Skip to comments.
Dems suddenly scrambling to come up with ObamaCare fix
Fox News. com ^
| August 2, 2017
| Brooke Singman
Posted on 08/02/2017 7:22:26 PM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck
Come on ... fess up...who are you? Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell? Or perhaps John McCain or JeffFlake? Come on, tell me...I won’t tell anybody else.
41
posted on
08/02/2017 9:03:47 PM PDT
by
House Atreides
(Send BOTH Hillary & Bill to prison.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Come on ... fess up...who are you? Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell? Or perhaps John McCain or JeffFlake? Come on, tell me...I won’t tell anybody else.
42
posted on
08/02/2017 9:03:47 PM PDT
by
House Atreides
(Send BOTH Hillary & Bill to prison.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
The doctor’s are not being held hostage they are quitting Obamacare.
43
posted on
08/02/2017 9:04:16 PM PDT
by
Lopeover
(The 2016 Election is about allegiance to the United States!)
To: Kaslin
Trump just has to say that ALL politicians will have the same health care that all US citizens will have. That will shake some polyp's.
44
posted on
08/02/2017 9:04:57 PM PDT
by
jetson
To: Bobalu
45
posted on
08/02/2017 9:05:11 PM PDT
by
Lopeover
(The 2016 Election is about allegiance to the United States!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
The left forced this health insurance payor system on us. They left forced all the illegal immigrants and other legal immigrants on us. They eat up all US resources & housing.
The left must comprise.
46
posted on
08/02/2017 9:10:35 PM PDT
by
Lopeover
(The 2016 Election is about allegiance to the United States!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
I searched it myself and found articles where Trump said, “I won’t own it and neither will the GOP.”
Presumably that means neither will America.
So you were just trying to caulk our butt-cracks with buttercream frosting, weren’t you?
47
posted on
08/02/2017 9:11:11 PM PDT
by
tumblindice
(America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
To: Kaslin
Just make block grants to the states and let them do what’s right. Surprisingly it was Graham that proposed this. I agree, get the federal government out of it.
To: tumblindice
49
posted on
08/02/2017 9:12:56 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: MrEdd
.
>> “Government out of healthcare isnt anarchy, it is the free market.” <<
A dose of reality in the din...
.
50
posted on
08/02/2017 9:16:07 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Kaslin
How many traitors will join the democrats?
51
posted on
08/02/2017 9:26:45 PM PDT
by
arrogantsob
(Check out "CHAOS AND MAYHEM" at Amazon.com)
To: Bobalu
If the Democrats allow tort reform I would listen. I am sure they won’t agree to it so I say screw them.
52
posted on
08/02/2017 9:29:46 PM PDT
by
arrogantsob
(Check out "CHAOS AND MAYHEM" at Amazon.com)
To: HiTech RedNeck
After the collapse of Christianity here, the most likely church charity is to Illegals.
53
posted on
08/02/2017 9:32:03 PM PDT
by
arrogantsob
(Check out "CHAOS AND MAYHEM" at Amazon.com)
To: Kaslin
SINGLE PAYER DEATH PANELS
is not Health Care.
FU Democrats! Liars & Theives.
54
posted on
08/02/2017 9:40:17 PM PDT
by
TheNext
(Deep State are Lunatics)
To: Kaslin
John McCain did not go to the government run VA when he needed serious healthcare. That’s all I need to know about the democRats plans for healthcare.
55
posted on
08/02/2017 9:46:21 PM PDT
by
MileHi
(Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
To: Kaslin
I agree that both political parties will be blamed by American voters for their failure to repeal & replace Obamacare. The Republican RINO Establishment types will be defeated in primaries, and will be replaced by Conservative Congress critters. And, the Democrat Party will lose eight to twelve Senate seats, and twelve to twenty House seats, which will politically destroy the entire Democrat Party.
Add to this the massive reduction of illegal & fraud voting used by the Democrat Party across the country and the reduction of illegal aliens in the country, coupled with people who are afraid to vote illegally for fear of going to jail, and the Republicans will rule the day.
On the Republican side, there are many “Never Trump” establishment buffoons that must go.
Conservatives & Trumpers, we, the people, must make every effort with our bucks and energy in 2018 to rid the country of the liberal, progressive low life deadbeats in both political parties. POTUS, Trump is fighting the good fight, 100%. We need to give him the tools he really needs to MAGA.
Keeping the Democrat & RINOs alive, politically is not an option. The USA is facing the coming fate of Cuba and Venezuela if we allow the Socialists to continue to remain in power. The swamp & sewer of American politics must be cleansed.
56
posted on
08/02/2017 10:09:28 PM PDT
by
JLAGRAYFOX
(Defeat both the Republican (e) & Democrat (e) political parties....Forever!!!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
“No! We must engage. These Democrats were elected’ they hold certain posts; we must respect those posts....”
**********************************************************
Well, Hitler was elected but, IMHO, that was not a valid reason to “respect his post” and work with him. So you’re free to advocate “collaborating” with the ‘RATS to further their advancement of Socialism but I, and many FReepers, do not and will not advocate such collaboration. Such collaboration would only serve to help the progressives’ destruction of the American Republic.
57
posted on
08/02/2017 11:04:23 PM PDT
by
House Atreides
(Send BOTH Hillary & Bill to prison.)
To: Kaslin
Voters will take this out on both parties next year, warned Jason Pye
Works for me. Time to blow-up the Uniparty.
Here’s the plan:
Not one dollar for anything directly or indirectly related to supporting any function of provision of the PPACA in the FY18 budget. If money is thrown at it, presidential veto to whole thing and shut it down. Shut everything down. Hardball, since you think we’re playing tiddly-winks.
To: Vlad The Inhaler
There's a REAL
"FIX ACTION" we can take against McCain, and some of the other BACK-STABBERS !
Lets look at the argument from Gary DeMar's article
Is the Recall of Senators Constitutional? slightly rearranged for easier understanding.
... the constitutional framersdelegated the whole election process to the states. . . .
A recall provision does not have to appear in the Constitution or federal laws to be used on that level.
At the time of the passage of the 17th Amendment, some states had recall provisions.
There was no conflict with the Federal Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that governments
deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.
How is that possible if the governed cant demonstrate their consent ?
...
The voters are going to HAVE TO RECALL one of these backstabbing Senators, and Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska CAN BE RECALLED !
"All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall..." (AK Con. Art. 11, §8) .
And so can McCAIN be RECALLED !
McCain is a Senator representing Arizona, and
"Every public officer in the state of Arizona, holding an elective office, either by election or appointment, is subject to recall..." (AZ Con. Art. 8, §1-6)
These Are the Times That Try Mens Souls America Then and Now in the Words of Tom Paine, by John Armor
John Charles Armor was a prolific contributor to national publications, radio, television, and online forums,
most notably FreeRepublic.com. John Charles Armor was a member of the Maryland Bar Association, a former adjunct professor of political science, and practiced in the United States Supreme Court for thirty-three years.
He had 35 years experience working with and for thousands of state legislators from across the country, as well as serving on the staff of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution in the mid 80s.
John was an experience at every level of government in the United States local, state and federal as well as all three branches of the federal government Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
He had also testified as an expert witness on Constitutional matters before committees of 24 state legislatures.
An expert on the Constitution, John has written several books, including
Why Terms Limits?, as well as over 650 articles.
John Charles Armor wrote article on April 1, 2010, in the
American Thinker "Is a State-Based Recall of a U.S. Senator Constitutional ?" . Whether citizens of a state have the right to recall from office a sitting U.S. senator is no longer an academic question.
The second-highest New Jersey appeals court has just ruled that such an effort can proceed against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
Several other states have provisions in their state constitutions and laws that may also allow recall efforts.
And by the common provision of initiative by the people of state laws and constitutions, similar processes could be established in other states.
So the question that has never been raised in the U.S. Supreme Court before will most likely be decided there within the next year.
This column is not a legal brief -- just a summary of main points.
With that said, this lawyer, whose eighteen briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court have been mostly on election law, believes that the answer is yes -- recall is constitutional.
Back to the basics.
Recall was available for the voters of a colony to remove an official with whom they had become dissatisfied.
It first appeared in New England in 1639.
The idea of the voters removing an official and/or changing the underlying laws is older than that.
In 1610, the free citizens from the Mayflower signed a Compact that they would "enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient. ..."
This was the first statement on American shores of the concept of popular sovereignty -- that the people hold the ultimate power.
The best-known such statement appears in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson's words, adopted by Congress on 2 July 1776 (not a misprint), state:
That to secure these [God-given] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Many people argue that the case of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton governs, and it prevents any state from using recall against federal officeholders, just as it prevents states from establishing term limits for Members of Congress.
This is a misreading of what Thornton did, and did not, do.
Thornton decided thatstates could not establish a "new and additional qualification" for anyone to run for the Senate or the House.
Now, recall does no such thing.
It merely says that in those states that provide for recall, members of Congress can be voted out of office, as they were formerly voted into office.
In those states, this is part of the election process.
Who gets to decide how elections are conducted?
Due to an inability to agree at the Philadelphia Convention, there was a compromise.
The voters in each state were to be the same as for "the most numerous branch of the state legislature"
in each state.
Citizens with property, without property, both black and white -- and in New Jersey, women as well -- voted in the first American election in 1789.
This constitutionally mandated variety in state election laws is why today, the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional that some states require photo IDs in order to vote.
It also explains why some states bar convicted felons from voting, with differing requirements to end that prohibition.
It is also why, in various states, a candidate must face the voters between one and three times to be elected to the Senate (it depends on how primaries are conducted, and whether run-offs are required).
Accepting recall as part of any state's election laws would add the possibility of one more election, on rare occasions, which the candidates would know about before filing to run.
Another reason why the Thornton case does not dictate the result in this case is that the Tenth Amendment applies here, but did not apply there.
Since Congress did not exist until the Constitution was written, there could not have been any "pre-existing right" to be preserved in the states.
The right of recall was alive and well in states before the Constitution was written.
When the 17th Amendment was ratified and went into effect to make senators elected by the people rather than appointed by the state legislatures, it provided additional reasons to uphold recall where provided.
This Amendment repeated, word for word, the language of the basic Constitution that the state voters would be those for "the most numerous branch of the state legislature."
It left to the states the definition of who could vote and how the elections would be conducted.
The other reason to believe that state-based recall is permitted is in the last clause of the 17th Amendment, which protected the terms and selections of all sitting senators at the time it was ratified.
The sitting senators recognized that a version of the Amendment by a Constitutional Convention(about to become mandatory)
could have put them all out on the street immediately, to be replaced by elected senators.
Finally, most of the states whose laws and constitutions allow recall of elected officials exclude recall of judicial officials.
That is because many of the states that have elections involving judges separately provide for "recall" of judges through a "retention" election.
But this has the same effect that the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence sought.
Retention elections occur at required intervals, usually ten years.
The name of the judge is automatically placed on the ballot with the question, "Shall Judge Smith be retained in office?"
If a majority of the voters vote in favor, Judge Smith is retained in office.
But if a majority is dissatisfied and vote no, then the judge is immediately removed.
Recall of elected officials is a powerful remedy that is seldom used.
This does not diminish its importance in those rare instances when the voters heartily disapprove of the conduct of an elected official after he or she has taken office and has a track record.
Impeachment of presidents is a dire remedy that also has rarely been used.
That is no argument that it should not exist.
The final reason why Thornton supports, rather than denies, the validity of recall for senators is the underlying reason for the Thornton decision.
As the Court made clear, state-based term limits would inhibit the free exercise of the franchise by the citizens of Arkansas.
In the case of New Jersey, or any other state with a similar provision on its books, the right of recall would advance, not inhibit, the exercise of the franchise in those states.
So the one case that many will claim is a barrier to state-based recall of U.S. senators is, instead, a strong support for recall.
One learns the meaning and power of any other Supreme Court decision by digging down to the basics, to discover why the Court ruled as it did.
In Thornton, the Court protected the right of the sovereign people to choose their own representatives.
That is also the basis of the right of recall, and it has been so for more than three centuries.
Dean Heller, R-Nev.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, CAN BE RECALLED !
We do NOT have to tolerate their backstabbing !
The States that allow a RECALL:
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia permit the recall of state officials:
Recall of State Officials |
Alaska |
Illinois |
New Jersey |
Arizona |
Kansas |
North Dakota |
California |
Louisiana |
Oregon |
Colorado |
Michigan |
Rhode Island |
District of Columbia |
Minnesota |
Washington |
Georgia |
Montana |
Wisconsin |
Idaho |
Nevada |
|
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
Virginia has a process that is similar to a recall, but it is not listed here as a recall state because its process, while requiring citizen petitions, calls for a recall trial rather than an election. In Virginia, after sufficient petition signatures are gathered and verified, a circuit court decides whether a Virginia official will be removed from office. In the recall states, the voters decide through an election.
FULL REPEAL ONLY !
So of those 7 for REMOVAL IMMEDIATELY, either by recall, or by ethics charges :
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.;
Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.;
Susan Collins, R-Maine;
Dean Heller, R-Nev., CAN BE RECALLED;
John McCain, R-Ariz., CAN BE RECALLED;
Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, CAN BE RECALLED;
and Rob Portman, R-Ohio
THREE OF THOSE OBAMACARE LOVERS that can be CANNED IMMEDIATELY !
THEY MUST BE REMOVED ! ! !
NOW ! ! !They will NOT take us seriously ... UNTIL WE REMOVE THEM !
60
posted on
08/03/2017 7:24:08 AM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson