tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post6934542797078689361..comments2023-11-02T05:04:59.172-04:00Comments on Third Base Politics: Fighting Obamacare in OhioNick (aka Bytor)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15826772166599084105noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-38728031395014941312010-08-30T21:52:16.919-04:002010-08-30T21:52:16.919-04:00>This is perhaps the only time thus >far I&#...>This is perhaps the only time thus >far I've disagreed with this blog.<br /><br />Oh no! I ruined DJT's record already?!Nick (aka Bytor)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15826772166599084105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-40458573686602962962010-08-30T13:40:11.863-04:002010-08-30T13:40:11.863-04:00I contest that even the those aware of the campaig...<i>I contest that even the those aware of the campaign are ignorant of the ramifications its success would bring.</i><br /><br />What are the ramifications? Shouldn't this abuse of federal power be attacked via more than one avenue? I'm pretty sure that repealing the 17th amendment isn't going to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-28739994012202524352010-08-30T13:27:03.972-04:002010-08-30T13:27:03.972-04:00This is perhaps the only time thus far I've di...This is perhaps the only time thus far I've disagreed with this blog. No offense to the author, but this is a preposterously abhorrent idea and the completely wrong approach to the issue. <br /><br />The first issue is whether the health care mandate is a legitimate use of federal authority (specifically, the federal tax penalty to those who lack health care) - to this I would say probably not. But challenge this through the courts, not this half-baked veil of secessionist nonsense.<br /><br />To put this in historical context, 1851 (the name of the drafting society) was the start of a heady antebellum period debate between the southern and northern states about a state's power to nullify federal law in general, and slavery in particular. Nullification in particular, and not slavery, is the basis of secession for the states that would form the CSA. While there was no constitutional provision explicitly rejecting nullification (aside from Articles I, IV), it could be deduced from the act of secession itself that state autonomy (because really this is what it comes down to) is impossible under the Constitution. Second, from the fact that the Union won, the international custom (at the time) that he who wins, rules, nullification and secession were big no-nos (as an aside - any good conservative society should fall between 1865 and the FDR takeover of the Supreme Court, with Brown v BoE as a big exception).<br /><br />The article is right that most folks are happy to sign, but they don't know about the campaign. The syntactical problem with this is that people will gladly sign even if they are aware of but not knowing of the campaign. I contest that even the those aware of the campaign are ignorant of the ramifications its success would bring.<br /><br />Since this is an issue of States' rights, I would instead argue that the better course of action would be to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct election of senators, the legislative body constitutionally reserved for representatives of the states and not of the states' citizens) - easily the biggest usurpation of state power, and a much better path of constitutional change in resurrecting state's interests in the federal government.Chaz P.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-91678341461807820042010-08-30T13:25:39.439-04:002010-08-30T13:25:39.439-04:00This is perhaps the only time thus far I've di...This is perhaps the only time thus far I've disagreed with this blog. No offense to the generous contributors who stand in while Keeling gets married, but this is a preposterously abhorrent idea and the completely wrong approach to the issue. <br /><br />The first issue is whether the health care mandate is a legitimate use of federal authority (specifically, the federal tax penalty to those who lack health care) - to this I would say probably not. On this, most readers amenable to this blog would likely agree. If this is generally accepted (which I will assume), it poses the important question of method by which to challenge it: through the courts (the traditional course of action since Marbury v. Madison), or through this silly amendment.<br /><br />To put this in historical context, 1851 (the name of the drafting society) was the start of a heady antebellum period debate between the southern and northern states about a state's power to nullify federal law in general, and slavery in particular. Nullification in particular, and not slavery, is the basis of secession for the states that would form the CSA. While there was no constitutional provision explicitly rejecting nullification (aside from Articles I, IV), it could be deduced from the act of secession itself that state autonomy (because really this is what it comes down to) is impossible under the Constitution. Second, from the fact that the Union won, the international custom (at the time) that he who wins, rules, nullification and secession were big no-nos (as an aside - any good conservative society should fall between 1865 and the FDR takeover of the Supreme Court, with Brown v BoE as a big exception).<br /><br />The article is right that most folks are happy to sign, but they don't know about the campaign. The syntactical problem with this is that people will gladly sign even if they are aware of but not knowing of the campaign. I contest that even the those aware of the campaign are ignorant of the ramifications its success would bring.<br /><br />Since this is an issue of States' rights, I would instead argue that the better course of action would be to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct election of senators, the legislative body constitutionally reserved for representatives of the states and not of the states' citizens) - easily the biggest usurpation of state power, and a much better path of constitutional change in resurrecting state's interests in the federal government.Chaz P.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7743530438680774250.post-14513324671488573312010-08-30T13:23:54.035-04:002010-08-30T13:23:54.035-04:00This is perhaps the only time thus far I've di...This is perhaps the only time thus far I've disagreed with this blog. No offense to the generous contributors who stand in while Keeling gets married, but this is a preposterously abhorrent idea and the completely wrong approach to the issue. <br /><br />The first issue is whether the health care mandate is a legitimate use of federal authority (specifically, the federal tax penalty to those who lack health care) - to this I would say probably not. On this, most readers amenable to this blog would likely agree. If this is generally accepted (which I will assume), it poses the important question of method by which to challenge it: through the courts (the traditional course of action since Marbury v. Madison), or through this silly amendment.<br /><br />To put this in historical context, 1851 (the name of the drafting society) was the start of a heady antebellum period debate between the southern and northern states about a state's power to nullify federal law in general, and slavery in particular. Nullification in particular, and not slavery, is the basis of secession for the states that would form the CSA. While there was no constitutional provision explicitly rejecting nullification (aside from Articles I, IV), it could be deduced from the act of secession itself that state autonomy (because really this is what it comes down to) is impossible under the Constitution. Second, from the fact that the Union won, the international custom (at the time) that he who wins, rules, nullification and secession were big no-nos (as an aside - any good conservative society should fall between 1865 and the FDR takeover of the Supreme Court, with Brown v BoE as a big exception).<br /><br />The article is right that most folks are happy to sign, but they don't know about the campaign. The syntactical problem with this is that people will gladly sign even if they are aware of but not knowing of the campaign. I contest that even the those aware of the campaign are ignorant of the ramifications its success would bring.<br /><br />Since this is an issue of States rights, and the desire to prevent federal creativity in exercising power over the states, I would instead argue that the better course of constitutional change would be to repeal the 17th amendment, which is easily the biggest usurpation of state power (the direct election of senators, the legislative body constitutionally reserved for representatives of the states and not of the states' citizens), and a much better (legal, constitutional, and conservative) course of action in resurrecting the states' interests in the federal government.Chaz P.noreply@blogger.com