Shutdown Supporters, Now That It's All Over But The Crying....

Do I really have to quote the tenth amendment?

 

Only if you're also OK with disbanding the Interstate system.

 

What are the states supposed to nullify? How are they expected to enforce it?

 

I find it telling that none of the cheerleaders will actually answer the questions of the OP.

C'mon where are all the people calling gul a liar and libtard for saying that the shutdown would be a bad idea and that the Republicans would lose? Did @Zombie and @Paladin and @Volpone just forget about their support? Or their bashing of those talking sense?

 

This is all theoretical of course. The way I envision it and the way it has been done in the past would be that a state would hold a convention and delegates would vote to nullify the ACA. Then the state legislatures would write a nullification ordinance and decide on how to enforce it. They would likely refuse to collect any tax related to the ACA and refuse to comply with any obligation by the state related to the ACA. Then in the court system, the state would have to defend citizens refusing to comply with the mandate. They wouldn't be able to stop the IRS from collecting the mandate, but they could definitely interfere with the implantation. If none of that got the attention of Congress and the President to change the law, then they could threaten to leave the Union. If enough states were to do that, then Congress would be forced to either repeal or change the law.

 

There is no power delegated by the Constitution to the United States by which it may mandate the purchase of any product or service.

 

What about the general welfare clause and the commerce clause? Just kidding, that's what the Liberals will say next, so I figured I'd save them the time and effort.

 

@Ohoitnik Well, I'm with Joseph Story's Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian interpretation of "General Welfare" as it relates to the Taxing and Spending Clause. And the Interstate Commerce Clause has been so thoroughly whipped since the New Deal era that it might just as well be called the "Government Does What The Fuck It Wants Clause."

 

Jefferson and Madison believed that A) the general welfare is not a broad grant of unlimited power and B) it is immediately followed by the enumerated powers, so the power to tax must be for the purpose of carrying out one of those powers. When arguing against the Bank Bill Jefferson said that it was neither necessary nor proper for a bank to exist in order for Congress to carry out it's powers to tax. He went on to argue that just because it may be convenient to have a bank for Congress to use to print money, convenience is not what the Constitution is about. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but I'm sure you get the point. I believe you can apply that principle to anything dealing with the constitutionality of laws. Hamilton believed in implied powers which Jefferson thought was a dangerous construction because it places no limit to what government can do. I'm not as familiar with Justice Story, but I know he was on the court when Marshal was there, so I'd be cautious towards his opinions. I agree though that since the late 1930s the Constitution has been interpreted in some really strange ways. Justices have to stretch their imaginations beyond any realistic point. They contort themselves so much to make things fit, I really have to question their credibility anymore. These past few years have been really crazy.

 

Were there really that many in favor of the shutdown?

If anything, people were joking "they shut down the wrong parts!"

 

"Conservatives" support shutdowns and cutbacks and sequesters in theory... until it actually effects anything. Spending cuts actually effecting things is bad. But lately they've taken to blaming Obama for that, because the connection between defunding a department and said department being unable to do it's job is a liberal conspiracy.

 

But the power to tax is explicit. As for the argument that implied powers are not, because Jefferson said some things about that, I point your attention to the Louisiana Purchase.

Now, on to the tenth. We've been through this before, you hard core state's rights guys forget two things. The second clause in the 10th regards the people, who can use the federal government to protect their unenumerated rights. Second, the clause regarding the states was significantly weakened by the post civil war amendments. Third, in particular regarding ACA, the SCOTUS has already ruled that it is Constitutional. QED.

 

As I have already pointed out, the tax must be for the purpose of carrying out the enumerated powers. There is no such thing as implied powers, it's a construct Hamilton created in order to get what he wanted. If the power to tax were meant to be a general power, then why have it followed by an enumeration of specific powers? As Madison said in Federalist 41, "[f]or what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" Even Hamilton argued that the necessary and proper clause is meant to be limited to the enumerated powers, "it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. " Federalist 33.

Congress authorized the purchase and Jefferson himself questioned the authority, but was convinced by his cabinet that he had the authority . He even drafted an amendment to the Constitution to grant the authority.

The second clause refers to the people of the several states, there is no "people" of the US. The people of the states retain the powers not delegated. The tenth amendment deals specifically with powers of the federal goverment; that includes the three branches. If any one of those branches violates the Constitution or allows power to be usurped, then the powers of the states or the people of the states have the power to question that. They wouldn't use the federal government to do so because it would be counter intuitive.

I assume your referring specifically to the fourteenth amendment. There's a pretty good argument that incorporation is plain BS. That particular interpretation didn't begin until 1937, but that is a whole other argument in itself and should be saved for another day.

Yes, everyone knows that SCOTUS can never make the wrong call.

 

Two words on the "infallibility" of SCOTUS:

Dred. Scott.

 

Dave Ramsey is very very good with financial stuff. I don't listen to him that often, but he's very intelligent. This man makes a lot of sense.

Speaking of Social Security being a ponzee scheme, here's a good article about privatization from the NY Times of all places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

SS is only a ponzi scheme if you believe it functions as a pension, rather than as a generational wealth transfer. Since it is intended as the latter, calling it a ponzi scheme is misleading.

 

"If you yell loud enough, then the math doesn't matter."

Democrat party platform in a nutshell.

 

Does Social Security describe it as wealth redistribution? Because if, as you say, that's what it is, and if that's not how they describe it, then equating it with a scam is not in the slightest bit misleading.

 

Not sure who you mean by they, but if you read the program description or a history book, it's quite clearly about wealth transfer. The proper question regarding social security regards whether it's a good idea to use the wealth of the able bodied to care for the preceding generation once it passes beyond prime working years. There's also a question of whether we should incentivize retirement to make room for younger workers. But if you think it's a savings program, you are starting with a false assumption.

 

Yet another right-wing extremist "news source"* is reporting that thousands are being kicked off their health insurance plans because of Obamacare.

Which right-wing extremist "news source", you ask?

NBC News.

*I know they're not actually a right-wing extremist organization -- but you can bet they'll be called one after this story.

 

You and others seem to be confusing two very different debates.

1. Is the Affordable Care Act good for America?

2. Was the government shutdown/threat of default the best, or even a good, tactic to use in trying to fight the Affordable Care Act?


While question 1 is certainly important, it's hardly relevant to question 2. The answer to question 1 will be years in the making, and we probably won't truly know the answer until about 2020. However, the answer to question 2 is, unequivocally and resoundingly, "NO."

It was a truly disastrous tactic, it completely backfired in that the ACA is more popular among Americans than ever before, the Republican Party's (and particularly the Tea Party's) favorability rating is the lowest in history, and it cost our economy $24 Billion and lowered 4th quarter growth by .6%.

It was a complete and total failure, and that's the take away here. In other words, BY ALL MEANS, please keep attempting to implement you and your preferred party's governing principles, but please, for your own sake and that of the entire country and the entire world (in the catastrophic case of default) don't be so fucking incompetent in how you go about doing it.

Learn from your god damn mistakes, conservatives. DO NOT do this again.

That is all.

 

The answer to question 1. is no.

The answer to question 2. assumes that the Republicans shutdown the government, which they did not. I think the best way to combat the ACA would be to defund it of repeal it. The first one is easy, it just takes balls. The second one will never happen. By 2020, it'll be too late, too many Americans will be entrenched and dependent on the system and Democrats likely will be pushing for single payer.

I'm convinced that the ACA was never intended to be a long term solution and it was only intended to function long enough to get people hooked on the system, then when things go horribly wrong, they will claim that it's because of the private sector (and not the government) and all of their greed that is messing things up. They then will push for single payer. They will use fear mongering and other tactics to push it through and they will have succeeded in pushing us towards a Communist/ Socialist state. It will be impossible to reverse course at that time and more people will just give up on voting.

 

Your take on the answer to question 2 is irrelevant. The fact that you and many on the right do not grasp this simple concept is going to be a major problem for conservatives. If you don't even acknowledge a mistake, how can you learn from it.

The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans got hurt, bad, by this tactic. Whether it was their own doing or some other explanation, the only take away conservatives need to come away from this whole thing is to NOT DO THIS AGAIN. It hurt you. You can blame Obama and the Democrats if you want, but that just removes any ability to learn from the situation and correct your mistakes.

Again, it doesn't matter if you don't think the Republicans were the cause of the shut down. It hurt the Republican Party, it helped the Democratic Party, and it further strengthened the Affordable Care Act. If you are ok with all of these results, by all means carry on. If you would like different results, I would suggest a different strategy going forward.

 

The answer to question 1 is: It doesn't take effect until January. "I don't like it" =/= "It doesn't work."

 

Here's what I've learned from the shutdown:

The Republican leadership is useless

The Democrats can only win arguments through demagogy.

17% of the federal government is useless, though I suspect that number is higher.

The states can find solutions without the federal government

The Republican Party either needs to be united on tactics or get out of the way and let another party try to govern (not the Democrats).

 

^So, Halftime's Over, or To the Barricades?

 

So you learned nothing.

 

There's a reason the RNC felt the need to include the below in their autopsy:

Another consistent theme that emerged from our conversations related to mechanics is the immediate need for the RNC and Republicans to foster what has been referred to as an "environment of intellectual curiosity" and a "culture of data and learning," and the RNC must lead this effort.

How said is it that one of the key issues that REPUBLICANS recognize is that they need to move out of the bubble and into reality?