tried making this argument against the Idaho health-care nullification bill. Superficially plausible, the argument amounts to a gross misunderstanding of the American system. Were the Idaho attorney general correct, American states would not be states at all but provinces.

The argument of the Idaho attorney general’s office, in fact, amounts to precisely the Old World view of the nature of the state and the people that Americans fled Europe to escape. The American position has always been that an American state is created by the people, not the federal government. Jefferson himself amplified this point in the controversy over the admission of Missouri. The people of Missouri had drafted a constitution and were applying for admission to the Union. Were they not admitted, Jefferson told them, they would be an independent state. In other words, their statehood derived from their sovereign people and its drafting of a constitution, not the approval of the federal government.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

ROFL by “obstructing” they increased thier majority in 2012 why would voters turn them out for doing what they have been doing. If obstructing would “wipe them out” Then Pelosi would be speaker today. The GOP needs to stonewall more. the more they fight Obama the bigger their majorites will be in the midterms.

unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM

dont be like mitt romney and start living in a fantasy world. facts:
1- in the current tally, dems have now a LARGER minority. you you are completely wrong when you say gop has more house places!
2- another fact is that dems, despite losing the house, they won the house popular vote! how is this possible? because the GOP still masters the dark arts of gerrymandering
the article bellow explains it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/how-redistricting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/

in conclusion, the gop house is save at least for a few years, but unpopular house gop politics will eventually tarnish statewide races (senate, presidential) and hurt the gop brand! in the long term we have to have majority popular support for our policies, or it will be slow death!

nathor on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Yes it will hit and the various people groups (lower and middle class) your party claims to care for will be hardest hit. So while life goes. You are a class A, number one hypocrite now and since you are much younger than me you will be a class A, number one hypocrite when I die.

chemman on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

“The Civil War settled this.”

The Civil War was not fought over nullification, and as I’ve said above, at the time of the war it was the northern states that had much more recently been engaged in nullification. The legitimacy of nullification involves a philosophical argument, and philosophical arguments are not – at least to reasonable people – decided one way or the other by violence. No one would say, when confronted with the plight of the Plains Indians, “Didn’t the U.S. Army settle that?” If the arguments for nullification make sense, and they do, that is what matters. Reality is what it is. The compact theory, from which nullification is derived, does describe U.S. history. There is no way to evade that brute fact.

My primary intention in writing Nullification was to rescuscitate portions of American history which, having proven inconvenient to the regime in Washington, had slipped down the Orwellian memory hole. I wanted Americans to realize that illustrious figures from their country’s past posed questions about the most desirable form of political organization – questions that today one is written out of polite society for asking. I wanted to make a case, backed by overwhelming historical evidence, that the inhumane system whereby a single city hands down infallible dictates to 309 million people is not a fated existence. Jefferson and others proposed an alternative, one we might wish to revisit in light of how obviously dysfunctional the present system has become. Before this information can be put to much immediate use there is a good deal of educational groundwork to be laid. I intended the book to be a first step along the road back to sanity.

Old-style, “small-is-beautiful” progressives would have sympathized with this view, as New Left historian William Appleman Williams did. The commissars of approved opinion who pass as “progressives” today cannot even take the trouble to understand it.

Afterword: The problem with Jefferson’s position is not that it was too “extreme,” but that if anything it was too timid. Should you want something more challenging still, read Lysander Spooner.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Boehner can feign a good fight, but most people that I know who have met him, say that he’s more “fluff” than “tough”

Glenn Jericho on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

In fact, anyone who argues that centralized states have been wonderful, progressive institutions when it comes to the minorities within their borders might consult the Armenians in Turkey, the Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, the Jews in Germany, the Asians in Uganda, or a whole host of other peoples who might have rather a different opinion.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I agree on the principle of your speech but you really do know little about the Soviet Union’s history. Ukraine got its revenge with Khrushchev.

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

For further evidence, see Brion McClanahan.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

the results of 1865 made nullification moot. It was the entire reason the civil war was fought. The north won nullification was reputed.

unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Yup. Elections have consequences.

gh on November 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM

The rat-eared wonder got his second term. He also inherited a whole lot of problems he refused to address during his first term. He’s in one heck of a pickle and is too stupid and lazy to understand just how screwed he really is by his own policies.

Boehner does not need to rush into the fray to save the filthy bastard from himself.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The FACT that Mitt and Ryan got 2.3 million less votes refutes your theory that they were the better ticket. If they were the better ticket they would have got MORE votes than McCain and Palin. I guess logic is still hard for some people to grasp.

unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

We don’t actually know which ticket had the higher vote count. Millions of votes are still being counted. What is being compared right now are preliminary totals for R/R and final totals for M/P. We won’t know who took the higher vote count until some time in December.

stvnscott on November 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

It is interesting how the same reactions at HA occurred in 2006 and 2008. Time to “Go all galt”, “arm up”, “tree of liberty refreshed with blood of tyrants”, etc. Then 2010 happened and the sentiments were all about how great democracy and the people were. Now we are in 2012 and the 06/08 wackadoodles emerge openly wishing for the country to collapse.
Not a winning strategy going forward.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM

History has a way of smacking you in the face. People were scared in 2008 of what might be, in 2010 they were justifiably terrified because of what Barky and the rats had done.

Then the GOP comes along, get themselves the House, and proceed to do nothing but quiver in Bark’s presence.

Since then it has been nothing but scandal, ruin, and death, all of it ignored by the populace who decided they wanted more of the last 4 years and more of the “flexibility” that Bark was promising.

People now have a right to be terrified, we have a history to work with.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Obamacare the law of the land. Re-think amnesty. And yet there are those who wonder why the GOP lost.

Dismantle this dem lite party and build a new one from the ground up. What the hay, if were going to lose lets at least lose standing on our principles. And lets not mistake this loss, one that came out of a 5 year propaganda campaign by the media, as a loss based on conservative principles.

voiceofreason on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The question you won’t answer is about our constitution.

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I answered it. You just failed to understand the point. Come on, Bradky, I know you’ve got it in you to use that brain of yours.

Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I also think of something a woman said to me. “There was no way I was going to vote for a rich white man. Obama understands the average person more than Romney”. facepalm

Whiterock on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I’ll bet a year’s salary she has no problem with a “rich white guy
‘ footing the bill she will run up!

When the crash comes, it will not differentiate between white, black, brown, yellow, male, female, straight or gay. You all will get the shaft because this attitude beacons the fiscal reaper!

belad on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’ll try to remember that as the unions traipse away holding on to their exemptions and laughing like hyenas.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM

One side picks capital, the other labor. Capital wins elections and what do they do? Look after their own – tax cuts for the wealthy, decreased regulation, and lower spending on the poor become priorities for government. Labor wins elections, and what do they do? Look after their own. It has always been this way.

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

bzzzt, ouch…

equanimous on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Oh, and what you do is a very quick way to get banned for spamming. I do like your posts occasionally, but a link is enough for a smart man, while a stupid one won’t learn anyway.

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Dante is our new manifesto contributor…

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Apparently the professor thinks his copypasted hot air makes him anything more than an idiot and a semi-troll.

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The issue with Boehner is the same as Pelosi. They are both elected positions. Both are doing what they were elected to do. Until the house elects someone else he will not change.

The House controls the budget and can refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Cut off the “free stuff” which is how the Democrats won and it is over. At some point inflation is going to roar anyway. The sooner the less painful.

BullShooterAsInElk on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

This isn’t a tactical decision. It’s reality.

Hahahaha. Good luck with that message round these parts, Ed. Romney in a landslide! Heartache!

lostmotherland on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

We now have Republican governors in 30 states. What’s going to happen to the boy king’s precious Obamacare when the governors in many of those states are refusing to implement it?

Implode?

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

No no no no NO Ed! I could agree to tactical reasons for not passing a repeal bill every day right now, but this is a game changing bill. It has to go or we stop being a superpower.

The bill is going to get highly visible the next couple years due to the fees coming into play – now is the time to educate the people who didnt know better. Until we can take the Senate and reconcile it away, we look toward 10th Amendment solutions (I actually agree with Dante for once lol). This and amnesty cannot go through or we lose the long game.

specialkayel on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

the results of 1865 made nullification moot. It was the entire reason the civil war was fought. The north won nullification was reputed.

unseen on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 AM

You should’ve kept reading. Take a look at the third post above your response, the one that directly addresses and shoots down your objection.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM

When the crash comes, it will not differentiate between white, black, brown, yellow, male, female, straight or gay. You all will get the shaft because this attitude beacons the fiscal reaper!

belad on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Yes, but the gay will enjoy the shaft.

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Dante is our new manifesto contributor…

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Piss off. There may be differences in opinion about candidates and policies with Dante but what he is contributing now is solid information.

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

We now have Republican governors in 30 states. What’s going to happen to the boy king’s precious Obamacare when the governors in many of those states are refusing to implement it?

Implode?

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Why the heck do you still think governors having an (R) after their name automatically means they will even oppose the liberal agenda when push comes to shove?

I’ll bet you half of those “Republican” governors will fold like a sheet of paper if Obama threatened them with “comply or I’ll call you racist.”

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Oh, and what you do is a very quick way to get banned for spamming. I do like your posts occasionally, but a link is enough for a smart man, while a stupid one won’t learn anyway.

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How is breaking down a written piece spam, especially given that it’s specifically related to the topic? Boehner is wrong: ObamaCare is NOT the law of the land. Is it wrong to pass on information?

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Dante is our new manifesto contributor…

Bradky on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Dante is one of the filthy traitors who refused to vote for Romney because he didn’t meet the ideological purity test put forth by racist isolationist pot-smokers. Congratulations Dante, I hope you are among the first to feel the effects of allowing the rat-eared bastard to have four more years. You’ll see that there was a difference between Obama and Romney but you were too damned stupid to get out of your own way.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

voiceofreason on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

If you dismantly this dem lite party you won’t get a second chance. Every other major economy in the world provides health care regardless of a person’s ability to pay, and America will join them. If you don’t like that, there are exactly no countries left for you to run away to, so I suppose you have no choice but to suck it up.

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Bishop on November 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Thank you, Bishop. I genuinely appreciate that.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Folks, he’s stating a simple fact. We lost every opportunity we had to get rid of Obamacare. The election of 2008, 2010, 2012, and a handful of court decisions have consequences. Obamacare is out of the hands of Congress.

slickwillie2001 on November 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

We now have Republican governors in 30 states. What’s going to happen to the boy king’s precious Obamacare when the governors in many of those states are refusing to implement it?

Implode?

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

29 states. There is no way that fat traitor in NJ can legitmatly called a Republican after his gushing endorsement of Obama even though the rat-eared wonder has done nothing to really help with recovovery. He is dead to me.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Dante is one of the filthy traitors who refused to vote for Romney because he didn’t meet the ideological purity test put forth by racist isolationist pot-smokers.

Go whiz on an electric fence you pea-brained triple-K dittohead, and take your racist projection somewhere else.

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Dante is one of the filthy traitors who refused to vote for Romney…

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Not voting for Romney doesn’t make him a traitor.

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM

If the republicans don’t change to “How does this help the People”, instead of how does this further myself… we are done.

And what have those elected in 2010 done lately? Obamacare still passed, did it not?

We are probably already done.

upinak on November 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It’s not the job of the federal government to ask that question or pass laws based on that premise without also asking the question and adhering to whether or not it is CONSTITUTIONAL. The problem is too many people only ask the first question.

2nd, check your timeline – Obamacare passed in early 2010 and caused the blowout election of of 2010.

I agree, we are probably already done for but we have to fight based on principle, logic and sound management skills – all of which the GOP leadership, i.e. RINOs, reject.

Sporty1946 on November 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM

What’s going to happen to the boy king’s precious Obamacare when the governors in many of those states are refusing to implement it?

Implode?

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Then the game of chicken begins. We can start moving military bases out of those states, we can stop spending money on their highways, etc etc.

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Wow, some people can’t handle the truth. Dante helped reelect Obama and there is no way to sugar coat that kind of stupidity.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Not voting for Romney doesn’t make him a traitor.

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I’ll say. Even though he’s a spamming libtard idiot, not voting for a Communist sympathizer versus an outright Communist hardly makes him a traitor.

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The rat-eared wonder got his second term. He also inherited a whole lot of problems he refused to address during his first term. He’s in one heck of a pickle and is too stupid and lazy to understand just how screwed he really is by his own policies.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The rat-eared wonder is not screwed. He and his family will just continue their extravagant life-style for another 4 years and then he’ll retire to the lecture circuit.

Unless total fiscal collapse hits first.

Either way he’ll be fine.

Also. There’s very little Boehner can do by himself. It’s a complete waste of time to sit around blaming him.

gh on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Let Bush tax cuts expire. Start making the pain of higher taxes hit home…..now. Allow all the automatic spending cuts to hit….now.

Let the financial implications of these elections hit and hit hard.

rickyricardo on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

How is breaking down a written piece spam, especially given that it’s specifically related to the topic? Boehner is wrong: ObamaCare is NOT the law of the land. Is it wrong to pass on information?

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Depends on the form and amount. The materials you post are golden but a link is truly sufficient. People with a brain, of which Hot Air has a precious minority, will follow the link and read, and those without won’t bother anyway.

More to the point – how do you see states invoking nullification when so much of their money comes from various federal programs? Whoever controls the purse strings rules (unless it’s Boehner of course).

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Apparently the professor thinks his copypasted hot air makes him anything more than an idiot and a semi-troll.

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I would hold off on insulting Dante. The material he presented here has a lot of substance to it. And the topics (such as nullification) will be important parts of the conversation during the coming two years. These are things that conservatives should understand.

(As I finish writing this, I see that Bishop made a similar point.)

Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

even though the rat-eared wonder has done nothing to really help with recovovery. He is dead to me.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Somehow I think Christie is in better position to make that claim than you…

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And you think we have a second chance now? lol

Not by the rules of this game. In fact, we never had a first chance.

voiceofreason on November 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I’ll say. Even though he’s a spamming libtard idiot, not voting for a Communist sympathizer versus an outright Communist hardly makes him a traitor.

MelonCollie on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I’ve had more than a few differences with him myself, but yeah. Romney was a self-described progressive.

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Not voting for Romney doesn’t make him a traitor.

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM

It does when the only motive is to stick it to the GOP for not nominating a racist isolationist. I put Dante’s lack of patriotism right up there with the stupid greedy people who voted for Obama for the free stuff despite the fact that it will destroy the nation. Excuse me if I care about this nation enough to call out traitors wherever I see them.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

If you’re looking to blame somebody, why don’t you blame the folks who cost us the Senate majority? Like O’Donnell, Akin, Mourdock, Buck, and Angle?

KingGold on November 9, 2012 at 9:02 AM

No, how about we place the blame where it really belongs? You jelly-spined wimp Republicans that are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. “Vote conservative in the primary but republican in the general, because they’re better than the democrat.” Yeah right. 15% of you squishes voted for Reid instead of Angle. 20% voted for Coons instead of O’Donnell. 11% voted against Buck. They win if you squishes do what you tell conservatives to do every dang election. Angle won independents, Buck won independents, O’Donnell tied with independents. You hypocritical wimps cost us those elections. Oh, and the conservatives split their votes between Steelman and Brunner in the primary, they didn’t go for Akin.

topdawg on November 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM

No Mr. Speaker the real law of the land is the Constitution.If you can,t do your job quit.

logman1 on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Somehow I think Christie is in better position to make that claim than you…

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Tell you what. Why don’t we ask the people suffering in the cold with water and gas being in short supply. Christie gushing like a morbidly obese schoolgirl killed any chance he had with higher national office in the GOP. He also helped kill this nation. I don’t have a whole lot of respect for the rat-bastard traitor.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Boehner needs to be replaced as speaker – He should have said the Republican party will continue to fight for what is best for the country and went down the list of what will happen if Obama’s plans are put into place. Start to hammer hammer hammer Obama – or better put…Get out there and tell the truth about what is about to happen, regardless of the media throne licking. Ryan for speaker!

WiRichey on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

More to the point – how do you see states invoking nullification when so much of their money comes from various federal programs? Whoever controls the purse strings rules (unless it’s Boehner of course).

Archivarix on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I keep saying it, but it starts with education. People have to first know this option. It’ll be difficult because the establishment – and that includes the Republican Party – has done everything to keep the people ignorant and uneducated. But then, all it takes is one state to do it. The establishment media will go nuts.

Dante on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Every other major economy in the world provides health care

ernesto on November 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well, not exactly. Every economy in the world can provide some kind of health care “coverage.” That doesn’t mean everyone will actually get health “care.” Britain uses a point system based on your age, existing conditions, etc., that determines whether you actually get “care.” We’re probably headed in that direction.

It’s like Obama said at a health care townhall meeting: when asked by a woman whether her 99 year old mother would be eligible for a pacemaker – he replied that in some cases, perhaps it’s best that you just take a painkiller. Me personally? Just send me out to sea on an ice floe.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6