Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Trump will take executive action on healthcare after Senate failure [BFD!]
Posted on 09/28/2017 9:37:25 AM PDT by catnipman
click here to read article
Good plan, and good that DT and RP are working together.
I second that.
Trump acts now.
Congress follows up. Better late than never.
Rand isn’t demanding “the impossible”; he’s demanding the improbable. But it’s only improbable because of abject nefariousness on the part of Dems and yellow-bellied cowardice on the part of the eGOP.
“At least Rand Paul is trying to do something about healthcare.”
Paul has been trying ever since the day Trump was elected. Rand Paul is a good man, maybe the only good one in the Senate.
“Rand Paul, IMHO, is the only principled Senator out the 100.”
Agreed. And the smartest of the 100. Actually, from a raw intellectual power standpoint, Rand Paul is by far the smartest Congressman from both Houses
“Itll be one more reason for impeachment for them.”
and here i was thinking the fool Dems had used up all of their bogus reasons for impeaching Trump.
They won’t give up on impeachment. After letting obama admin and hillary get away with blatant lawlessness, they want Trump punished for calling out the NFL players.
And it would be unconstitutional on 10th Amendment and separation of powers issues. The president cant decree what a state has to allow to sell in its borders.
Congress probably can under the Commerce Clause, but that would be its own fight.
I’m not trying to be a contrarian jerk, but the 10 Amendment is THE MOST ignored amendment in the Constitution. Within the last year, I’ve had 3 different lawyers scoff at the notion that the Federal government CAN’T take over any issue/power/right that it chooses. Defining marriage? Federal Issue. Health Care? Federal Issue. Wanna make, transport, and sell goods ONLY within your state? Too bad...your unwillingness to conduct commerce with other states affects the commerce of other states and thus brings you within the authority of the Commerce Clause.
The 10th Amendment is one of my favorites, so please don’t think I’m disrespecting a Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. I’m just trying to give you some idea of current level of contempt that politicians and most lawyers have for the 10th Amendment. The ONLY time they might pay lip-service to the 10th Amendment is if it can help some left-wing cause get its foot in the door on the way to being accepted by the American people. Even then it makes them uncomfortable because it challenges federal power and their authority to social activism down our throats from Washington.
That is a sufficient explanation which does little good.
Well...not so fast.
I think when people say “that’s impossible” it serves to shelve future action to drive change, whereas identifying that something is merely improbable allows that there does exist an actionable target for action: eGOP stonewallers, in this case. That doesn’t alter the immediate outcome of this specific policy discussion, but it provides a course of action that will impact the outcome of other similar policy discussions in the future.
So, in the near term, I agree that my pointing out the difference between impossible and improbable “does little good”; the payoff that could do massive good is down the line in the long term where our political enemies have been living for fifty years. Long term thinking and action have been the weapons of our enemies’ political warfare since the 1930’s; and they’ve been kicking the GOP’s ass.
It’s high time we take residency in that neighborhood if we want any hope of there still being a recognizable United States of America by the close of this century.
You are right about the use of the word “impossible”, I will try and pledge to cut down on the usage.
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.