Skip to comments.Romney Criticizes Roberts ObamaCare Decision as 'Political, not based on Constitution'
Posted on 07/04/2012 4:33:47 PM PDT by kristinn
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?
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.
Wrong Williams. I saw it when it happened. Just happened to be watching Fox at the time, and what Romney came out with was the agreed upon sound bite: It may be constitutional but it isn’t good policy.
All over the media this morning, they were still giving Romney grief for not coming out of the gate faster. I remember seeing Michelle Malkin choking back harsh words, but still criticizing his inability to say that this decision was not constitutional.
Until he felt the direction of the wind, of course.
Nope. You’re wrong. Romney came out the gate with the approved soundbite saying that it was constitutional but still wasn’t good policy.
You need to stop calling names and actually listen to the words being used.
In fact none of them did until they were PERSONALLY targeted by Romney, too late. First Perry, then Newt and then RS. They all spent too much time attacking each other until they specifically were targetted because I guess they always believed Romney would get it, Each one prized the ABBMR #1 spot more than beating him, until they got it and then MR nuked them.
i rarely if ever saw Paul go after Romney, imagine that.
So, did you have to spend a lot of time deciding whether or not it’s constitutional for congress to persecute with taxation over not buying something.
Can you cite for me where that is in the US Constitution?
Rush new it immediately, Levin knew it immediately, heck...even O’Reilly knew it right away.
And...most of the conservatives on FR knew it immediately.
I agree with that criticism. I want him to try to be more visible than he has been despite limited resources.
The real problem is the campaign has to focus on qualifying for state ballots instead of campaigning.
That is, imho, a real inequity in the sytem that a party that qualified for 40+ ballots last election has to start the process over each election. In my mind, the only way they should lose access if they fail to run candidates in ensuing elections.
So, he’s busy deciphering ballot law in about 30 states, all different, all obstructionist, and all bastions of the system as we know it.
So, I’m giving him a break until after the final convention...is that Dems this year??? With his financial resources, he can probably only afford a hard one month push anyway, so even that would be too much.
MA on a nation-wide level for anything?
Cue the liferafts and abandon ship.
“This is exactly why Romney is such a bad candidate to have now.”
Preaching to the choir on that point.
I am not saying I am in favor of it. They are a lot of things that are allowed at the state level that federal govt has no business getting into. The people of Massachusetts need to kill their healthcare law.
I am 100% opposed to any of it.
Many of us here pointed that out a loooooong time ago.
I hope you don’t think I like Romney, because I do not.
BTW : I am not one of those nutbags who claim we can now invade the GOP convention and replace Romney with some unspecified candidate who we cant even agree on (we all know who they mean.) I must live on the planet earth.
Romney campaign and allies must EFFECTIVELY beat Obama up and damage him. That is it.
I find it difficult to believe that somewhere in the NJ Romneycare there was not one or more things that didn’t pan out as intended by cause of various circumstances. Romney should list these things and then with political pie on his face make a forthright statement like ‘it just shows to go that sometimes there are unintended consequences which make a total overall necessary especially when the entire USA is involved’. This would indicate a man of analysis, perspective, and honest intents. Question? Has Romney the character to do such?
I see you pointed out how Romney-care sucks so you cant be all bad :)
I think the Romney-bots are mostly terminated. Now it is the fear-ridden ABBO’s vs those not joining them for various reasons.
It makes it interesting. The groupings really get mixed and remixed.
NOW, Romney is able to say that its not based on the Constitution.
Yes Mitt immediately came out and said that Obamacare was bad policy and that he would repeal it...and yes it wasn't until 4 or 5 days later that he said it was unconstitutional (which is really the primary point).
Meanwhile, Obama continues to be for it.
” 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. “
I don’t want to give Obama a break on this at all. Obama’s positions have been worse than Romney’s, if the issue is speaking with a forked tongue.
Obama argued in congress that it wasn’t a tax, argued before scotus that is was a tax, agreed with the ruling (it is a tax), and is now arguing before the media (public) that it is not a tax.
Romney couldn’t say it was unconstitutional. Obama is all over the map.
“I see you pointed out how Romney-care sucks so you cant be all bad :)”
Thank you! I like to think I have somewhat of a handle on what’s going on.
Either way State Nullification is where we need to go from here.
We can’t ever trust Washington to simply give up power. We must first take it from them, and make it as politically difficult as possible for them to attempt to hold onto it.
Get used to it. Romney has to blow in the wind for a few days before the direction the wind blows tells him what he should say.
It would be nice to know Mittens listens to Mark Levin but I have my doubts.
I noticed that too. I also noticed that the media would often let him answer the question AFTER everybody else did so he could choose the answer of the candidate that got the biggest applaud. Usually that choice would be whatever Newt had just said.
Thanks Barnacle, although you probably don’t need to waste your typing when some people wouldn’t care if the truth were posted right in front. Yes, he’s not as far behind as plenty of these people think, but to some people on forums, you are pretty much arguing and wasting any reasoning on the person.
Mitt was shoved down our throats day 1 by the GOPe.
Actually, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich really screwed up, kept getting worse, then quit while throwing temper tantrums incrementally on their attempts to get at Romney, but were they really trying to get Romney, or worried about the little pathetic Ron Paul ads? Really, the other guys against him in the GOP crashed and burned. What was really pathetic is the fact that genuinely substantial individuals with debating potential like Pwalenty or West weren’t up, and Gingrich was overhyped, sadly enough, and Santorum pretty much ran on the idea that he’s morally cleaner than Gingrich, which only lasted so long, and then Gingrich nor Santorum couldn’t yield and/or ally, so nobody liked either of them for a lack of this willingness to make the winning step.
LOL! now that is funny.
Did you hear that Traitor Jim is working on a Book Deal? Yep. Something entitled Profiles of Cowards.
They asked Justice Kennedy if he wanted to be in the Chapter about the on again, off again, cowardly Liberal, but he couldnt make up his mind.
And...most of the conservatives on FR knew it immediately.
No sh** Sherlock? There is a difference in knowing something immediately and waiting to express your opinion to a pack of media hounds who watch for every misstep you make. They will NOT let a GOP candidate for President say one sentence and walk away. They want a detailed statement. Romney’s dad made one misstatement in 1968 that doomed his Presidential bid. He said he had been brainwashed on Vietnam. Game over!!! Mitt probably remembers that every day of this campaign.
Have a nice day!
Romney’s dad really has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who didn’t realize this is a massive, intrusive expansion of government is not paying attention. And anyone who doesn’t instantly know the US Constitution was written to prevent massive, intrusive government has no business being in charge of our nation.
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.