You summed it all up.
The battle has been lost. We must salvage what we can of our Country before it’s too late.
And of course, once this passes, anyone who tries to repeal it will have to contend with ads saying "That evil GOP is trying to take away your health care." Good luck winning against that.
I’m no expert, but I predict the nation will be broke in very short order; without healthcare for anyone.
There's no other way. Getting a two-thirds majority in both houses simply isn't going to happen. The media and ACORN will not allow the vote count to come out that way.
Some state has to go first. Then others will follow. But it's time to leave the party.
The EASIEST WAY for us to end this nonsense is to contribute to Scott Brown’s candidacy (Kennedy seat). The Dem nominee up there isn’t lighting anyone on fire and the rumor is that State Sen. Brown is leading that race.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2413769/posts
I heard that we will have two retirements before the end of 2010 in the Supreme Court...two liberals but two Justices just the same. I wonder who will be chosen to replace them.
Here’s his website:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/senator-brown
It’s too bad the talk show guys are mostly on vacation right now because they could invite him on their shows and raise some money, like Hoffman in NY-23.
“..No conservative president or congress has ever dismantled the Department of Education or Department of Energy.”
Has one EVER even made a serious attempt to do this?
Constitutional amendment for congressional term limits and the the right of recall.
Simply put, the people have to elect huge Republican/Conservative majorities in both houses, the presidency would be nice too, but not necessary. Then they would have to begin impeachment hearings on all those federal judges who violate their oath of office, to wit, they do not uphold the constitution. After a couple of hundred impeachments, maybe things would change.
“ Reform’ Bill's likely legacy
We can't say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular — Gallup didn't start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing: The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats’ 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years.
On the health-care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854.
Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in “bleeding Kansas,” and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election-stealing by the pro-slavery side"
2 arguments that Republicans have made:
1) Obamacare is unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. Insurance is a state issue.
2) We should have federally mandated tort reform and removal of restrictions on interstate health insurance purchases.
Aren’t those 2 arguments inconsistent? Either states can control insurance for their people or they can’t.
The Dems’ positions are inconsistent too.
I believe you are correct. There is only one solution, it worked for the founding fathers, it’ll work for us as well.
What of the “Seperation of Powers”? Powers not granted by the Constitution are given to the states. There is a Constitutional boundary which they have crossed. The Federal Gov’t cannot force anyone to buy insurance. This will be challenged in court.
No.
Read this:
“CBO: Real 10-Year Cost of Senate Bill Still $2.5 Trillion
The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that's not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those “10-year costs” would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion — for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill's full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion — according to the CBO.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2411500/posts
And this:
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html
The likelihood that this will be overturned on "inequality" grounds is very very low. Because where do you draw the line? To say that the congress must treat all states equally, would tie their hands to respond to a Katrina, or to do almost anything. Even simple road projects would become a nightmare of equality testing.
However, if this mandates the states to do something that is reserved to the states by the tenth amendment, that could be successfully challened. That has clear legal precedent.
Of course, the Federal government normally does not mandate, but provides matching funds, to incent a state to follow the federal program. A state that refuses is penalized, because their people are still being taxed by the federal government, but the state is not getting a share of the Federal funds back.
I suspect, that there are grounds to challenge this bill as being a mandate, not merely an incentive, to the states in a non-enumerated area.
We could challenge the use of conditional funds predicated on behavior not enumerated by the tenth, as being tantamount to a mandate. I don't know if it has ever been done. That would be far more useful in reigning in an out of control Federal government.
However, it would have major repercussions to existing programs, including Medicare. So a court's willingness to rule in favor on this is doubtful. And again, the court would have to decide where to draw the line somewhere.
And there is the danger that deprived of the use of matching funds, that the federal government would simply up the taxes, and fund the program entirely with Federal dollars, creating an insurmountable competition to any private or state programs.
Perhaps we could argue that healthcare represents such a large percentage of a state government's budget, that it is tantamount to a mandate. But again, if 10% of a state goverment's budget is a mandate, is 0.001% also mandate?
I am not ready to fold up my Tea Party tent and call it a day.
I would bet the republicans had to tie down the likes Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Kay Bailey Hutchison to keep them from voting Yes to Healthcare.
Republicans better make up their minds if they are for pricipled conservatism first, or republican party first. I won’t vote for a Democrat in republican clothing, so get it right the first time!
The election campaign has to start now. I live in S. FL in the district of 2nd term cong. Ron Klein (D). He beat our long-term GOP cong. Clay Shaw in the GOP purge of ‘06. We now have ret. Col. Alan West taking on this race and firing people up. I am contributing to Col. West now. We need to push this leftist donkey out starting now. Klein is a long-term FL state legislator before going to congress who has devoted his life to imposing govt. on us. He needs to know now that his days are numbered.
The contortions Pelosi went through just to get a simple majority, capped by that Saturday midnight disgrace show how weak the house razor-thin majority is.
The final joining of the house and senate monstrosities hasn’t happened yet. Liberals generally do not hold up well under heavy public scrutiny. We need to give these leftist hacks real assurances that they are going down and point to specific disticts like mine. There must be a few that can be shaken free as these guys are in it for themselves first and foremost.