Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Ruling Will Provoke States to Nullify ObamaCare
The New American ^ | June 29 2012 | Raven Clabough

Posted on 07/01/2012 6:35:21 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ

Despite Thursday’s controversial Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, states retain the right and authority to nullify the healthcare law, and the state of Missouri, among many others, is undertaking efforts to do just that. According to Missouri legislators, regardless of the High Court's ruling, Missouri voters will maintain the opportunity to vote for or against the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act in November. And Missouri is not the only state seeking to circumvent ObamaCare.

Yahoo News reports, “Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law will be repealed or struck down by the Court.” Now that the court has issued a ruling in favor of the healthcare law, however, Jindal continues to contend that he will not be complying with the law.

States may also fall in line with Louisiana and Missouri and nullify ObamaCare. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

The Tenth Amendment Center indicates that the states have a number of methods by which they may nullify a law, including through state law, a statement amendment, or a voters' referendum.

The Nullification Project notes:

After today’s Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare," it remains clear that the people cannot rely on the high court to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution. In such cases, the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, have provided We the People and the States, a final check on the power of the three branches of the federal government: Nullification.”

And states should not fear the consequences of nullification. As per Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Congress is not permitted to penalize states that refuse to implement ObamaCare. In the majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; abortion; deathpanels; obamacare; ropeadope; ropeadoperoberts; statesrights; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
See link for entire article.
1 posted on 07/01/2012 6:35:27 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Well I see this as a chance for States to finally stand up to the Federal Government or fail.

If the States fail, then it is a chance for the voters to stand up to Federal Government! If that fails.

If that fails, welcome to Greece!


2 posted on 07/01/2012 6:40:25 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT Get a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

So by reducing Medicaide states can negate ObamaCare?


3 posted on 07/01/2012 6:45:57 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Delicious irony-— the Commies got their ObamaScam Healthcare (for now) but the states legally don’t have to enforce it. FUBHO, and your lil henchmen too.


4 posted on 07/01/2012 6:49:18 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

I hope this doesn’t get out.

The passion that has been stirred is great!

I hope RUSH et al don’t digest what happened until after the election.

ObamaCareTax-

Get Roberts!!! BOO!!!!


5 posted on 07/01/2012 6:53:25 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
It's a central part of the law (expanding Medicaid) - accounting for roughly half of all the uninsured people expected to gain coverage.

The "uninsured" could eventually become the elderly, handicapped and "others" who cannot work or afford to pay the mandate/tax/penalty/fine....right?

6 posted on 07/01/2012 6:58:52 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
Thats what occurred in '89. When the elderly realized that they had to pay for the excellent expanded coverage, they revolted.

Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Leftists in Congress passed a change to Medicare that for most seniors was going to add little or no benefit but increase the cost of Medicare for everyone. When seniors realized what was really in the law they rose up and demanded the law be repealed.

At one point a group of irate seasoned citizens chased Dan Rostenkowski, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to his car and surrounded it and rocked it until the police had to come rescue him. Not long after that Congress repealed the crummy law.

The protest was lead by Democrat Jan Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the houses most progressive member.

7 posted on 07/01/2012 7:04:57 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

How about a Constitutional Convention?

There’s a whole lot of things they can fix. It takes 34 states to convene and 38 to ratify if I am not mistaken.

J


8 posted on 07/01/2012 7:10:27 PM PDT by CriticalJ (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.. But then I repeat myself. MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

“the Commies got their ObamaScam Healthcare (for now) but the states legally don’t have to enforce it. FUBHO, and your lil henchmen too.”

I’m thinking it will be fun to watch pelosi stroke out when this happens-—tooo bad she won’t have the death panel monitoring congress’s most excellent health care.


9 posted on 07/01/2012 7:12:22 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

And, our IDIOT GOVERNOR is going to take US to RUIN...as the poster child for Obama care and Medicaid expansion...OREGON, of course.


10 posted on 07/01/2012 7:15:01 PM PDT by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Who has a list of anti-Obamacare states available?

I think so far its Texas, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Florida?


11 posted on 07/01/2012 7:21:24 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (Is your state Obamacare free yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle
Did Robert's intentionally set us up for conflict?

zerocare is a tax item, enforced by the IRS, so like SATAN before God about JOB, claiming no responsability, the zero administration claims the Congress passed a tax bill that is now law.

Like Sociol Security ... they SAY you can opt out ... but just try ... etc.

I would rather choose my own battles than to have a sneak attack.

12 posted on 07/01/2012 7:21:38 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

... then it is a chance for the voters to stand up to Federal Government!..

What, though, if its not he who votes that counts but rather he who counts the votes?


13 posted on 07/01/2012 7:26:25 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CriticalJ
How about a Constitutional Convention?

There’s a whole lot of things they can fix. It takes 34 states to convene and 38 to ratify if I am not mistaken.

I'd be terrified to let anyone from this generation anywhere near a Constitutional Convention.
14 posted on 07/01/2012 7:26:41 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Isn’t Virginia in there, too? It won’t take many large states to undermine the whole, and Florida and Virginia classify as “large”. Look out for Texas.


15 posted on 07/01/2012 7:31:16 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: knarf

No, Robert’s decision was strictly political! Really a shame for the Supreme Court. He can not expect changes in the future to protect the Constitution.

Unless he expects an uprising to result of this, how can you expect that he really understands the results of his decision?

He made this because he wants to be politically acceptable to the liberal left - really unfortunate I’d say. It will be short lived I hope.

To survive, we need to revamp Social Security and Medicare or we are doom anyway - without this extra albatross.

We as a country are doomed to financial failure with this law! Nice as it might seem to provide all with great Health Insurance, it is a financial disaster!


16 posted on 07/01/2012 7:32:21 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT Get a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

“Who has a list of anti-Obamacare states available?”

I don’t have a list but there’s 22 states with Republican controlled governments, “governor and legislature”.


17 posted on 07/01/2012 7:43:24 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

Maybe you’ve missed the idea that this was a Court decision, not a vote by the people!

Do you NOT understand that this is a Republic, NOT a Democracy! We elect those that are suppose to uphold both the law and the Constitution. When our Representatives and the courts ignore the Constitution, what is left to do?

Now if you think that the Supreme Court is the “law of the land” regardless of what the people think, then yes you are right.

But if you think that our Republic can be compromised by government - Congress, Executive, or the Courts, and you think you can do nothing about it - you are wrong!

Counting the votes usually is a Democracy action. In the case of Obamacare, democracy had no play. After all, if they actually took a vote, it would have been defeated by the US at large. Unfortunately, we had a Democratic Congress that had no problems using unseemly methods to pass this law regardless of the popular vote - so just who wins in this type of Democracy?

They used both bribes (just our Congress at work) and false methods to get this bill passed. Maybe you should consider searching the internet about just how this bill passed before worrying about Democracy!


18 posted on 07/01/2012 7:43:51 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT Get a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Why on Earth are people missing this? It doesn’t matter. If the States don’t, then the Feds have the right, pursuant to the law, to come in and set it up and the States can’t stop it. This is utterly misguided. We are stuck with it for now so I’d rather have the States run it.

People need to read and stop listening to pundits.


19 posted on 07/01/2012 7:45:33 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I agree with you. The Supremacy clause give the Feds this power. When Congress “moves into an area” overwhelmingly - the state laws are irrelevant. This is one of the reasons Wallace was wrong when he stood in front of that door. Whether we like it or not - this 2500 page monstrosity fits the description of “overwhelming” by every examination I’ve seen.

The limits Roberts put on Medicare funding are really irrelevant to the discussion.

This part of the cost of living in a Federal system where the other balancing clauses such as the commerce clause have become overly broad giving the Federal government license to move into every aspect of our lives.

I’m thinking Constitutional Convention is the only legal course now. States trying to nullify Federal law is what started the Civil War!


20 posted on 07/01/2012 8:07:40 PM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I’d rather see the Federal Government come into a State and try to setup and enforce this! No time like the present to refuse Unconstitutional laws.


21 posted on 07/01/2012 8:12:51 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT Get a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I think the states can opt out and must. It is time to take our freedom back


22 posted on 07/01/2012 8:15:56 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve
States trying to nullify Federal law is what started the Civil War!

We are already headed for CWII....at this point, it is almost unavoidable.
23 posted on 07/01/2012 8:19:16 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared.....for what's coming AFTER America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry me back

in just the last couple of days there is already almost a half dozen states affirming to opt out against the Obamataxcare Act.

I expect a dozen more by weeks end.

lets see who is laughing and high fiving then.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 8:22:51 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (Is your state Obamacare free yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


25 posted on 07/01/2012 8:24:16 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CriticalJ
How about a Constitutional Convention?

VERY bad idea.

A Constitutional Convention opens a Pandora's Box you do NOT want to be anywhere near.

Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.

26 posted on 07/01/2012 8:34:50 PM PDT by LaybackLenny (Principles aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. I'm voting Romney. God help me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Ping


27 posted on 07/01/2012 8:43:47 PM PDT by diamond6 (Check out: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/home.php and learn about the faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

“Do you NOT understand that this is a Republic, NOT a Democracy! We elect those that are suppose to uphold both the law and the Constitution. When our Representatives and the courts ignore the Constitution, what is left to do?”

Go to a system like the Swiss have, under which issues of importance become the subject of national referendums — everyone gets to vote on them, and the majority wins.

“Mob rule”, some will say. My reply is, how much worse is that from what we’re getting now? The tyranny of the majority, vis-a-vis the tyranny of the oligarchy?

Or, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, I would rather be governed by the votes of 200,000,000 Americans, than by the votes of 535 corrupt members of Congress!


28 posted on 07/01/2012 8:46:01 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

It is a part of Obamacare - and unfunded later (as expected by the Federals). You take care of them now and we promise to provide you with lots of money now and much less later.

Just a normal promise of the bureaucrats in Washington.

Are you really for this? Do you really think that the States can afford this in future years?


29 posted on 07/01/2012 9:20:29 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Thanks for that.

What it means for me is that I could not morally convict even a bad bad bad man if they added ‘it’s also a hate crime’ to what he did. Hard to imagine acquitting on a clear assault and battery or destruction of property ... or even arson, but if they added ‘oh, and he did it in hate’ so added hate to the charges, and the actual crime and ‘hate’ were conflated in the same charge ... I’d go not-guilty even if 11 to 1 ... even if it made me sick.

I guess then an attendant question would be ‘when hate is included in the charge - are they charged together or separately?’

As a kid I came to know a hypothetical situation where the police falsified the hypothetical confession, and the charges were 10 times the reality. “Hey that’s not what I said!!!!!” The hypothetical kid said as they re-worded his story, writing it down. “Don’t worry, you’ll have a chance to tell you’re story” the hypothetical kid was told. The kid was advised by his lawyer who wasn’t present at the confession to plea based on the ‘facts’ the police had (the confession) ... and were it not for a keen eyed judge who through the case out 2 years later it would have been uglier than it was. Some say ‘a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality’ ... this hypothetical kid was a kid ‘mugged by the police.’ Same outcome but a little more extreme, deep mistrust, grounded in personal experience, for any capital “S” State based on personal history ... of that hypothetical :-) kid of course.

Small town keystone cops and a prosecutor eager for dramatic convictions. The amount of power we give other people is pretty unbelievable. We only truly see that when we’ve been falsely convicted (too late for most people) ... or waited 16 weeks for rationed emergency surgery in Canada ... (at which point it’s really really too late to wake up - dead.)

Arrggggghhhhh. The evil of government really is evil, not just a nuisance to be tolerated. That’s for any who haven’t crossed the threshold from ‘the State is a nuisance - keep it small is a nice principle! Woohoo!’ to ‘The State is a clear and present (meaning now) threatening force in my life at all times, no matter how innocent we are. Only I/we can keep it small, at any cost.’ ... sorry for wandering - it’s a bit of an emotional issue for that ... eh ... hypothetical kid.


30 posted on 07/01/2012 9:20:53 PM PDT by skeama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

I know the Fed will sucker punch the states with big money promise for the first year and retract the offer the second year.

I am hoping that the ruling prohibits punishing the states , allows ObamaCareTax to be stopped.


31 posted on 07/01/2012 9:25:40 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Since when does Medicare or Medicaid have any effect on what the government is providing?

One, the Government (Federal and State) is providing almost all of the cost.

So, you think that allowing many more folks to enroll in Medicaid is going to reduce cost? (Obamacare)

Does that mean that so many without coverage are going to sign up are much less than the cost of medical care? Are you really serious? (Obamacare)

How about the cost of Medicare (500 billion removed from them and placed into the cost of Obamacare- Medicaid). I guess that will reduce costs even more. Well, how about the bill in Congress that reduces the costs of Doctors providing case to Medicare patients, It is being reduced. There are many Doctors leaving both the practice and not accepting Medicare as an insurance agent - so what to do, hey?

Ah yeah, I can see the benefits of Obamacare but I do pity the costs that are forced upon my children and grand children! No problem, I am a selfish son-of-a-bitch!


32 posted on 07/01/2012 9:32:55 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The Fed has never retracted from punishing the States via the money excelsior. The major problem is that the States seem to continue to succumb to these efforts. Thus the loss of our republic.


33 posted on 07/01/2012 9:36:48 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

BTTT!


34 posted on 07/01/2012 9:40:21 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

I have some sympathy for your ideas...but tend to refute them out of idealistic ideals I guess.

I know that what your are saying should be right in most instances but I really worry about that becoming the law. I guess that I just don’t trust the majority of the electorate to actually vote for what is right (but will vote for what benefits them most) - ain’t that a hoot!

So while I agree with you, I would almost assuredly find out that this type of resolution would eventually end up too defective to support.

So, it is with regret (really, I actually liked your idea) that I can NOT support your supposition.


35 posted on 07/01/2012 9:45:40 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

Actually you have be thinking...

We currently have a problem with Congress.. they are enslaved to outside interests and tend to vote to protect those interest.

Those that vote against them (seems like the majority at times) are likely pariahs and viewed as outlandish voters.

They (the Congress) do have a group mentality and if you don’t belong, well, go away...heh.

Most are obnoxious folks that got into office through their vocal abilities, not honesty, not believability, nothing else, just their personality. You have to understand that these folks are no different (sometimes much less) than our local Representatives. They are no smarter, just more ambitious to get elected to National office.

Anyway, all of this boils down to who you elect to national office. Do you really want this asshole running for Senator, Representative - understanding just why he is running and what we the stupid folk believe about him?

Sorry about that last sentence - couldn’t help myself when regarding the stupidity of our elected officials.

I think we need to rebel against all of these folks anyway - almost all are corrupt anyway...


36 posted on 07/01/2012 10:03:38 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve

Obama refuses to obey the law.
Why should the States or anyone else then obey the law?
Obama has set the president for legal disobedience.


37 posted on 07/01/2012 10:22:47 PM PDT by OldArmy52 (Are there any Democrats who are not racist fascists?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
As a States' rights advocate for many years, this obscene ruling by the USSC may be a blessing in disguise.

STATES' RIGHTS!

38 posted on 07/01/2012 10:23:56 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CriticalJ

No eff’n way...

I don’t trust the people..

We’d end up the USSA in no time.


39 posted on 07/01/2012 10:47:06 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

I hope for both, and God willing we will have both.


40 posted on 07/02/2012 12:49:44 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
Chief Justice Roberts stated, “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

No, but I suppose Congress can TAX States that choose not to participate, right Justice Roberts?

41 posted on 07/02/2012 2:01:58 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LaybackLenny

“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”

Precisely!!


42 posted on 07/02/2012 6:11:00 AM PDT by redfreedom (Just a simpleton enjoying the freedoms a fly-over/red state has to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve

I think it means that obamacare will still exist at the state level, but the States can opt out of paying the premiums for the poor via Medicaid. That’s how it works for the poor who get Medicare anyway. Because of the ruling, States won’t have to pay that in obamacare.


43 posted on 07/02/2012 7:44:23 AM PDT by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LaybackLenny

“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”

###

That is already well under way.

The idea of a Constitutional Convention USED to be a very bad idea, in the days when the Constitution was largely respected.

With the ongoing, bipartisan ignoring of our founding, cornerstone Document, I’d say a Constitutional Convention is NOW a toss-up as to whether its a bad idea or not.


44 posted on 07/02/2012 7:52:13 AM PDT by EyeGuy (Armed, judgmental, fiscally responsible heterosexual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Kansas also, apparently. Now this article includes Missouri... I’m betting this movement will grow — just as the lawsuits did.


45 posted on 07/02/2012 6:22:08 PM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JLLH

Would someone with some skills please create a map, a map updated as often as possible, at least daily of any new state opting out?

And if so you may add me to a ping list.

This feels hugh and seerious.


46 posted on 07/02/2012 6:25:51 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (Is your state Obamacare free yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

It will take far less than 50 years for a state to go belly up if they have to fund it. What some here don’t get is that this is not just about “principle” but about necessity. States HAVE to be able to balance their budgets (unlike the Fed. government that will just “print more money” or kick the can down the road because it’s all virtual money anyway). They have no choice but to “opt out” because they cannot afford this monstrous bill. It will send them to the poorhouse and destroy our healthcare at the same time. The die is cast. The choice has been made for them. They’re standing on the 10th amendment.


47 posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:13 PM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

I’m afraid that wouldn’t be me. Sorry. Hopefully one will be available soon enough as the thing gains momentum.


48 posted on 07/02/2012 6:35:20 PM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

“I don’t trust the people..”

Nor should you.

“We’d end up the USSA in no time.”

Kind of like now?


49 posted on 07/03/2012 2:31:27 PM PDT by CriticalJ (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.. But then I repeat myself. MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LaybackLenny

“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”

Instead of the slow dismantling of the Constitution that is taking place now?

It could be argued that Chief Judicial Legislator Roberts drove the final stake in the heart of the Constitution.


50 posted on 07/03/2012 2:34:44 PM PDT by CriticalJ (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.. But then I repeat myself. MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson