Posted on 07/04/2012 4:33:47 PM PDT by kristinn
Caroline Horn@CNHorn
On @CBSEveningNews, @cbsjancrawford says Romney told her Roberts' opinion seemed political, not based on Constitution.
The mittbots sure are having a lot of anxiety attacks around here.
“Romney replies that states like MA can impose a fine without calling it a tax to make it constitutional but at the Federal level it must be called a tax.”
Is this accurate?
“Romney needs to explain SPECIFICALLY : Why does Obama-care kill jobs but Romney-care doesnt?”
LOL, they are not the same. Romneycare is only 70 pages long and Obamacare has 2,700 pages.
There’s a survey out by the chamber of commerce saying that 2 out of 3 business owners are less likely to hire new employees because of Obamacare.
A similar survey in Massachussets showed that Romneycare had no impact in their hiring decisions (it only affects about 6% of the population).
Your boy Virgile Good has said nothing about it (his party has). Is he even still alive?
No.
That would be a good start, but HE must do it.
Please be more specific with your question so I don't go off on a tangent.
States can impose whatever is allowed by its constitution as long it doesn’t involve a right resevered by the US Constitution to the federal govt.
The only person who will fight for conservative values and would jump on Obama like a bulldog on a porkchop is Sarah Palin. But Romney will be scared of the liberals and will not pick her. Sad. She should be on top of the ticket. No one in the Republican Party comes near her magnitism and ability to express conservative values and connect with the common man like she does. She’s the female version of Ronald Reagan and it’s time the Beltway snobs realize it.
Hmmmm...I'm not so sure about that.
In the case of something like education I would agree with you. There is absolutely no enumerated power that legitimately allows the national government to have anything to do with it. But many, if not most, of the state constitutions do grant power to the state governments to govern in this area.
But the imposition of flat-out socialism? That's highly debatable, since the U.S. Constitution requires that each state be guaranteed a republican form of government. Is that possible under socialism?
I guess it comes down to how you define republican governance, in the American sense of the words.
So, the 10th Amendment allows RomneyCare and it’s “fees”, which are paid to the MA DOR (and yes, I have been fined/taxed/whatever one wants to call it).
So basically, Gloves argument is: Rom-bamaCare on a national level is bad; on a state level is good.
I can tell you all, on a state level it SUCKS!
For example mandatory seat belt laws. It appears that no one is bothered by the blatant assault on the individual privacy such as these - although people should wear them I think these laws are a violation of civil liberities..
But the states have the right to impose these laws even though there is no power for the federal govt to require this. Manditory liability insurance is another example at the state level as requirement for driving a car.
I love Scalia, but I am still waiting for someone to justify his concurrence in South Dakota v Dole.
I know Romney wants to avoid Romney-care and use states rights vs Federal limitations as a defense, BUT :
In 2009 Romney did a USA op-ed saying the Federal government should apply parts of the successful Romney-care at the federal level including the mandates. That was posted here many months ago. He also argued for the mandates at the Federal level in the 2008 debates echoing Democrats words now : It is needed to keep “free riders” from passing their medical costs on to others.
Romney never anticipated Obama-care mandate as becoming the overwhelming symbol Republicans would use to define it as evil, and their most desperate hope to have the SCOTUS throw it out, now lost.
He must explain why one law is good, the other is bad. He is in a hole he dug himself. He knew this was coming all through the primaries but still trashed the other candidates.
Understood, P-Dogg! Thank you for the info.
“He must explain why one law is good, the other is bad.”
I suspect he’ll try to muck through and say it’s a states’ rights issue?
This is exactly why Romney is such a bad candidate to have now. He can't admit it, but he must admit it at the same time he cant.
My gal unelectable Bachmann would be calling Obama-care a dark curse on this nation about now pointing out how it chases jobs to China and Mexico. And she could say that Romney-care sucks too.
A shame the primary is over because I would like him to be asked to list 20 Federal laws that he thinks that are in the same category, valid at state level and invalid at Federal, and if he would have vetoed them. But the primary was mostly stupid questions.
Maybe she should have emphazied this instead of talking about gardasil. However, she refused to turn her guns on Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.