11 thoughts on “#iamthemob: States’ Rights, Healthcare, and Term Limits”

  1. Another approach that is taking hold is offered by the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits http://www.bondedtermlimits.org/ a grassroots, 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization in Pinehurst, NC.

    See our history-making signing of Will Breazeale, candidate for NC 7th Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZusco2nqew

    We now have five candidates for the Congress in the bonded term limits pipeline.

    And, see JC Watts’ endorsement http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/a-fresh-approach-to-term-limits-65931402.html

    Letting candidates for the Congress put their money where there mouths are, and end-running the term-limit legislative Gordian Knot. It’s all about credibility.

  2. siseduermapierda says:
    November 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    kj says:
    November 12, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    *This information and the number of years residence could be included on the primary ballots with the candidates names. *

    We shouldn’t pay to spoon-feed voters who are too lazy to learn about the candidates before they go to the voting booth. Presidential campaigns start at least 18 months before the primaries, plenty of time to learn about the candidates and decide. Show of hands – who in 2007 didn’t know Barack Obama was born and raised in Hawaii and John Sidney was born in Panama?

    You and many others that frequent this site know that Mr. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to a British Colonial national and a US mother. There is probably a large segment of the US population that still couldn’t tell you his version of his background today.

    Unfortunately, the press did not do its due diligence on “the new guy on the scene” Mr. Obama’s background and even admitted it after the election, citing how little they knew about Mr. Obama and that they had no idea what approach he would take to foreign policy and domestic issues. Mr. Obama was elected on blind faith by a voting public that desperately wanted change. Unfortunately, they never understood that Mr. Obama’s version of change was not what most Independent voters had in mind. It is interesting that Mr. Obama does not understand (or perhaps wish to see or is being protected from the knowledge) that most Independent voters do not support Mr. Obama’s idea of change.

    If the voters are to vet at the ballot box as some posting here and some members of Congress have claimed, give them verified eligibility information on the candidates in the ballot box. This would be especially helpful when national candidates are relatively unknown to the nation. No games of cat and mouse. No confusing press versions or overt omission of essential information. No Court denial of right to know when possibly essential information is withheld by a candidate.

    How much would it cost to print this information on the ballots? What if the ballots are electronic? If it saves a few trillion dollars, maybe the little money spent on printing would be worth it!

    You can dismiss my comments if you like. At least you have had the opportunity to be exposed to some different ideas.

  3. Phil

    Out of curiosity, given your support for states rights, I am curious about your feelings on the Republican healthcare bill that got voted down last week. Specifically, its provisions for tort reform place an enormous mandate on state governments by telling them where they must cap non-economic damages and how long their statutes of limitations on medical malpractice claims must be. I found this to be a rather jarring intrusion into state sovereignty. It seems to me that if New Jersey or Texas or Georgia want to have a longer statute of limitations or a higher cap on non-economic damages, they should be allowed to do so. Even if tort reform is an important goal, isn’t the entire point of states’ rights supposed to be to let the states decide how they want to set their own laws on matters like this?

    Malpractice is an area of law that has historically always been left to the states, and it’s rather difficult for me to understand how some Republicans will complain about federal intrusion into state sovereignty in the Democratic healthcare bill while ignoring the fact that their own alternative bill would impose a similar intrusion.

    1. keokuk,

      Phil

      Out of curiosity, given your support for states rights, I am curious about your feelings on the Republican healthcare bill that got voted down last week. Specifically, its provisions for tort reform place an enormous mandate on state governments by telling them where they must cap non-economic damages and how long their statutes of limitations on medical malpractice claims must be. I found this to be a rather jarring intrusion into state sovereignty. It seems to me that if New Jersey or Texas or Georgia want to have a longer statute of limitations or a higher cap on non-economic damages, they should be allowed to do so. Even if tort reform is an important goal, isn’t the entire point of states’ rights supposed to be to let the states decide how they want to set their own laws on matters like this?

      Malpractice is an area of law that has historically always been left to the states, and it’s rather difficult for me to understand how some Republicans will complain about federal intrusion into state sovereignty in the Democratic healthcare bill while ignoring the fact that their own alternative bill would impose a similar intrusion.

      It’s politics, pure and simple. At this time, it’s rather unfortunate but true that the GOP has to take the radical left approach and turn it into essentially a left-of-center approach to be considered in this Congress.

      Ideally, I think you’re absolutely right that the States ought to be making decisions regarding the “how” of dealing with domestic issues.

      -Phil

  4. kj says:
    November 12, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    *This information and the number of years residence could be included on the primary ballots with the candidates names. *

    We shouldn’t pay to spoon-feed voters who are too lazy to learn about the candidates before they go to the voting booth. Presidential campaigns start at least 18 months before the primaries, plenty of time to learn about the candidates and decide. Show of hands – who in 2007 didn’t know Barack Obama was born and raised in Hawaii and John Sidney was born in Panama?

  5. Well let’s see, Hutchison said she was going to resign her seat in fall of 2009 as she runs for Gov of Texas. 4 more weeks and it will be winter. She’s into her 3rd term, as a show of good faith, she should resign immediately. Tom Coburn is also in his 3rd term, he should set a good example and resign.

  6. Resisting federal gun laws to allow the states to muster militias would be something that the founders would definitely have supported.

  7. Phil,

    The Constitution does not provide for state enforcement of the “natural-born citizen” clause, so any enforcement will have to come from Congress.

    How about the states requiring candidates to show proof of where and when they were born (with the nationalities of their parents)? This information and the number of years residence could be included on the primary ballots with the candidates names. At least the voters would know what they were voting for. Eligibility information could be listed above the candidates on the ballot and a similar approach to candidate listing could be applied to all other candidates on the ballot. The ballot would be only a little longer, maybe 15%?

    What about the removal of ineligible candidates from the ballot for the last election? No one has challenged the states for the removal of Roger Calero’s name. If ineligible candidate removal from the ballot has been a common practice in the past, wouldn’t it be supported by precedent?

    1. kj,

      Phil,

      The Constitution does not provide for state enforcement of the “natural-born citizen” clause, so any enforcement will have to come from Congress.

      How about the states requiring candidates to show proof of where and when they were born (with the nationalities of their parents)? This information and the number of years residence could be included on the primary ballots with the candidates names. At least the voters would know what they were voting for. Eligibility information could be listed above the candidates on the ballot and a similar approach to candidate listing could be applied to all other candidates on the ballot. The ballot would be only a little longer, maybe 15%?

      What about the removal of ineligible candidates from the ballot for the last election? No one has challenged the states for the removal of Roger Calero’s name. If ineligible candidate removal from the ballot has been a common practice in the past, wouldn’t it be supported by precedent?

      What you had quoted was a part of the original FreeRepublic posting.

      Knowing what I know now, I would suggest that the enforcement of presidential eligibility — per a reading of the actual SCOTUS opinion — would more than likely have standing with the States.

      Again, it’s the argument of the extent of “sole” power of enforcement, and I don’t see anywhere that states that only Congress has this sole power.

      -Phil

Comments are closed.