Ace of Spades HQ

December 09, 2013

South Carolina Will Soon Pass Law Purporting to Outlaw Obamacare In the State
— Ace

I say "purporting" because I don't believe any Court will agree that individual States may void federal law at will. The sorts of things South Carolina are claiming now are the same sorts of things they claimed in 1861-- and Courts have of course been hostile towards the idea that state law can trump federal law.

It will, however, spark a fresh round of litigation. Which may be what is necessary.

The billÂ’s main component prohibits agencies, officers and employees of the state of South Carolina from implementing any provisions of the Affordable Care Act, leaving implementation of the national health-care law entirely in the hands of a federal government that lacks the resources or personnel to carry out the programs it mandates.

I don't believe that's remotely true, that the government lacks the federal officials necessary to, say, issue mandates to local insurers as to what they must offer and take them to court for non-compliance.

Additional provisions of H3101 further neuter the Affordable Care Act by outlawing state exchanges, issuing tax deductions to individuals equal to the tax penalties levied by the federal government, and directing the state attorney general to sue over whimsical enforcement of the law.

I don't think any of this will hold up except for that last part.

Obama is arrogating to himself the powers of the Legislature. This is unconstitutional -- dangerously so.

But there are two practical reasons this point has not been pressed:

1. Courts routinely claim that most persons lack "standing" to pursue a particular claim. The rule of standing means that the average person cannot challenge government lawbreaking unless that person has suffered a particular, individual harm making him especially motivated to press the suit vigorously. Courts routinely find that citizens cannot complain about the general effects of laws: they must be specifically, individually, especially harmed by the law to have standing, and most courts use this to avoid entering political disputes, claiming, essentially, no one has standing to challenge the government.

A lawsuit directed to be filed by this law cannot be so easily dismissed. Now we'd have a state, not a citizen, making the claim about Obama's lawlessness, and a court would be much more likely to find that a state has standing.

2. The other thing keeping a lawsuit being filed against Obama's "whimsical" application of the law is simple: Which Republicans want to be the ones go on the record saying that Obama is required to inflict Obamacare on employers now rather than after the midterms? Which Republicans want to sue to make Obama keep old insurance plans illegal?

Republicans who want to win elections can't really agitate for Strict Enforcement of Obamacare, because Obamacare is so awful.

But in this case, South Carolina's state legislators are stepping up to the plate and taking that political hit: They are directing their AG to sue for the proposition that the law must either be enforced as written or not enforced at all.

I like that part of the law.

But this is going to take a very long time to resolve. The trouble with South Carolina's suit, I imagine, is that by the time the courts even begin looking at it, it will be moot. Obamacare will, likely, be fully enforced in three years.

But what if Obama is still playing games with exactly what parts of the law are in effect this week?

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

1 1?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 09, 2013 02:23 PM (HVff2)

2 Does this actually outlaw the ACA? It sounds like it just says the state is going to (a) wash its hands of it, and not let any state resources be used for it, and (b) to the extent residents of the state are forced to deal with it, sue for equal treatment.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at December 09, 2013 02:25 PM (QF8uk)

3 God bless SC

Posted by: NCwoof at December 09, 2013 02:26 PM (aUQgu)

[Ace:] I say "purporting" because I don't believe any Court will agree that individual States may void federal law at will.

What about the new Marijuana laws, Ace?

Those are voiding federal law, aren't they?

Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 02:27 PM (+SY5G)

5 If the President can ignore the law as he pleases why can't states?

Posted by: major major major major at December 09, 2013 02:28 PM (X9vO1)

6 Ace... there are a lot of parts of the ACA... like the Taxes on Health Care items... or even the Health insurance Regs (which are STATE laws).. which must be enforced by the State. This quickly becomes a 10th Amendment Lawsuit... where many of these items have been State run for historically, but now the Feds want to take over Law that is NOT Explicitly stated in the Constitution, and has been run successfully by the States for years.

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 02:29 PM (lZBBB)

7 Fuck while they are at, can they void the Federal Income Tax also?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 09, 2013 02:29 PM (nzKvP)

8 At least South Carolina isn't bending over like Kasich and Christie.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 02:31 PM (ZWVy7)

9 Hmmmph. A SLAVE state, naturally.

Posted by: Melissa Harelip-Perry at December 09, 2013 02:33 PM (MMC8r)

10 Oklahoma sued too. I wonder where that case is?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Weary and Wary at December 09, 2013 02:33 PM (kXoT0)

11 I reported on this in the morning news thread several months ago. This law has been working its way through for a while. The really good thing about this is that there are something like 15 or 16 other States who are passing laws to nullify Obamacide.

In fact, at one point I think there were enough that if they all got together and called an Art V convention they could strip the law from the books using a Constitutional Amendment.

But Ace is right about one thing, this law has some strong teeth in it and while I am sure a federal court will kill a lot of it, parts of it are likely to remain in effect. And there will not be a damn thing the bastard in the WH can do about it.

Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2013 02:33 PM (T2V/1)

12 Hey Ace, If the Fed does not have jurisdiction over a firearms manufacturer WRT products made expressly for intra-state sale and use, why wouldn't an insurer's products be similarly exempt when they also are limited to intra-state sale? just sayin'.

Posted by: MikeW at December 09, 2013 02:34 PM (NmARk)

13 They don't need a law to ignore a law. Just ask the narrator in chief. All you have to say is; 'IT'S THE RIGHT TING TO DO'

Posted by: ajl at December 09, 2013 02:34 PM (JToqw)

14 Obama wants this. He wants a Bad Cop. I even think that, to some extent, he wanted SCOTUS to overturn it but maybe he was convinced by his advisers that kittens and rainbows were around the corner. Obama's got only one play: Double Down. An impotent revolutionary is always popular. He has The Man to blame. Obama's only hope now is a defeat in the courts.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 09, 2013 02:34 PM (T0NGe)

15 I think Ace has sort of alluded to this in the past, but I think it's imperative that we keep these lawsuits coming regardless of the shakiness of their merits.

Much like the mandate became a tax, I think at a certain point this Obamacare will become so destructive that the Supreme Court may be looking for any excuse to take a second crack at it now that its negative effects are widespread and no longer theoretical.

Could be wrong, but throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks isn't going to hurt anything.

Posted by: JohnE. at December 09, 2013 02:35 PM (nRTou)

16 The Feds will just threaten highway funds or Medicaid funds or something. That's what happens when you give the Feds money to redistribute back to the states...they use that power.

Posted by: MostlyRight at December 09, 2013 02:35 PM (w9AQ4)

17 Hmm, according to links I just skimmed, Oklahoma's suit against ACA continues.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Weary and Wary at December 09, 2013 02:35 PM (kXoT0)

18 I suspect this might get pushed to the SCOTUS in a real hurry, months instead of years, as even the Democrat judges will want to kill Obamacare before the mobs can get the torches and pickforks ready.

Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at December 09, 2013 02:36 PM (sB09V)

7 Fuck while they are at, can they void the Federal Income Tax also?

Well, the Fed Income Tax already has violated the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection under the law.

Just like with the ACA...it is unconstitutional for some people to be exempt, while others are not.

Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 02:37 PM (+SY5G)

@4 What about the new Marijuana laws, Ace?
Those are voiding federal law, aren't they?

------------

I can't speak for the most recent marijuana laws. But California passed one of the first Medical Marijuana laws, and it more or less continues to exist at the whim of the Federal government. No one pretends otherwise.

Posted by: junior at December 09, 2013 02:37 PM (UWFpX)

21 Oh shit , here we go again . awkward davies tenth generation s. carolinian , who's great great grandad spent two yrs in a union prison camp .

Posted by: awkward davies at December 09, 2013 02:37 PM (WK8VM)

22 The more resistance from the states the better.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 09, 2013 02:38 PM (HVff2)

23 I say throw everything against the wall and if the courts won't grant standing to citizens, then the states should step up. I think this kind of action by SC is what the other FED-run-Ocare states should do. Nullify it within their borders and together muck this up.

States rights should be the rally cry. We MUST get away from the SCOTUS or some Fed Circuit court being able to shove crap down our collective throats. It's time for this crap to end.

Posted by: Yip at December 09, 2013 02:38 PM (/jHWN)

24 If Ace got a dog he could have it declared a service dog for his sleep apnea. He then could right off all the chew toys as a tax deduction.

Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 09, 2013 02:38 PM (h4eud)

25 even the Democrat judges will want to kill Obamacare before the mobs can get the torches and pickforks ready

Yea, they gotta realize they fucked up bad by now

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at December 09, 2013 02:39 PM (UVadJ)

26 When has unconstitutional ever bothered this administration? The RINO's sure don't seem to give a care.

Posted by: Infidel at December 09, 2013 02:39 PM (6bvBO)

27 I have no idea on this, but would the DC circuit court of appeals be in any way involved in this case? Hmmm

Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 09, 2013 02:39 PM (o9Rp5)

28 Courts routinely find that citizens cannot complain about the general effects of laws: they must be specifically, individually, especially harmed by the law to have standing, and most courts use this to avoid entering political disputes, claiming, essentially, no one has standing to challenge the government.

Which is irritating as hell in light of the fact that eviron-mental asshole shakedown artists can sue companies and the EPA for environment claims even when the nutjobs have no damages or injury.

This kind of dual track justice is antithetical to our republic. And fucking bullshit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at December 09, 2013 02:40 PM (B0gqn)

29 Can we all just march on Ft Sumter and speed this thing up? I think I will look up Zuaves uniforms on amazon.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 09, 2013 02:40 PM (XIiS5)

30 In Massachusetts, at least two of the new pot dispensaries are going to outfits including ex-politicians. Guy Glodis, a former Sheriff, and Bill Delahut, a former Congressman. How convenient for them.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 09, 2013 02:41 PM (ZshNr)

31 Also, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for a state to collectively tell the Feds, no more medicare, medicade, no Food stamps and no Highway funds. Screw you! Texas and Alaska have the most oil money coming in right now, or the Dakotas.. Send a message too to those within in any given state that if they've become dependent on the Fed teat, then they need to think about moving to California.

Posted by: Yip at December 09, 2013 02:41 PM (/jHWN)

32 So maybe the Confederate battle flag I painted on the roof of my car will come back in style then?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 09, 2013 02:42 PM (8ZskC)

33 I am sure a federal court will kill a lot of it, parts of it are likely to remain in effect. And there will not be a damn thing the bastard in the WH can do about it. Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2013 06:33 PM (T2V/1) My understanding is that there is no severability clause written in... so it either all stands.. or all goes... "IF" they bother following the rules that is... (I know... I know...).

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 02:42 PM (lZBBB)

34 32 So maybe the Confederate battle flag I painted on the roof of my car will come back in style then? Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 09, 2013 06:42 PM (8ZskC) Here is hoping

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 09, 2013 02:43 PM (HVff2)

35 OT but if it was shared earlier. My apologies.

Alan Grayson got conned out of $18 million.
http://tinyurl.com/kck4knh

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 09, 2013 02:44 PM (5oAy6)

36 Obviously the fault of the racist white governor of the state of SC!

Posted by: MFM at December 09, 2013 02:45 PM (uakI+)

37 What, at this point, does it matter ?

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at December 09, 2013 02:45 PM (gUoN4)

38 passive resistance.. I think these states AG's should be telling their citizens NOT to use teh O-Care webpage because it is not secure. Just like they would if some company set something like that up..

Posted by: Yip at December 09, 2013 02:45 PM (/jHWN)

39 What happened in 1861?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 09, 2013 02:46 PM (oJ5Fd)

40 33 My understanding is that there is no severability clause written in... so it either all stands.. or all goes...

"IF" they bother following the rules that is... (I know... I know...).

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 06:42 PM (lZBBB)

This is a State law, not a federal.

Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2013 02:46 PM (T2V/1)

41 This is not even remotely my area of expertise but I take this as an attack on unfunded mandates in general that are a long time coming. The Feds delight in telling the states that you must do x y z but hahahahaha you have to pay for it suckers. Well, time to push back.

Also, I'm not certain this is different from all the other states who passed laws and state constitutional amendments from 2010 on attempting to do the same thing.

In further blood pressure raising news, did you see where Covered California is sending the telephone numbers and email addresses of everyone who has been on the website but hasn't purchased a policy to insurance agents for them to solicit business? Good times, good times.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 02:47 PM (Gk3SS)

42 Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 09, 2013 06:42 PM (OWjjx) The South Carolina Insurance commissioner must however enforce part of O'care on the Insurance companies... because Insurance policies are regulated via State law... So things like the 'keep your kids on till 26'... or cover prior conditions? Must be enforced by the States themselves..

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 02:48 PM (lZBBB)

43 The ROT will second.

Posted by: SouthTexas at December 09, 2013 02:49 PM (uhFbA)

44 What happened in 1861?

Helen Thomas got assigned to the Metro beat.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 09, 2013 02:49 PM (8ZskC)

45 >>>I am sure a federal court will kill a lot of it, parts of it are likely to remain in effect. And there will not be a damn thing the bastard in the WH can do about it.
Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2013 06:33 PM (T2V/1)

My understanding is that there is no severability clause written in... so it either all stands.. or all goes...
"IF" they bother following the rules that is... (I know... I know...).

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 06:42 PM (lZBBB)<<<

Hahahahaha. You're a funny guy, Tommy.

Posted by: Justice John Henry Hill Roberts at December 09, 2013 02:49 PM (uakI+)

46 1861 was the last time there were six Heismnan Finalists?

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 09, 2013 02:50 PM (ZshNr)

47 I hope the cases keep coming fast and furious but my money lies with the people. Not because I think the public is getting any smarter, just the opposite, but with every new day some new outrage caused by this disaster is uncovered. Today is what announced that under Obamacare volunteer fire departments may face crushing new regulations. The IRS considers volunteer fireman employees ( go figure) and what this means for the departments is unclear. Lest you think this is a small problem over 80% of all fire fighters in the US are volunteers. What till fire departments start closing right and left. Blood in the streets.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 09, 2013 02:50 PM (g1DWB)

48 Alan Grayson got conned out of $18 million.
http://tinyurl.com/kck4knh

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 09, 2013 06:44 PM (5oAy6)

Best news I've heard all day. Fuck that ugly turd.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 02:50 PM (ZWVy7)

49 OT Question, Are both brothers Rhamm And Emanual gay? Or they both are just fucked up?

Posted by: 7 Days in May at December 09, 2013 02:50 PM (j6DTo)

50 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 06:47 PM (Gk3SS) OTÂ…I thought this looked like something you and MWR would enjoy. http://tinypic.com/r/mtm1k7/5 Â…now back on topic...

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 09, 2013 02:50 PM (GEICT)

51 Damn autocorrect. That was more unintelligible than usual.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 09, 2013 02:51 PM (g1DWB)

52 If states can't ignore federal law. Why do sanctuary cities get away with it on immigration?

Yeah lawless crap politics.

Posted by: The Hickster at December 09, 2013 02:52 PM (TI3xG)

53 So maybe the Confederate battle flag I painted on the roof of my car will come back in style then?

Posted by: Cicero

Shit, is it ReLitigate the Civil War Day again?

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at December 09, 2013 02:54 PM (B0gqn)

54 Ohhh BC I shall have to play with that you knock kneed jackanape (came up with that on my own).

Lest you think this is a small problem over 80% of all fire fighters in the US are volunteers. What till fire departments start closing right and left.

Blood in the streets. Posted by: JackStraw at December 09, 2013 06:50 PM (g1DWB)

Ninety-seven percent of PA fire departments are volunteer. Let that number sink in for a bit - 97%. Yeah. It's going to get really really really ugly.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 02:54 PM (Gk3SS)

55 Posted by: 7 Days in May at December 09, 2013 06:50 PM (j6DTo) I have it on good authority that Zeke's wife (who's also a bioethicist) is also an idiot.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (tablet) at December 09, 2013 02:54 PM (a8eFL)

mewling milk-livered maggot pie. I like that.

Posted by: Infidel at December 09, 2013 02:54 PM (6bvBO)

57 Alan Grayson got conned out of $18 million. So they filed fraud charges against the guy that had the money, but the feds are not going to file charges against Corzine?

Posted by: Cicero Skip at December 09, 2013 02:54 PM (nN7cn)

58 Don't forget, those cannons on The Battery, STILL work and our Citadel cadets know how to use them. Last time you boys ignored them, see what it got ya?

Posted by: The Sandlappers at December 09, 2013 02:55 PM (0FSuD)

59 "Shit, is it ReLitigate the Civil War Day again?"

Well, the South would have one if not for the longbows the union employed at Gettysburg.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 09, 2013 02:57 PM (o9Rp5)

60 The IRS considers volunteer fireman employees ( go figure) and what this means for the departments is unclear.

Too bad we don't have an opposition party to take advantage of shit like this to rein those Stasi wannabes in.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 02:57 PM (ZWVy7)

54 If states can't ignore federal law. Why do sanctuary cities get away with it on immigration?

Oh yeah, that's another good example of States voiding federal law.

So okay, we've got:

Â• Sanctuary Cities

Â• Marijuana legalization

Â• DOMA nullification

These are three examples of States telling the Feds 'fuck you' with regard to federal laws.

Any others?

Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 02:58 PM (+SY5G)

62 "Won"...shit. Can't even blame auto-correct. Time to start drinking.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 09, 2013 02:58 PM (o9Rp5)

63 Yeah, wow, if only there was a natiowide opposition party ....

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at December 09, 2013 02:58 PM (gUoN4)

64 mewling milk-livered maggot pie. I like that. Posted by: Infidel at December 09, 2013 06:54 PM (6bvBO)

I still cannot believe they got away Loki calling someone a mewling quim.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 02:59 PM (Gk3SS)

65 9 December 1861, Chief Custer kill many palefaces that day.

Posted by: Medium Shoehorn at December 09, 2013 02:59 PM (R6JT1)

66 Now would be the time for the States to start Succeeding again. However after the last one goes the map will look quite a bit different.

Blue on the coasts and a mostly middle red.

You boys hurry up and conquer rural Illinois ok? Just build a wall around Chicago though and mine the lake.

Don't forget the asain carp with laser beams ok???

Posted by: GMB Bucket (Thats pronounced Boukay dammit!) at December 09, 2013 02:59 PM (nkPV9)

67 Any others? Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 06:58 PM (+SY5G)

Nuclear free cities.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 03:00 PM (Gk3SS)

68 Alan Grayson got conned out of $18 million. His tuition for charm school?

Posted by: --- at December 09, 2013 03:01 PM (MMC8r)

66...I still cannot believe they got away Loki calling someone a mewling quim.

Well...it was Scarlet Johanson.

And she *is* a mewling quim.

Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 03:01 PM (+SY5G)

70 Ha ha, the Obama admin will have to argue that the law must be upheld as is, cuz ... it's the law! Brilliant. Other states should follow suit.

Posted by: Dr. Strangecare at December 09, 2013 03:02 PM (UxKxm)

71 So, Barron Hilton is a real pussy.

Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 09, 2013 03:02 PM (h4eud)

72 @36 Grayson, the "smart Jewish candidate" who ran against the Bible thumper, lost $18mill? Makes my day. The question is where the hell did a guy like that get $18mill? Daddy?

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 09, 2013 03:02 PM (0FSuD)

73 Nuclear free cities.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 07:00 PM (Gk3SS)

Don't get me started on those shitheads; when Mrs Hate was going through post breast cancer radiation treatments I wanted to gift wrap some liquid sunshine to the cocksuckers in my Soviet community that made the trucks with fissionable material have to reroute to reach the destination. Stupid fucks.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 03:03 PM (ZWVy7)

74 Well South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter 150 plus years ago. May as well reload the legislative cannon and fire a shot across the bow of the Good Ship Obama.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 09, 2013 03:05 PM (VAche)

mewling quim

I know. Another one you can call a LIV and they won't have a clue.

Posted by: Infidel at December 09, 2013 03:06 PM (6bvBO)

76 DC, especialy SCOTUS, has run rough shod over the 9th & 10th for more than 2 centuries. Politely I say kucf mhet 5,000 times and then shove it up the place where the sun does not shine upon them for all eternity.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at December 09, 2013 03:06 PM (hpgw1)

77 Now would be the time for the States to start Succeeding again. However after the last one goes the map will look quite a bit different.

Guam first. If it left in the middle of the night the Navy would have a tough time finding it.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 09, 2013 03:06 PM (8ZskC)

78
Paris Hilton will seek retribution against her brother's attacker and fuck the guy to death! Death by cooter!

Posted by: Doctor Fish at December 09, 2013 03:07 PM (pJF+c)

79 OK, I know my Panthers stunk it up last night, but what about MNF. Dallas v Chicago? Are either team worth a shit and who should I pull for. I hate Chicago, but except for the cheerleaders, Dallas is also dead to me.

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 09, 2013 03:08 PM (0FSuD)

80 Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 09, 2013 07:05 PM (VAche) Actually.... they fired on the Reinforcements the Union was trying to get into Ft. Sumter, even though the Union had said they would not reinforce it... The Fort then 'returned' fire.... which lead to a General Bombardment of the fort itself... But of course.... that's not what they teach in school....

Posted by: Romeo13.. at December 09, 2013 03:09 PM (lZBBB)

81 80 Paris Hilton will seek retribution against her brother's attacker and fuck the guy to death! Death by cooter! Posted by: Doctor Fish at December 09, 2013 07:07 PM (pJF+c) It's that not bad. You cum, then you go.

Posted by: Zombie Nelson Rockerfeller at December 09, 2013 03:09 PM (0FSuD)

82 "The Feds will just threaten highway funds or Medicaid funds or something. That's what happens when you give the Feds money to redistribute back to the states...they use that power."

I suppose at that point a determined state could just stop forwarding the federal tax dollars it collects. Or raise its state income tax to a level it evens out its citizens federal tax burden.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 09, 2013 03:09 PM (kUgpq)

83 Alan Grayson got conned out of $18 million.

--

Best news I've heard in a long time. The question remains, this "for the little guy" Democrat is worth $18 million. How did this putrid scumbag become one of the richest congressmen (#21 out of the top 50)?

Posted by: Lady in Black at December 09, 2013 03:09 PM (XB5Ak)

84 You guys! You guys! Oh my God, you guys have to see this!

http://youtu.be/MwQ6HIQV0YQ

*clutches movie to bosom* Oh, The Asylum, I heart you so so so hard.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 03:09 PM (Gk3SS)

85 54 If states can't ignore federal law. Why do sanctuary cities get away with it on immigration?

Oh yeah, that's another good example of States voiding federal law.

So okay, we've got:
Â• Sanctuary Cities
Â• Marijuana legalization
Â• DOMA nullification

These are three examples of States telling the Feds 'fuck you' with regard to federal laws.

Any others?

Posted by: wheatie at December 09, 2013 06:58 PM (+SY5G)

Plenty of gun laws as well

Posted by: Baracka Lolobama at December 09, 2013 03:10 PM (nTgAI)

86 75 Stupid fucks. They are far beyond stupid Captain Hate. They are smug malicious stupid fucks that belong in a NK labor camp subsisting on 500 calories a day until their bones break from the lack of calcium.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at December 09, 2013 03:10 PM (hpgw1)

87 I say "purporting" because I don't believe any Court will agree that individual States may void federal law at will. Except, of course, federal drug law (Marijuana) and Immigration law which can routinely be ignored by states and cities because the President as already said those laws can be ignored.

Posted by: Speak before Read at December 09, 2013 03:11 PM (uQmjJ)

88 Plenty of gun laws as well Posted by: Baracka Lolobama at December 09, 2013 07:10 PM (nTgAI)

Philly keeps passing gun laws that get slapped down, hard, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Philly then promptly passes them again.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 09, 2013 03:11 PM (Gk3SS)

89 I hate to be a vocabulary Nazi (oh who am I kidding, I fucking love it) but the word is "Secede".

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 03:11 PM (ZWVy7)

90 The numbers coming in are pretty damning. The right people just aren't signing up...when they're able to sign up - and now that the first bills are going out to people for those great new lower premiums (psyche!), folks get to choose between health insurance or Christmas. Insurers know this, so everyone will get a pass for the first month, it will be important to watch the number of folks that actually have effectuated coverage (not the ones that 'enrolled', because that really doesn't mean dick if the exchange can't get the enrollment transactions to the carriers) in mid-February. There will be some great success stories inevitably pushed about numbers in January, but again, I know for a fact that several exchanges just started getting data to their carriers - and those carriers *literally* just started sending bills this week. Via the USPS. Again, there will be a bunch of folks who benefit from this law who have their pens handy and are waiting to write that first check...but there are an awful lot of folks who are going to find a car payment or a new iWhatever under the tree (so the offspring will stop bothering mommy while she's playing Mafia Wars) are going seriously pwn actually paying that bill in December. They'll have every intention of paying it in January...lol

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 09, 2013 03:12 PM (54dkR)

91 Sharknado on steroids. lol.

Posted by: Infidel at December 09, 2013 03:12 PM (6bvBO)

92 @86 Epic! Course we do need a Black guy to save us and take the Blonde chicks. Hollywood, no stereotypes anywhere.

Posted by: Zombie Nelson Rockerfeller at December 09, 2013 03:12 PM (0FSuD)

93 So, Ace, As a SC native, IF POTUS chooses which laws to enforce or obey, and IF POTUS sets the example because he's the (alleged) leader, what is POTUS going to do when the citizenry also pick and choose which laws they are going to obey?

Posted by: Green'EmUp at December 09, 2013 03:12 PM (UiFQ5)

94 off damn sock

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 09, 2013 03:13 PM (0FSuD)

95 See in a Civil War, the side with the industrial might usually wins. So I wonder who China would support this time round?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 09, 2013 03:13 PM (nzKvP)

96 >>I hate to be a vocabulary Nazi (oh who am I kidding, I fucking love it) but the word is "Secede". You have to admit, it was a hell of a Freudian slip.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 09, 2013 03:14 PM (g1DWB)

97 Posted by: JackStraw at December 09, 2013 07:14 PM (g1DWB)

Troo dat

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 09, 2013 03:18 PM (ZWVy7)

98 Barry will deem that the law gives him the latitude to deny Federal Medicaid money to states that won't cooperate.

Posted by: toby928© at December 09, 2013 03:20 PM (QupBk)

99 OK a moron horror story. I have a friend on Medicare and he has a plan D drug supplement. He get a letter from Humana, not his carrier, saying he had signed up for Medicare Advantage Plan, which he had not. Same day he gets a letter saying his Plan D, with another co., has been cancelled because of his new Humana plan, which he did not sign up for. Four phone calls and two hours later he discovers that his former Blue Cross provider had signed him up for the Humana plan after he had cancelled their policy SIX months ago. Now both co's say it will all get sorted out by Medicare, before the end of the year. Want to take bets? He wants to sue someone.

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 09, 2013 03:21 PM (0FSuD)

100 [Ace:] I say "purporting" because I don't believe any Court will agree that individual States may void federal law at will. A sanctuary-city in a state near you says otherwise.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at December 09, 2013 03:21 PM (6fSty)

101 "Barry will deem that the law gives him the latitude to deny Federal Medicaid money to states that won't cooperate."

I'm pretty sure SCOTUS already ruled Medicaid funds couldn't be denied to states that don't set up exchanges, they just don't get the "extra" money allocated by Obamacare for states that do.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 09, 2013 03:23 PM (kUgpq)

102 82 But of course.... that's not what they teach in school.... Alas, the victors dictate history. The southern states, or any state, then or now, should be free to leave the union for whatever reason. We are too diverse, in every way imaginable, to remain a union controlled by DC. Eventually, this artificial union will crumble; peacefully or otherwise. Personally, I don't want DC dictating how I live my life in extremely rural NE Iowa and I certainly don't appreciate DC groping me to take my money from my pocket to provide free smart phones for fat, aggressive idiots in Georgia.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at December 09, 2013 03:29 PM (hpgw1)

103 GOD BLESS SOUTH CAROLINA. Nullification started there in 1832, and by God, it can start there again in 2013.

Dear Palmetto State: if we promise to never, ever, EVER bring any stinking California stupidity with us and not try to change you in any way, can my wife and I move there? Really, we'll be good...

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 09, 2013 03:36 PM (DMtT+)

104 "what is POTUS going to do when the citizenry also pick and choose which laws they are going to obey?" I have been picking and choosing which laws I am willing to obey or not obey for more than 5 decades. If you need laws invented by politicians to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you are not a citizen of a free republic. This is why I carry concealed wherever and whenever I choose without a 'permit'. I don't need a 'permit' to defend me and mine. Either you decide that you are free or you decide that you need a permit to be free which is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at December 09, 2013 03:38 PM (hpgw1)

105 This is why I carry concealed wherever and whenever I choose without a 'permit'. I don't need a 'permit' to defend me and mine. Either you decide that you are free or you decide that you need a permit to be free which is an oxymoron. Enjoy your time in the slam, bad ass. I'll just pay the seven bucks.

Posted by: toby928© at December 09, 2013 03:45 PM (QupBk)

106 Because seriously, a free man doesn't need a "permit" to live off the land. Hunting license? Eff you. Fishing license? I have natural rights to those critters. And don't even get me started on "auto insurance".

Posted by: toby928© at December 09, 2013 03:48 PM (QupBk)

107 Subject: How To Opt Out Of Obamacare http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/#.Up9MwGKiM_o.email

Posted by: Devan at December 09, 2013 03:48 PM (DFOjv)

108 In the middle of reading this post, the RNC called. Ha ha. Poor bastard didn't get two words out before I unloaded on him --- O-care, too many closed door meetings and backroom deals, rumors of Ryan fucking up the budget and Boehner folding on amnesty, that there isn't going to BE a base unless they start acting like an opposition party and fighting this shit. He said (joking), "gee, this is the first time I've heard this", so obviously they're getting an earful. Will they listen?

Posted by: Trotsky with an ice-pick in his head at December 09, 2013 03:56 PM (TuFuO)

109 Standing? Surely you jest. In fact, to add insult to injury, I'll tax your standing.

Posted by: Justice Roberts at December 09, 2013 04:02 PM (eHIJJ)

110 The South rises again! Time to re-prosecute the War of Northern Aggression!

Posted by: Teh Most Interesting Man at December 09, 2013 05:28 PM (6RwsK)

111 awkward davies @ 21-
Ditto on that, awkward, except had GG-Grand-Dads on both sides in yankee pow camps. One from Lexington County at Point Lookout, and one from Orangeburg County at Elmira. The one at Elmira died there. And yeah, the yankee government in Washington City still hates South Carolina.

Posted by: EROWMER at December 09, 2013 05:41 PM (OONaw)

112 Ace, you suggested that the state "issuing tax deductions to individuals equal to the tax penalties levied by the federal government" would likely not be upheld. But there is a very good reason to believe that would be upheld. State action will be pre-empted if it interferes with federal law (there are more winkles, but I'm keeping it simple). However, Justice Roberts' opinion upholding Obamacare held that the penalty was merely a tax. If the state decides to give a tax break, that does not (in any direct or obvious way, based on Roberts' decision) impede the federal government from collecting taxes.

A contrary argument is that Justice Roberts' tax view is not binding precedent because he was the only one who actually signed onto it (the liberals said it was simply a mandate permitted under the Commerce Clause). But lower courts would at least be very careful not to contradict Roberts view, because even if it isn't strictly owed 100% precedental weight, it's still a bit weightier than their own authority.

One might also argue that basing a state tax deduction upon a federal tax for the purpose of undermining it violates federal supremacy. But the question is still whether it does in fact undermine the federal law. Roberts found that the mandate "tax" is not unduly coercive (nor can it be, according to him, constitutionally). So there is not much to undermine, according to Roberts. South Carolina's rationale for the tax deduction would likely be that it is easing a burden on its citizens, merely accounting for a person's total tax burden - just as the federal tax system does for local taxes (not that that implicates federal supremacy).

And if fewer people do buy insurance, that means more taxes the government can bring in and the less revenue South Carolina collects.

So all in all, I think the tax deduction would be upheld (unless the liberals took over the Supreme Court).

Posted by: Crispian at December 09, 2013 05:57 PM (+qU9V)

113 Yeah, but if the old saw about the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it to its fullest extent ever should apply this is it. Obamacare is BAD law. The full effect will not occur as long as Obama, et al, are going all "whimsical" with their bullshit application. Not until everyone feels its full on frontal attack of it will it be deemed so bad people will respond by electing representatives to get rid of it.

Posted by: halodoc at December 09, 2013 06:18 PM (Fzbp3)

114 Prinz v. US, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), (Opinion by Scalia): Â“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the StateÂ’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the StatesÂ’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

Posted by: ManeiNeko at December 09, 2013 06:33 PM (TiE76)

115 EAT 'EM UP, CAROLINA!

GO, Y'ALL, GO!!!

That's my home state!

Posted by: Beverly at December 09, 2013 07:58 PM (sYpNe)

116 The tax part might hold up too. As Justice Roberts pointed out: the taxing power is absolute. Here's another tax idea states should adopt: There's a federal tax deduction for our state tax liability. It currently functions as redistribution from red states with low taxes to blue states with high taxes. To defeat this, why not pass a state tax law setting your state tax liability equal to your federal tax liability. Then, on your federal form, you deduct your state liability and always owe $0. Everyone in the state would pay the same amount, but it would go to your state govt rather than the feds.

Posted by: Aarradin at December 10, 2013 03:53 AM (4T3FG)

117 Aarradin,
the state tax deduction is from taxable income, not from the amount of tax owed. Its a deduction, not a tax.
Here's an example. If my income is $50k and I pay $5k in state tax, a deduction means I only pay taxes on the remaining $45k whereas a tax credit would mean that my federal tax bill is straight-up reduced by $5k.
Here's how it works in practice. Let's say my federal income tax rate is 25%. Under the state tax deduction I pay 25% of ($50k-$5k=$45k), which = $11250. If there were a state tax credit, I'd pay 25% * $50k - $5k, which = $7500.
So your plan would effectively be a big tax increase.

Posted by: Obamacare is an abortion at December 10, 2013 05:03 AM (qo8gP)

118 The 10th Amendment gives States standing, as health insurance is not interstate commerce but an area in which until today States had jurisdiction over, including licensing, regulating and prohibiting insurance from other States.

Posted by: Federale at December 10, 2013 08:02 AM (osx1V)

119 The courts found their way around the mootness doctrine in the abortion cases about forty some years ago. They can find their way around all these doctrines restraining their power if they care to. The question is "do they care enough to put a halt to Obama's peculiar form of tyranny - enforcing the law when he wants to and not enforcing it when he doesn't depending purely on his political preferences?"

Posted by: Esau's Message at December 12, 2013 11:49 AM (WZq72)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

134kb generated in CPU 0.495, elapsed 0.8135 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.7753 seconds, 247 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.