Posted on 08/21/2009 10:18:56 AM PDT by pissant
Here's another fun detail from last night's Americans For Prosperity teletown hall, which featured Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Both politicians said that if a health care bill passes, it should be actively fought and resisted through a collective effort of conservative governors.
A caller asked DeMint what the states could do in order to stop unconstitutional action by the federal government on health care. DeMint replied, "I think the key to pushing back against the federal government is some governors and state legislators who champion individual freedom."
DeMint said he would love to see states go to court to invoke the Tenth Amendment: "If we had some states come together and say the only way to save this country is to push back." He also added: "I think you'll see some states say no more, we're not going down with the federal government."
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Wouldn’t these two be a good ticket?
dream on I guess
That 10th amendment sure does come in handy when you need it.
I just read up on Bachmann for the first time. A winner! Don’t forget Darrell Issa, who is almost singlehandedly trying to take down ACORN.
Is the GOP in Congress giving up on this fight? Sounds like they think the Democrats can pass this sucker
Good!
I’m afraid he’s going to get it through somehow, and we need to be planning our resistance NOW.
The Dems can pass it without the GOP. There are a few Dem hold-outs, though, who don’t like it. Emmanuel is going to do a procedural end-run around them.
Obama has no idea what’s coming his way when states invoke their rights.
He will cut off the Fedral Money and they will fall in to Lockstep. They can not print it. He can.
I don’t think they have to go to court to invoke the 10th amendment. In theory the SCOTUS is just there to interpret the law not enforce it. Kinda of like when Jeb Bush threatened but did not deliver on a promise with Terry Schiavo to block any law enforcement from going near her. The courts can blather on all day long but at the end of the day are powerless to enforce any law, they have to have the executive branch do that. I remember the law enforcement guys in Tampa saying they did not answer to the Supreme Court of Florida and would do nothing at their bidding.
Then the state cuts off all taxes to the feds. The feds will not win in this.
So does all the Federal Money that the states eat at the pig troth known as the federal reserve printing presses. I personally think that all this sudden 10th Amendment religion is all hot air until states start refusing federal money.
I wrote my two Senators [WA -D's Murray and Cantwell] and said that if it passes I will do everything in my power to circumvent its provisions.
I also included that I would donate unprecidented amounts [for me] to their opponents if they voted for ObamaCare.
She's intelligent, quick and punches back!
The states can cut off the money they collect for the Federal government.
Just step away and tell them they have to collect it themselves.
Yep, and that’s what would force one side to pause or act aggressively.
If Obama were to send federal troops to a state, he’d be met by the state national guard as well as militia. Federal troops will not fire on their own citizens in this country, trust me. It would have to be Obama’s civilian defense force, and they would get clobbered.
Thanks Anna Z!
It is becoming more and more obvious that this guy (odumbo) is leading us to a war within the United States. He may be looking for control but he might as well be trying to put a leash on a grizzly.
“Federal troops will not fire on their own citizens in this country, trust me. It would have to be Obama’s civilian defense force, and they would get clobbered.”
80 million Americans with some 400 million guns with ammo trumps 4 aces ;-)
You rock as usual!
Agreed. Looking forward to hearing her speak.
"Obama has no idea what’s coming his way when states invoke their rights."
I agree with you. It would hold up implementation of the legislation for years and keep the matter on the front burner. I can envision at least 20 states joining in.
The GOP would probably win back both the House AND the Senate in 2010. There is no way that high black and liberal turnout would exceed the angry American traditionalists in flyover country. I expect that even in lib states like California and New York, the GOP would win statewide races.
When a Dem leader talks about post-partisanship, he'd better mean it. [Obama's talk was always all bullsh-t.] Americans are not lemming-like Germans or Brits. We are the only nation in the world where the voters will look at a politician and tell him, "you work for us!"
Frankly, I'm relieved. But after a mere six months of Obama, a holy indignation awoke the nation. Give the libs there one and only stimulus -- at least they will have done no permanent damage to the nation.
From what I’m hearing, the House can pass it, but the Senate probably won’t.
She’s on a lot on Bill Bennett’s morning radio show. She’s one of his favorites.
Times like this make me wish that the FEDGOV could only tax the states and not individuals.
The Feds would lose with a whimper.
"[Obama] will cut off the Fedral Money and [the states] will fall in lockstep. They can not print it. He can."
Methinks you both need a refresher course on American History. The only, and most effective, way to block the law would be through federal courts. All it would take is one Federal District judge, suitably chosen, to suspend the law pending constitutional review. The injunction would prohibit either party from proceeding without additional review.
If Obama attempted something punitive, like punishing the claimant states, the judge could literally fine the Gov't and direct the behavior to stop. THAT is the kind of publicity that even Obama doesn't want. The judge could even hold the Cabinet members, and the President, in contempt of court.
So forgive my bluntness, but you're both wrong. The Terry Schiavo incident is not relevant here, but socialized medicine is.
Just read Wikipedia's entry on Marbury v Madison as a start. Believe it or not, a single judge can stop the entire US Government from proceeding with an unconstitutional act. In theory, that judge can also command US Marshalls to enforce his verdicts in defiance of the US Government. This is all pretty fundamental to our nation and the fact that "We the People" is the ruling principle.
I don’t think he understands the ramifications of his plan - but he IS intentionally fomenting a violent confrontation between the elitists and the individualists.
He’s looking for an excuse to use the power of the state to punish his ideological opponents, which just happens to exclude people of his own skin color.
Ooops! Did I just imply 0bama wants a race war with the government being used to kill whitey? Didn’t mean to imply that at all!
Well, in escalation, the state would collect the fed tax and use it at the state level to offset the negation of federal funding. The state would likely get more money this way anyhow.
Just wait until some federal court rules against a state and that state thumbs its nose at the ruling.
That’s when the SHTF.
We now have a total gangster gov't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY
tom, you sound pretty knowledgable. How do we address The Kenyan’s growing list of “Czars” (51 now) that are unaccountable to The People & can claim Executive Privelidge when challenged in court? This is a very dangerous situation, not knowing what they are up to, behind closed doors.
Sure then why has not one done it.
Crist is a RINO and whoever replaces him will be a RINO too. Maybe Idaho or Wyoming. Or surprise..Hawaii.
So Rick Perry of Texaas must be nuts also. I mean if some guy on the internet says it’s hopeless it must be /sarcasm. We could go into your ignorance on basic civics and the separation of powers but I guess you need to point me to the SCOTUS Police Force website. I thought so.
You need to pass the legislation first. One can’t sue in federal court without “standing,” and that means you suffered or will suffer injury; and that the law is currently in place, not future.
It has already happened regarding gun control. During the Clinton years the Congress passed a bill limiting the possession of guns nearby public schools. Another dumb liberal law that would have no impact on safety; meaning, if a bad guy wanted to murder children he would not be deterred because a sign said it was illegal. It passed anyway. But the SCOTUS struck it down citing the Tenth Amendment.
So we have hope.
Actually, I’m not an attorney, just a technical man with a love of American history.
Unfortunately, the executive branch is pretty independent under our Constitution so the Congress (one of the independent branches of our government) and the Federal judiciary (another independent branch of our government) would have a tough time stopping the mere appointment of czars — by definition, they are an extension of the executive. I think about all Congress could do is throttle back on the funding for the Executive Branch — of course, that would need a GOP legislature. Meaning, if the Congress is willing to fund it, then the POTUS could have a bevy of advisors, or czars, for every purpose under the sun. They would have not statutory authority, but they could talk and write and issue their stupid opinions the whole day long.
But recall that Executive Privilege is not absolute — remember back to HillaryCare in 1994. Not sure if I recall why.
Our best course of action is, naturally, the Second Amendment. Free speech and the media. Hammer the Administration to be “transparent” like he promised. Protest with placards outside the White House. Keep AM talk show hosts riled up and excited. In the end, that is the citizen’s best protection against executive abuses. Free speech, free media, and an honest (hopefully) judiciary. [Note, I do not include liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg in that category.]
The MSM and liberal blogosphere will continue to mock them as loonies, and possibly racists. Simultaneously, they will applaud state and local ignorance of federal drug and immigration laws.
Be more careful in your reading. I think we are in agreement. I was telling the other two to have hope; they were both lamenting about hopelessness.
A lot of you may be surprised to find that our new governor, Sean Parnell, is even more conservative than Sarah. I have high hopes. The population of Alaska is, to a large extent, anti-federal govenment. I think we would be willing to join any sort of legal challenge to this farce.
“If Obama attempted something punitive, like punishing the claimant states, the judge could literally fine the Gov’t and direct the behavior to stop. THAT is the kind of publicity that even Obama doesn’t want. The judge could even hold the Cabinet members, and the President, in contempt of court”
All Obama has to do is threaten to withold money. That would be enough, in my opinion. State governments have very little backbone.
Well, I understand your point given that you’re from Minnesota, where hearts bleed and pansies reign. Not you, of course — but it never ceases to amaze me how people of Nordic stock — tremendous common sense, other great cultural attributes — can be so loopy sometimes.
Thanks tom. They’ll be going hard after talk radio soon. The new “brother” that 0 appointed to the FCC will see to it. We gotta push back HARD when that one rears it’s ugly head.
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.