The article says the “Republicans” who voted against this bill claim to want to fight ObamaCare a different way:
Both state and national Republicans have argued for a repeal of the overhaul. But Republicans on the House State Affairs Committee said they prefer other ways to oppose it, including a lawsuit joined by state Attorney General Marty Jackley.
I’m sorry, but that is not enough–not even close.
With the pathetic state of the American court system, we have no guarantee that judges will put the U.S. Constitution ahead of their personal political bent. Even if they eventually do, it may be years before the lawsuit filed by 27 states works its way through the court system–more than enough time for the corrosive elements of this unconstitutional legislation to begin rotting away at our freedom and economy.
Further, South Dakota needs to add weight to the argument against ObamaCare with this move, even as other states are also doing so. The egregious nature of ObamaCare needs to be demonstrated resoundingly to the federal government and our fellow Americans with nothing less than our complete and total opposition to it using every means at our disposal.
No, South Dakota needs to take proactive steps to protect itself against this assault on our way of life. And Republicans need to act like Republicans, not a bunch of liberals or pansy shrinking violets afraid to take a strong stand against a raw deal.
Maybe the people of South Dakota need to let these “Republicans” know we expect more than timidity and “liberal lite” from the GOP. It’s probably not too soon to start recruiting a good conservative candidate or two to replace them in the next election, either.
According to the meeting minutes, seven individuals representing eight interests stood before the State Affairs Committee in support of this bill this morning:
- Representative Manny Steele
- Representative Patricia Stricherz
- Representative Lora Hubbel
- Representative Stace Nelson
- Rita Houglum, Eagle Forum
- Zach Lautenschlager, Campaign for Liberty
- Zach Lautenschlager, SD Tea Party Alliance
- Steve Sibson, self, Mitchell
They deserve our thanks. Meanwhile, only one person, a Republican, spoke to oppose it: Representative Jim Bolin.
His stated reason for opposition was not a love for ObamaCare or a lack of desire to repeal it, but an opposition to the doctrine of nullification. Unfortunately Rep. Bolin seems to, like liberals who will say anything to defend ObamaCare, focus on nullification efforts by the Southern states to preserve slavery (tying opposition to ObamaCare to opposition to anti-slavery laws is intended to taint opposition to ObamaCare). Brolin also failed to consider (at least in his statement to the committee) that nullification was employed even farther back in our history by “Father of the Constitution” James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions against the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts; these are conveniently “overlooked” by liberals because they might have the opposite effect of mentioning the slavery issue, and actually garner sympathy for nullification.
What’s more, nullification is not a prelude to or even a cousin of secession. This is simply more hysterical fear-mongering and smoke-and-mirrors from the Left that desperately wants to advance socialism in America and protect the gains they have made in that regard. The alleged nullification/secession does not exist and is an attempt to divert people’s attention away from the fact that ObamaCare is flatly unconstitutional and an assault on the rights of the states and the people of America.
Brolin also makes the incorrect assertion that states are somehow bound to obey unconstitutional laws; this position assumes the states are subordinate creations of the federal government, rather than the reality that the federal government is a creation of the states. It ignores the fact that the federal government violated the limits placed on the federal government in Article 1 Section 8, and in the Tenth Amendment. The states and the people are not bound to obey illegal laws, and that statement needs to be made loud and clear by the state of South Dakota.
Meanwhile, bet on this bill to be back before the end of the session.