Will Lindsay Graham do what he can to cut them off at the pass?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.Obamcare was passed constitutionally. This is just another in an ongoing series of conservatives embarrassing conservatives. If you are going to demonstrate fealty to the Constitution, you should try reading it first.
I would LOVE to see this happen. Of course Obozo would go batsh@t crazy and take legal action against SC, but let’s have this crap out right now.
It would be about as effective as a state law declaring the Federal Income Tax null and void.
__________________
As I pointed out here at the time, the decision to oppose rather than participate in designing be ACA was a huge gamble with an equally big downside if Republicans lost the bet; Republicans could have extracted *major* concessions from the Democrats on matters such as “tort reform”, exclusive access by private insurers and wider state latitude in designing the exchanges if they had chosen to negotiate rather than simply oppose as it because clear the ACA might pass,
Instead, when Republicans failed to sweep the elections, conservatives were stuck with no substantive tort reform, mandatory NFP participation, and Federal control over most aspects of exchange design, with mandatory Federal exchanges set up in states which refused to set up their own.
I certainly hope that the decision to obstruct rather than negotiate made people feel *really* good at the time, because the long-term cost of that short-term political high is the permanent establishment of the ACA on Democrat terms.
And don’t kid yourself: the ACA is here to stay: once voters - including many “conservative” voters - discover that the exchanges will (for example) make it much easier to start a business without leaving their families uninsured) it’s going to be a *very* popular program.
And the irony is this: “exchanges” and “mandates” as originally designed were *conservative* programs intended to foster individual self-reliance and personal responsibility, and one of the most successful existing programs was created by conservative legislators in a conservative state (Utah).
Now however, the Democrat party is going to get credit for *their* version of the same idea - handed to them politically on a platter by Republicans who gabled away the likely chance to implement the program in a far more conservative form.
And to add insult to injury, all this happened when the Democrats were in internal disarray and the party was headed by the the worst negotiator to hold that office in the last hundred yeas - a pushover, really - and the Democrats couldn’t have created the ACA in it’s current form without the assistance of congressional Republicans determined to fight a losing battle.
And as I watch the house Republicans gear up to fight a losing battle to preserve “tax breaks for high earners” (as it’s portrayed in the media), I suspect that “the past is prologue” as regards the upcoming budget negotiations.
“states legalizing...homosexual marriage prohibited by federal law.”
That is not nullification, and gay “marriage” is not federally illegal. The central government simply says for its purposes only marriage marriage exists. Whatever wacky couples the states want to recognize is up to them.
That being said, this will be considered racist by the MSM because...um...first of all everything they dislike is. Secondly, they’ll say, “Didn’t South Carolina nullify something way back when the later start the Civil War?” And that’ll suffice to bring forth a new battle cry of freedom.
Fort Sumter redo. Rebel Yell.
would love to see this pass. there and everywhere.
We must fight the socialists any way we can.