« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

How unpopular is the Democrats’ federal health care rationing bill?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 08:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This unpopular:

RICHMOND, Va. — With five Democrats defecting, the Virginia Senate today passed a Republican measure that says Virginians don’t have to buy health insurance.

Voting 23-17, the Democratic-controlled Senate kicked to the House a bill by Sen. Frederick Quayle, R-Suffolk, that supporters say will send a message to Washington about its efforts to overhaul the health-care system.

(Via AoSHQ Headlines) The bill should pass the GOP-controlled House of Delegates with no trouble, and likewise be signed into law by the Republican Governor, and will probably be used as ammo for a lawsuit by the Commonwealth’s Republican Attorney General, should he need it…

- Hey, remember when Virginia was inevitably going to be going Blue for unto the next six generations?

…so it’s interesting that five vulnerable state Senators broke ranks on this bill to vote with the Republicans.  It’s also interesting to consider the implications that this bill – whether substanstive or cosmetic – has for, say, Democrats in the US Congress.  Like Gerald Connolly!  Hi, Jerry!  Quick: what do you think of this legislation?

More importantly, what does your district think of this legislation?

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • kyoufuu

    The SCOTUS case is already set up should the monstrosity known as health care reform pass.

  • RedBeard

    But I fear that the current Court is still not reading the 9th and 10th Amerndments with the degree of absolutism they deserve.

    The words are simple and easy to understand, but all three branches of the federal government have, for decades, been trying to “interpret” the words to mean something other than their plainly obvious definitions.

  • JadedByPolitics

    obtw Jerry you are THROUGH!

  • kyoufuu

    Those two pesky amendments don’t clearly spell out what rights they’re talking about. And if you bend the word “rights” well enough, you can make a claim they’re not talking about anything.

    But it’s possible that with a few more public villifications, the SCOTUS might be willing to take up any case that questions Obama’s agenda.

  • DefendUSA

    I am constantly telling people to read the tenth amendment!! And when I hear them say Health care is a right, I laugh because the Founding Fathers were smart. There is a procedure that must be followed. You want to make it a “right’? Go ahead and try.

    Go Virginia!

  • dwander

    I was thinking the same thing. I was wondering how much more crap they will put up with from obama prior to deciding that maybe state rights are the direction to go.

  • Credo

    There are two candidates who want to take the “Boss” on. My preference is Pat Herrity (patherrity.org), but I would be perfectly fine with Keith Fimian in a rematch.

    Interesting the dem controlled State Senate voted for it. The new AG Cuccinelli made fighting this monstrosity a part of his campaign.

    I think the only democrat in Virginia that wants to be seen with Obama is the former part time Governor Kaine.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    I don’t think passing an ordinary bill exempting Virginians from the infamous Individual Mandate would accomplish anything directly, because Federal laws automatically override state ones. (As a political message, though, it’s still worthwhile.)

    To have a true legal conflict that the Supremes would need to rule on, you’d need it to be an amendment to the state constitution, enshrining the right of the people to purchase medical services, or not, on whatever terms they wish. Arizona tried to pass such an amendment a while back, but I think it failed. Whether an ordinary Act of Congress can override a state’s constitution, would indeed be something for the SC to decide.

    It might not be a bad idea to set up that sort of collision. The SC has been showing a strange new respect for the Constitution of late; heck, if they realized the 2nd Amendment actually means something, maybe they’d decide the 10th Amendment means something too.

  • johnt

    though there are so many things and people they hate this one can get lost in the crowd.
    It makes things more difficult if you want to make a nation bend to your will, to twist the national arm so to speak.
    Maybe they can find a Dem appointed federal judge to declare the Virginia Legislature null & void. {joke}

  • Mike

    …and I would be shocked — shocked, I say, if he didn’t file a lawsuit the day Obamacare passed :D

    Cuccinelli has the mentality of a Sicilian. And I mean that as the epic compliment it is :D

  • gman2008

    What needs to happen is the entire bill must be nullified not by a resolution but by legislation with teeth. Get rid of the mandate only and you may end up with a quick path to single-payer. People don’t seem tor realize that. I would go even further and hope that as many states as possible create legislation to nullify ANY federal law that violates state sovereignty.

    The Tenth Amendment Center references an excellent bill making its way through the Georgia legislature as we speak: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/31/state-authority-and-anti-racketeering-act/:

    House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

    Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

    This bill would make it a crime ? with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense ? for ?any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government? to attempt to ?enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law? reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

    As of this writing, the bill has had two readings in the Georgia House. Will such a strong piece of legislation go anywhere? Only time will tell. The reality, though, is this ? it?s going to take some serious effort to push back against decades and decades of unconstitutional federal acts.

    How nullification would work is discussed here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/28/nullification-its-official/. While I am not a big Ron Paul fan, the article does outline the pitfalls of what would need to happen for nullification to be successful. It would be a long path fraught with peril, but I think we are getting pretty close to folks ready to jump on this bandwagon.

  • texasgalt

    are not “spelled out” for good reason.

  • RedBeard

    The wording itself explains why the rights are not listed. It’s because ALL rights belong to the people and/or the sovereign states unless specifically granted to the federal government.

    How very inconvenient for the statists and Marxists. No wonder they view the Constitution with such distain.

  • hickorystick

    But there is a lot of freedom to be found in these vacuums if left alone. but again, there not too much into that freedom thing. Same goes for like minded lefty judges.

  • JadedByPolitics

    no primary for the Republican nominee so not to spend huge sums of money but never let it be said that Jaded does not enjoy a good FIGHT especially when it pushes the candidates to her way and that would be the RIGHT :)

  • Credo

    Jaded,
    the fact that Connolly has drawn two opponents shows his vulnerability.

    The two candidates need to focus on who best can beat Connolly. Connolly as “Dean” of the Freshman class has been one of Princess Pelosi’s most loyal puppies.

    Pat Herrity has demonstrated he is good on the politcal ground game. He’s a solid conservative and has been a voice of sanitry on the Board of Supervisors. The ground game is essential for the GOP in Fairfax County because they will be outspent. Good old fashioned retail politics can win the day and a primary will show Pat to be the master of this.

    patherrity.org.

  • 10ksnooker

    Are in process of blocking the federal health mandates … Good for freedom and liberty, to choose your own health care, or none at all.

  • kyoufuu

    But statists pretend that by not being specific, they say nothing at all.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And that’s true in that a court can’t really enforce them. The problem is they only work if the members of Congress and the President honor their oaths and enforce them directly.

  • RedBeard

    Seems to me that what he was trying to say is that the 9th Amendment did not create or confer any rights to anyone, which is quite correct. The 9th does not create or confer the supposed “right to privacy” (whatever that means). It does, and was intended to, protect the entire catalog of natural rights that predate history and the Constitution. Whether there is or is not a specific right of privacy is not determined by the Constitution, but by our understanding of natural rights.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I know my first reaction to that quote was to bristle, but as a judge, what *can* he do with the 9th? I don’t see anything, so in that, he’s right.

    It’s up to the legislators themselves to respect the 9th, and the President.

    And yet, we have Democrats (and sometimes Republicans) who will stand up and say “Law X is ok because the Constitution doesn’t grant a right to Y.”

  • archer52

    As the states begin to push back against Obama’s agenda, the question that arises is are they on solid constitutional ground?

    I’m no constitutional lawyer but this would be a good article for some at Redstate. Can the states, after generations of taking fed money and all the mandates that come with it, tell the feds to pound sand on an issue now?

    I think they can. And with the Roberts SP this would be the time to make sure it gets solidified in case law.