States' Rights advocates on a roll these days

One of the Florida Republican state senators was advising caution to fellow Republicans, according to the article I posted above:

Quote:

"This is one of those things," Peaden said, "that might be really politically hot today. But as you wind it out it burns down. And the people hell-bent to change it might find what they were trying to change is more popular out in the hinterland than they thought."

1 Reply

He's a smart man, wandel, it's another strategy that's gonna backfire on the GOP. They're already the Party of No. Now they're getting to the Party of Over My Dead Body, and they may just be held to it at the voting booth.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Blocking healthcare reform is becoming even more popular than blocking same-sex marriage, if you can imagine that!

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Looks like Peaden's been following David Frum's blog.

0 Replies

A lot of right wing commentators on NPR today said the suits being filed have nearly no Constitutional standing.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

A lot of right wing commentators on NPR today said the suits being filed have nearly no Constitutional standing.

This silliness is nothing new and had been try against such programs as SS and Medicare for example in the past.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Yup. It reminds me of that idiotic birth certificate thing. Here in Hawaii it was on the news yesterday or the day before that the state's AG has ruled that the appropriate agencies which deal with vital statistics are under no obligation to keep responding to continuing requests for copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Enough is enough.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

They're already the Party of No

They are also the party of the special interests such as the insurances and drug companies and who base of voters consist of people stupid enough to be able to be talk into voting against their own interests by fear tactics.

Love how wild and way out those fears tactics had become of late as the end of the Republic is just around the corner due to having universal health care.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Depends on how one defines "expedited." The court can move its own calendar as fast as it wants -- the Bush v. Gore decision was reached in an expedited manner, but there were exigent circumstances involved in that case that mandated a swift resolution.

The supreme court, therefore, can speed up its own processes, but it has little control over how fast the lower courts operate. The supreme court has a very limited original jurisdiction, so it wouldn't be able to take a case questioning the constitutionality of the health insurance reform act on its own: it would have to let a federal district court hear the case initially. [...] Nowadays, that process can take upwards of five years.....

Is there any way to speed up the process in a manner analogous to the Bush-Gore decision assuming that a fiscal emergency exists? There's a very clear possibility of a replay of the government shutdown in the early 1990s, assuming that the composition of the House of Representatives after the mid-term elections is such that they refuse to lift the federal debt ceiling; as few posters here seem to have a grasp of the numbers involved (and the resultant emergency) I'm posting a website reference with the relevant links - and the most eye-catching opening paragraph I've ever seen in a fiscal document:

Quote:

[i]On a bitter winter night 40 years ago, a British trawler caught in a North Sea gale hundreds of miles from help was accumulating ice on its deck and rigging faster than the crew could chop it away. Soon water flooded the engine room, leaving the boat with only emergency power. In the hour before the vessel sank, a Royal Air Force radio operator made contact and asked: “What are your intentions?” The final transmission came slowly: “No intentions.”

Many seasoned observers are now beginning to worry that Congress is on the verge of a “no intentions” response to the threat of financial crisis from our growing indebtedness.[/i]

http://budgetreform.org/category/project/peterson-pew-budget-reform-commission

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Is there any way to speed up the process in a manner analogous to the Bush-Gore decision assuming that a fiscal emergency exists?

Sure, anything's possible, but I would consider that scenario extraordinarily unlikely.

1 Reply

The second paragraph in this piece says it all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?th&emc=th

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thank you - your legal input is greatly appreciated. I've been working on a series of mathematical simulation models necessary to avert defaults - e.g. by providing debt guarantees in exchange for a pledge of assets - by illiquid entities, both public and private, in the US and overseas. The federal government does have a great deal of assets - there's almost half a trillion in gold reserves, for instance - but the fiscal blindness of the current administration and legislature are such that most financial experts are now pinning their hopes on the judiciary. The only USSC precedent found by counsel I've been in touch with concerning the federal government is this one: http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/ and for states there is none - the old Confederacy doesn't qualify. It's worth looking at the link I posted in some detail, if you want background on the (dismal) actual numbers. Again, my thanks.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

There's a very clear possibility of a replay of the government shutdown in the early 1990s, assuming that the composition of the House of Representatives after the mid-term elections is such that they refuse to lift the federal debt ceiling

I hadn't thought of that. I remember being furloughed in late 1995 because of the shutdown. If that happens again (late 2011), I will be among the first A2Kers to discuss it.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I was being "tongue in cheek" myself. More or less fecetious as to the responses I'd get. #1, as of late, WE don't seem to be so United and a State these days seem to be in their own sphere, until a disaster happens, then those same people want the feds to help them, because we're ALL so Red, White and Blue, but you needen't respond here. I keep my religion and my politics Separate, okay?

You want a response? Go to the forum

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

This is what prompted my question:

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

The rich became richer and the poor pays through the nose!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

There's a very clear possibility of a replay of the government shutdown in the early 1990s, assuming that the composition of the House of Representatives after the mid-term elections is such that they refuse to lift the federal debt ceiling;

... and whose choice would that shutdown be? Are you seriously suggesting that Republicans shut down the Federal government, and then tell the courts to hurry up because the federal government is being shut down? That's a fine example of chuzpah. Almost as fine as killing your parents, and then begging the court for mercy because you're an orphan. My guess is that federal courts, being composed of reasonable people, will see through such a maneuver, and will not take to it kindly.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

What I love is this repeal nonsense being given out by the Republican Party as no matter what they would not be in a position to do so until 2012.

By that time the new strake holders in this law will be in the order of 40 millions or so and any serous threat to their new health insurance will get these people out to vote in mass.

The chance of repeal is about the same as the chance of repealing SS or Medicare IE zero.

.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

What I love is this repeal nonsense being given out by the Republican Party as no matter what they would not be in a position to do so until 2012.

If you are referring to the fact that the Republicans won't get the votes in November to override a presidential veto, I agree as far as it goes. But as I understand it, their plan is to de-fund universal health care by filibustering any appropriations bills that would pay for it. I haven't figured out yet whether this is a viable strategy for them, and what defenses the Democrats could put up against it.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I haven't figured out yet whether this is a viable strategy for them, and what defenses the Democrats could put up against it.

If they can do so, I can just see the Democrats marching out people who are dying and or losing their homes because of the GOP actions.

Taking back this program benefits would be just as safe as taking back meat from a starving pride of lions or trying to repeal SS or Medicare for that matter.

The next big battle will be when we start to move to a more sane system of having a single payer, in my opinion.

0 Replies

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U_DH1UV7fAY/S6jUw_EFTgI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/zL5Ty_Mf5rA/s1600/What%2BChange%2BLooks%2BLike.jpg

http://www.investors.com/image/RAM625clr-032410-wethegovib.gif.cms

1 Reply

States' Rights advocates on a roll these days

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know