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

Skip to comments.

Opposing Obamacare Isn’t Anarchy
National Review ^ | 09/27/2013 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 09/27/2013 8:07:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

‘It’s the law of the land.”

This is rapidly becoming the preferred shorthand argument for why criticism of Obamacare is just so, so wrong. It also serves as the lead sentence of a larger claim that all attempts to overturn the Affordable Care Act are really symptoms of a kind of extremist right-wing lunacy.

For instance, here’s Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who walked out of the painting American Gothic to deliver this homespun wisdom: “We’re not going to bow to tea-party anarchists who deny the mere fact that Obamacare is the law. We will not bow to tea-party anarchists who refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional.”

Where to begin? For starters, I know a great many self-described members of the Tea Party, and I’ve yet to meet one who would not acknowledge — admittedly with dismay — that Obamacare is the law. Nor have I met one unwilling to concede that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. Though from my informal polling, I can report that most think the Court’s reasoning left much to be desired (logic, persuasiveness, consistency, etc.).

Lurking beneath such lazy rhetoric is a nasty psychological insinuation that there’s something deranged not just about opposing Obamacare, but about being a conservative. This is an ancient smear, used to discredit conservatives in order to avoid debating them.

Reid is a dim and sallow man whose tin ear long ago started to rust. But it’s worth pointing out that “anarchy” is not defined in any textbook or dictionary I can find as “the absence of Obamacare.” While, yes, it’s true that Mad Max, most zombie movies, and other post-apocalyptic films are set in worlds without Obamacare, that’s really not the most salient factor.

More to the point, petitioning Congress to repeal a bad law through formal procedures is not the kind of behavior educated people normally associate with anarchism. Indeed, the hypocrisy of liberals who find it somehow “extreme” for citizens to organize peacefully to overturn a law they consider bad and unjust is a marvel to behold. The Fugitive Slave Act was once the law of the land. So was the Defense of Marriage Act. Were those determined to overturn them anarchists?

On an almost daily basis, I get a fundraising e-mail from a Democrat or from liberal outfits begging for help to overturn Citizens United, which in case you hadn’t heard is the law of the land. Why won’t these anarchists and extremists accept that the Supreme Court has ruled? I cannot wait for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade, just to hear liberals announce, “Well, the fight is over. The Court has spoken.”

Nearly the whole story of American liberalism is a story of dedicated ideologues seeking to overturn what they consider to be bad laws and replace them with good ones. Sometimes those efforts were laudable, as when they fought to overturn the doctrine of “separate but equal” (despite fierce opposition from Democrats). And sometimes they are lamentable, as when they routinely labor to overturn or deny school-choice laws, consigning underprivileged children to horrible schools just to placate teachers’ unions. But when conservatives try to do the exact same thing, they can’t simply be wrong, according to liberals. They must be demented extremists, anarchists, and — another favorite epithet these days — nihilists.

The hypocrisy goes deeper though. Yes, Obamacare is the law of the land. But it is President Obama — who is legally and constitutionally required to faithfully execute the law — and not Republicans who has openly defied it. He has unilaterally and often with no statutory authority opted to waive and delay the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are politically inconvenient to him (or that his administration has been too incompetent to implement).

Obama has declared that in states setting up their own exchanges, no one will have to prove his income in order to sign up for subsidies. He is so desperate to get the subsidies rolling — and thus, he hopes, buy support for the unpopular law — he’s willing to let people skip the part in the law where it says they have to prove they qualify for the goodies. He delayed the requirement for large businesses to comply with the law because the initial turmoil of having millions kicked off their insurance plans was more than he could bear politically.

While this is closer to anarchy than anything the tea partiers have pushed for, anarchy still isn’t the right word for it. Because President Obama still believes people should obey the law of the land — when it pleases him, that is.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aca; alinskytactics; bhofascism; criminalpresident; impeach; obama; obamacare; tedcruz; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2013 8:07:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

MAKE DC LISTEN: TELL YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE CLOTURE ON H.J. RES 59
We must oppose cloture on H. J. Res. 59, so that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats cannot sneak in funding for Obamacare. We need you to call your Senators right now: tell them to oppose cloture on H.J. Res 59 and remind them that a vote for cloture IS a for funding Obamacare.

State Senator Party Phone
AK Mark Begich D (202) 224-3004
AK Lisa Murkowski R (202) 224-6665
AL Jeff Sessions R (202) 224-4124
AL Richard C. Shelby R (202) 224-5744
AR John Boozman R (202) 224-4843
AR Mark L. Pryor D (202) 224-2353
AZ Jeff Flake R (202) 224-4521
AZ John McCain R (202) 224-2235
CA Barbara Boxer D (202) 224-3553
CA Dianne Feinstein D (202) 224-3841
CO Michael F. Bennet D (202) 224-5852
CO Mark Udall D (202) 224-5941
CT Richard Blumenthal D (202) 224-2823
CT Christopher Murphy D (202) 224-4041
DE Thomas R. Carper D (202) 224-2441
DE Christopher A. Coons D (202) 224-5042
FL Bill Nelson D (202) 224-5274
FL Marco Rubio R (202) 224-3041
GA Saxby Chambliss R (202) 224-3521
GA Johnny Isakson R (202) 224-3643
HI Mazie K. Hirono D (202) 224-6361
HI Brian Schatz D (202) 224-3934
IA Chuck Grassley R (202) 224-3744
IA Tom Harkin D (202) 224-3254
ID Mike Crapo R (202) 224-6142
ID James E. Risch R (202) 224-2752
IL Richard J. Durbin D (202) 224-2152
IL Mark Kirk R (202) 224-2854
IN Daniel Coats R (202) 224-5623
IN Joe Donnelly D (202) 224-4814
KS Jerry Moran R (202) 224-6521
KS Pat Roberts R (202) 224-4774
KY Mitch McConnell R (202) 224-2541
KY Rand Paul R (202) 224-4343
LA Mary L. Landrieu D (202) 224-5824
LA David Vitter R (202) 224-4623
MA Edward Markey D (202) 224-2742
MA Elizabeth Warren D (202) 224-4543
MD Benjamin L. Cardin D (202) 224-4524
MD Barbara A. Mikulski D (202) 224-4654
ME Susan M. Collins R (202) 224-2523
ME Angus S. King I (202) 224-5344
MI Carl Levin D (202) 224-6221
MI Debbie Stabenow D (202) 224-4822
MN Al Franken D (202) 224-5641
MN Amy Klobuchar D (202) 224-3244
MO Roy Blunt R (202) 224-5721
MO Claire McCaskill D (202) 224-6154
MS Thad Cochran R (202) 224-5054
MS Roger F. Wicker R (202) 224-6253
MT Max Baucus D (202) 224-2651
MT Jon Tester D (202) 224-2644
NC Richard Burr R (202) 224-3154
NC Kay R. Hagan D (202) 224-6342
ND Heidi Heitkamp D (202) 224-2043
ND John Hoeven R (202) 224-2551
NE Deb Fischer R (202) 224-6551
NE Mike Johanns R (202) 224-4224
NH Kelly Ayotte R (202) 224-3324
NH Jeanne Shaheen D (202) 224-2841
NJ Jeff Chiesa R (202) 224-3224
NJ Robert Menendez D (202) 224-4744
NM Martin Heinrich D (202) 224-5521
NM Tom Udall D (202) 224-6621
NV Dean Heller R (202) 224-6244
NV Harry Reid D (202) 224-3542
NY Kirsten E. Gillibrand D (202) 224-4451
NY Charles E. Schumer D (202) 224-6542
OH Sherrod Brown D (202) 224-2315
OH Rob Portman R (202) 224-3353
OK Tom Coburn R (202) 224-5754
OK James M. Inhofe R (202) 224-4721
OR Jeff Merkley D (202) 224-3753
OR Ron Wyden D (202) 224-5244
PA Robert P. Casey D (202) 224-6324
PA Patrick J. Toomey R (202) 224-4254
RI Jack Reed D (202) 224-4642
RI Sheldon Whitehouse D (202) 224-2921
SC Lindsey Graham R (202) 224-5972
SC Tim Scott R (202) 224-6121
SD Tim Johnson D (202) 224-5842
SD John Thune R (202) 224-2321
TN Lamar Alexander R (202) 224-4944
TN Bob Corker R (202) 224-3344
TX John Cornyn R (202) 224-2934
UT Orrin G. Hatch R (202) 224-5251
UT Mike Lee R (202) 224-5444
VA Tim Kaine D (202) 224-4024
VA Mark R. Warner D (202) 224-2023
VT Patrick J. Leahy D (202) 224-4242
VT Bernard Sanders I (202) 224-5141
WA Maria Cantwell D (202) 224-3441
WA Patty Murray D (202) 224-2621
WI Tammy Baldwin D (202) 224-5653
WI Ron Johnson R (202) 224-5323
WV Joe Manchin D (202) 224-3954
WV John D. Rockefeller D (202) 224-6472
WY John Barrasso R (202) 224-6441
WY Michael B. Enzi R (202) 224-3424

Now that we have your attention, you sorry US Senators, keep in mind that we will replace you with those who will gladly correct your errors - - - .

So, scrub and clean by 2014 !

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick —————

- See more at: http://tedcruzforsenate.org/tell-your-senators-to-oppose-cloture-on-h-j-res-59/#sthash.CvqYzXvd.s4d7EOIg.dpuf
_______________________

TRAITORS:

Orrin Hatch
John Cornyn
Lamar’s caddy
John Thune
Linda Gayham
Tom Coburn
Roy Blunt
B*tch McConnell
Dan Coats
Juan McLame


2 posted on 09/27/2013 8:09:02 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“‘It’s the law of the land.”

But it does NOT have to be!


3 posted on 09/27/2013 8:11:08 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Opposing Obamacare Isn’t Anarchy


4 posted on 09/27/2013 8:11:42 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Opposing tyranny is Patriotism.


5 posted on 09/27/2013 8:17:22 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (So Obama "inherited" a mess? Firemen "inherit" messes too. Ever see one put gasoline on it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Supreme Court constantly overturns “the law of the land”. It is legal and appropriate to oppose bad law.


6 posted on 09/27/2013 8:26:16 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


7 posted on 09/27/2013 8:31:04 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( When insane/feral Islamics are killing each other, stand back and let Allah sort them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Opposing tyranny is Patriotism.

Opposing tyranny is Duty. We owe it to our children and to our founders, we have inherited a legacy and are duty bound to preserve it for our posterity. Freedom isn't free and liberty is often only realized after the tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of patriots.

It burns us all to know that Republican party does believe there are causes worth fighting for even worth dieing for. Surrender is not tactic, getting more traitors elected to the senate is not a strategy. They had both houses and grew and the government, which entitlement did they shut down? There are strong reasons to believe that the GOP cooperated with the IRS to mute the tea-party, that the establishment defamed Bachmann and Cain to clear the path for their own. We are fighting Reid because the GOP covertly sabotaged Angle and I could go on and on. The Establishment GOP is not a friend of liberty, they are the face of the new despots or is that two-faced.

8 posted on 09/27/2013 8:36:12 AM PDT by DaveyB ("When injustice becomes the law; rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

‘It’s the law of the land.’

So was slavery.


9 posted on 09/27/2013 8:36:35 AM PDT by Gamecock (Many Atheists take the stand: "There is no God AND I hate Him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The hypocrisy goes deeper though. Yes, Obamacare is the law of the land. But it is President Obama — who is legally and constitutionally required to faithfully execute the law — and not Republicans who has openly defied it. He has unilaterally and often with no statutory authority opted to waive and delay the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are politically inconvenient to him (or that his administration has been too incompetent to implement).

Time and time again, we've seen that this president doesn't give a whit about the laws of the land. He rules by fiat, the media carries his water for him, and many Republicans in the Congress are too scared of him to do anything about it. He has the Supreme Court safely tucked in his back pocket, and his IRS terrorizes conservatives who dare to disagree with his agenda. We can only hope and pray that this scourge of lawlessness will be lifted soon and our freedom and self-government restored.
10 posted on 09/27/2013 8:40:22 AM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America shall survive this Obamanation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Liberal: It’s the law of the land.”

Conservative: Obama is not following the law or the constitution.


11 posted on 09/27/2013 8:41:10 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Producing Talk Show Prep since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
While this is closer to anarchy than anything the tea partiers have pushed for, anarchy still isn’t the right word for it. Because President Obama still believes people should obey the law of the land — when it pleases him, that is.

Not Anarchy. Totalitarianism. We all exist at the pleasure of the King, who is the law, and even then is only partially bound by his own proclamations.

12 posted on 09/27/2013 8:42:03 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As was prohibition!

Guess where we would be today if they were still the “Law of the Land”?


13 posted on 09/27/2013 8:51:28 AM PDT by Walleye_Walter (Not all Libs are stupid, but all stupid people are Libs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Worth repeating...with empahsis...
"..But it is President Obama — who is legally and constitutionally required to faithfully execute the law — and not Republicans who has openly defied it. He has unilaterally and often with no statutory authority opted to waive and delay the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are politically inconvenient to him (or that his administration has been too incompetent to implement)."
Seems this Administration is not only guilty of all avoidance of all transparency, but has continued to cherry pick only the favorable (???) aspects of this Act. The selective revisionist memory of this Administration knows no bounds. Seems that segments of this 'law' were and continued to be unilaterally and arbitrarily executed. Then it is simply grossly discriminating against a large part of the populace. Either this 'law' is to be executed in its totality or to be ignored and ruled unvalid/unconstitutional.
14 posted on 09/27/2013 8:59:26 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
Is it anarchy to fail to enforce emigration laws?
Is it anarchy to pass a tax bill that originates in the senate?
Is it anarchy to make recess appointments when congress is still in session?
Is it anarchy to refuse to quell voter intimidation?
Is it anarchy to use the IRS to quite dissent?
Is it anarchy to jail a man for a film, to cover an arms deal and attack on an embassy?
Is it anarchy to give waivers to your campaign contributors without legal authority of law?
Is it anarchy to sign a treaty without senate consent?

Or it is just plain high crimes and misdemeanors?


15 posted on 09/27/2013 9:01:17 AM PDT by DaveyB ("When injustice becomes the law; rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
And if they tell me the Supreme Court upheld it, I remind them of the Dredd Scott case.
16 posted on 09/27/2013 9:04:51 AM PDT by Pecos (Kritarchy: government by the judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Maybe a little Anarchy can be a good thing.

Does anyone really think Anarchy would kill more than governments have in all recorded history?

Does anyone, not a progressive/communist/Marxist/Democrat/traitor (completely interchangeable names) think our little Anarchy against the British a few centuries ago was a bad thing?

Hell the damned country is founded on the concept of WE THE PEOPLE holding the majority of power and NOT government. Is that not a little bit of Anarchy?


17 posted on 09/27/2013 9:11:42 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
Is it anarchy to...

bump

18 posted on 09/27/2013 11:28:17 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Producing Talk Show Prep since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As long as “repeal” is a legal thing to do at all... of course it cannot be “anarchy”... what we have here is a gruesome example of what worship of all manner of things that aren’t God, is like.


19 posted on 09/27/2013 11:30:11 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

Kennedy kicked the ball down the road. Calling it a tax, that will require somebody to actually BE taxed under the program in order to generate the basis for challenging it in court as being an illegal tax. My guess is that the Obamadmin will try to keep that from happening until the next presidential election.


20 posted on 09/27/2013 11:32:38 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 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