The problem he’s trying to solve — not the health care issue, specifically, but the matter of our federal government generally overreaching — is real, but this approach is not the right solution.
Some of the regulations Congress has passed in the name of interstate commerce is absurd.
Not surprised that Bruce has his knives sharpened for Emmer. Liberals have never liked the 10th Amendment at any level. Liberals’ objective seems to be handcuffs and misery spread equally across all 50 states. That no state be given haven from the repression of un-enumerated powers of the Constitution.
[...] “What does it take for Republicans to be embarrassed?” asks Bruce Benidt. [...]
But Emmer’s solution is to undo the Constitution and take us back to the Articles of Confederation! It isn’t just the Civil War he wants to fight again, but he wants to go back to Shay’s Rebellion!
I think he just lost the election–and due to a signed article he wrote! He won’t be able to squirm out of this one!
“But Emmer’s solution is to undo the Constitution and take us back to the Articles of Confederation!”
Nonsense. The last I looked the 10th Amendment hasn’t been repealed. A strong central government has its supporters amongst the old soviets but not many others.
Let’s not forget that the states formed the federal government, not vice versa.
Sorry, Dennis, but no matter how you try to spin it, undoing the last, oh, 200 years of our history as a nation (not a collection of states) isn’t going to happen–and once people understand what Emmer wants to do, I doubt that it will even win an election as a slogan!
I suppose that the bright spot for republicans is that they are going to get all of this silliness out of their systems by 2012, and nominate a viable candidate for President.
Eric Black from MinnPost asks the obvious questions:
“If I’m wrong about the constitutionality, it’s also pretty hard to see how the United States could continue to function as one nation, if each state was free to pick and choose which national laws they wanted to abide by. I know that Emmer favors a Minnesota opt-out from the provisions of the recent health care law. And it gives me a headache trying to picture the complications if some states were in and some were out. But that possibility pales compared with others that can easily be imagined. If this proposed new level of state nullification was adopted and Congress raised a federal tax, would it be up to each state to decide whether they felt like paying it or not? If Congress enacted a military draft, could those crazy peaceniks in Wisconsin decide it didn’t apply to their boys? Could southern states opt out of civil rights laws?”
Whether you agree or disagree with Emmer’s proposal, you can’t deny that it is “radical,” using this definition of the word: “Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.”
How can this not be a big news story?
Conservatives have peculiar copies of the Constitution; it only has the 2nd and 10th amendments, and even the 2nd has an ahistorical definition of “militia” (see the Articles of Confederation Article VI for what the founders meant by “militia”).
And they are certainly unaware of the Constitution Article VI, Section 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
And many of them seem unaware of the Amendment XIV.
Further, they seem to ignore the role of the Supreme Court. I mean, the Constitution contains a method to resolve the differing interpretations of itself–the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the central role of the Federal Government, particularly over the various states rights arguments.
Emmer’s proposals would require a constitutional amendment to bring about. Funny how we don’t see any Republicans at the national level rushing to introduce a piece of legislation for a constitutional amendment to this effect. Maybe they think he is a whack job, too.
Incidentally, if any of you, like I, have wondered what King was talking about in “I have a dream” speech when he speaks of Wallace’s “lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification.” We now know what nullification is, and interposition is the doctrine that the states have the right to intervene to protect their citizens from what they deem unconstitutional laws. It’s probably not an accident that these lines or reasoning are pushed by racists.
“I think for any candidate to take such a hard line in supporting the movement to nullify federal laws, to say Minnesota is an island to itself, and we can just cavalierly disregard whatever federal laws we think aren’t politically acceptable is horrible for Minnesota,” Horner said in an interview with The Uptake on Tuesday.
Horner said opting out of federal laws would make things harder for multi-state corporations who depend on uniformity in laws, and that it could impact environmental regulation.
“Air and water pollution don’t stop at the border. We need federal regulation around clean air and clean water,” he said. “It’s just the kind of proposal that is meant to satisfy a handful of people who want to destroy government.”
[...] and employees in Minnesota are upset about a range of Emmerisms — waitress tip gaffes, crazy nullification talk, hypocrisy on lawsuit reform, his plans to target the most vulnerable citizens with massive [...]