The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 27, 2013, 02:30:19 am
-
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=59BC3822-EA45-4512-9325-BEBD4DB548F0 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=59BC3822-EA45-4512-9325-BEBD4DB548F0)
Who will survive? 2014's top primaries
By: Emily Schultheis
December 26, 2013 04:26 PM EST
The campaigns of 2014 will be messy long before the candidates get to the general election, with a growing number of incumbents facing primary challenges they weren’t expecting.
Republicans, who are keen on taking back the Senate, are especially concerned after two election cycles in which GOP primaries produced tea-party aligned candidates who lost winnable seats in the general election.
Will 2014 be an anti-incumbent year the way 2010 was? Or will incumbents be able to use their resources and history with their constituents to hold on? In light of those questions, here are POLITICO’s top 10 primaries to watch in 2014:
1. Kentucky Senate (May 20)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of the country’s most visible politicians, and he has one of the lowest home-state approval ratings of his GOP Senate colleagues.
With the trend of conservative activist-types challenging incumbent GOPers, then, it’s no surprise that McConnell is facing a primary challenge. Activist Matt Bevin announced he’d enter the GOP primary against McConnell earlier this year and has already been aided financially and on the television airwaves by conservative outside groups.
Nobody really expects the well-funded and well-connected McConnell, an institution in Kentucky, to lose to Bevin — but he’ll have to expend a decent amount of his resources on the primary instead of saving them for a general-election fight with Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes.
2. Georgia Senate (May 20)
The Georgia GOP primary is a race that national Democrats watch with glee. It’s a free-for-all with eight declared candidates thus far, including U.S. Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston, businessman David Perdue and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel.
It’s also one of the places Democrats say is most likely to produce 2014’s Todd Akin “legitimate rape” moment, given the propensity of certain candidates in the race to say less-than-politically-correct things (Gingrey, for example, endorsed traditional gender roles).
Whoever wins the primary will take on nonprofit CEO Michelle Nunn, daughter of longtime Georgia pol Sam Nunn, in the general election. The crazier this primary gets, the more hopeful national Democrats will be that Nunn can make a typically red seat competitive for them.
3. Hawaii Senate (Aug. 9)
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie picked his own lieutenant governor, Brian Schatz, to succeed the late Sen. Daniel Inouye last winter instead of Inouye’s hand-picked successor, U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa. In the process, he set off what’s bound to be one of the most competitive Democratic primaries in the country.
Schatz, now an incumbent, has all the benefits of being in office, including a fundraising advantage and a team of seasoned D.C. operatives. But Hanabusa has the support of Inouye’s family and is tapping into his political network, which reaches across Hawaii.
The seat is seen as safe for Democrats, so whoever comes out of the August primary will almost certainly be the next senator from Hawaii. But given the nature of this race — between the now-incumbent senator and the protegee of a pol who was a Hawaii institution — it’s definitely one to keep an eye on this spring and summer.
4. Wyoming Senate (Aug. 19)
Sen. Mike Enzi never imagined he’d have a major primary on his hands this year. Then Liz Cheney decided she wanted his seat.
Cheney is far from a perfect candidate: she’s already had to both combat claims of carpetbagging (she’s lived with her family in Virginia and only recently returned to Wyoming) and deal with a very public family dispute with her sister, Mary Cheney, over same-sex marriage.
Polling in the race thus far has shown Enzi far ahead of the former vice president’s daughter, but Cheney’s name and connections could help make this a more competitive race.
5. Pennsylvania Governor (May 20)
Pennsylvania GOP Gov. Tom Corbett is vulnerable, and Democrats know it. No fewer than eight of them are vying for a chance to face off against Corbett in the 2014 general election, a number that could grow between now and the state’s May primary.
There are candidates from all parts of the state’s political and business world, including U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, State Treasurer Rob McCord, businessman Tom Wolf and former state environmental protection director Katie McGinty.
With Wolf’s pledge to drop $10 million on the primary, this race has the potential to be both costly and bruising for whoever becomes the eventual nominee. How nasty the primary gets could affect the outcome of the general election, too, since Corbett is hoping he’ll get to face a tired and broke Democratic nominee.
6. Mississippi Senate (June 3)
What would have been a sleeper race for six-term incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran has now become the toughest reelection battle of his Senate career. Cochran is facing a primary challenge from state Sen. Chris McDaniel, a conservative candidate who’s earned the backing of the Club for Growth, the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Madison Project.
While it’s always tough to take out an incumbent senator, McDaniel has his state legislative experience to help legitimize his candidacy, and the kind of money outside conservative groups are already spending on his behalf indicates there’s far more to come between now and primary day.
Either way, this is a reliably red seat, so whoever wins the primary will presumably be the state’s next senator.
7. Montana Senate (June 3)
National Democrats were hoping they’d have a slam-dunk, field-clearing candidate in Lt. Gov. John Walsh. Their hopes are even higher now that it’s likely Walsh will be appointed to retiring Sen. Max Baucus’s post once the latter is nominated as ambassador to China. If he’s appointed, Democrats expect Walsh can use the power of incumbency to keep the seat for another six years after the November election.
But Walsh’s two Democratic opponents, former Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger and rancher Dirk Adams, have not indicated they would exit the race. Their camps have suggested that Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock appoint someone else to the Baucus seat.
Democratic strategists expect Walsh will ultimately win the nomination whether he’s appointed to the seat or not. But in a state that’s regarded as tough terrain for them, a costly, long primary could hurt Democrats’ chances of holding the seat. Republicans, meanwhile, have coalesced around U.S. Rep. Steve Daines in his GOP primary.
8. California-17 (June 3)
Longtime Democratic Rep. Mike Honda hasn’t had to deal with a major primary challenger in a long time. But this year, he’s up against businessman and former Commerce Department official Ro Khanna, a young newcomer who has the support of several tech giants in the Silicon Valley area and has proven he can raise a significant war chest.
Honda argues that he’s served the district well, and he has strong support from the local and national Democratic establishment. But Khanna says the district needs new blood and suggests Honda doesn’t understand Silicon Valley the way Silicon Valley’s congressman should.
Given California’s top-two primary system, Honda and Khanna will likely both advance to the general election — meaning they have almost 11 months to battle it out between now and Election Day.
9. Texas Senate (March 4)
U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman shocked the political world in early December when he filed (minutes before the deadline) to run against incumbent GOP Sen. John Cornyn.
Stockman, as a sitting member of Congress who’s known on the national stage for his strident comments, will be able to pick up some grassroots support in the state. But unlike in some other states with conservative challengers to GOP incumbents, outside conservative groups aren’t rushing to support Stockman.
The Club for Growth, for instance, said it didn’t expect to get involved in this primary and praised Cornyn’s conservative record. If Stockman, who’s already got a campaign problem in his mounting ethics issues, doesn’t get outside help he’ll be much less likely to land any real hits on Cornyn.
10. Idaho-02 (May 20)
The race between incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and Club for Growth-backed attorney Bryan Smith will be the marquee establishment-versus-challenger battle on the House level.
Simpson, an ally of House Speaker John Boehner, has the backing of most of the Idaho political establishment, including Gov. Butch Otter and Sen. Mike Crapo. His race also drew GOP 2012 presidential contender Mitt Romney out of relative political retirement to endorse Simpson, a fellow Mormon, in the primary.
But Smith has enough support from key tea party-aligned groups, such as the Club for Growth, Citizens United and FreedomWorks, that Simpson can’t afford not to take him seriously. Outside groups will spend heavily on Smith’s behalf, and this could be one of the most expensive House primaries on the map.
-
Steve Stockman has absolutely NO CHANCE against Cornyn. His ethics issues continue to mount and he is bound to say something stupid before primary day.
-
It would be encouraging to see as much or even more energy about defeating democrats which means more seats, instead of about replacing other Republicans which means no more seats.
-
It would be encouraging to see as much or even more energy about defeating democrats which means more seats, instead of about replacing other Republicans which means no more seats.
The 2010 Tea Party was about defeating Democrats. The GOP won the House.
The 2014 Tea Party will be about defeating Republicans. The GOP will win the Senate, without the Tea Party.
-
The GOP will win the Senate, without the Tea Party.
Assuming this is correct, a most major assumption for a variety of reasons, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
-
The GOP will win the Senate, without the Tea Party.
Assuming this is correct, a most major assumption for a variety of reasons, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Of course. Because if the GOP Senators are not the ideologically pure Tea Party candidates, then those Senators are no better than the Democrat Senators.
Isn't that right?
-
Your kind of "Republicans," sink, are no better than Democrats. In fact, many are worse.
We all know you want big government, RINOs who will continue to cave into everything Democrats want, so as long as it keeps your 401k in good shape.
-
You are, for once, correct.
In the long run and when considering the future of our Republic, Because if the GOP Senators are not the ideologically pure Tea Party candidates, then those Senators are no better than the Democrat Senators.
What difference does it make if the politician destroying the Constitution has an "R" or a "D" after his name?
-
You are, for once, correct.
In the long run and when considering the future of our Republic, Because if the GOP Senators are not the ideologically pure Tea Party candidates, then those Senators are no better than the Democrat Senators.
What difference does it make if the politician destroying the Constitution has an "R" or a "D" after his name?
None! No difference at all!
The only thing the inside the beltway crowd (both parties) is interested in is preserving their multi billion dollar a year game at the public's expense!!
-
Your kind of "Republicans," sink, are no better than Democrats. In fact, many are worse.
We all know you want big government, RINOs who will continue to cave into everything Democrats want, so as long as it keeps your 401k in good shape.
You are wrong, of course, in every single thing you've just said.
You're wrong a lot. You shouldn't assume what others believe or think.
-
My goodness, what an insult to Atomic Cow, a fellow who makes a number of intelligent and independent contributions to this Forum.
You shouldn't assume what others believe or think.
Get miffed, say something spiteful I guess.
-
My goodness, what an insult to Atomic Cow, a fellow who makes a number of intelligent and independent contributions to this Forum.
You shouldn't assume what others believe or think.
Get miffed, say something spiteful I guess.
Never assume what someone thinks, Cindy.
Atomic Cow may make valuable contributions on other threads, but not on this one.
-
Most, if not all, politicians are driven by self-interest, not some virtuous, selfless ideological crusade. Those few ideologically driven ones, Rand Paul, Dennis Kucinich, are ineffective fringe ideologues with very lirtt.
What we see as "leaders" are those who simply echo back to us the sentiments that we already hold as benchmarks for that leader that we wish would rise. They don't do it because they truly believe that those things can actually be achieved. They do it because echoing back our own ideals and sentiments earns them our money and votes.
The T.E.A. Party began as a grass-roots movement, but what few ideologically driven candidates actually made it to Congress got eaten up by the major sharks of power and money. I like Ted Cruz, but I don't kid myself. His is a battle for influence and eventually power. If he ever gains significant power, he will have to compromise in order to remain in power.
Just as conservatives always seem to complain that the GOP caves into Democrats, liberals are bitching just as loudly about Democrats caving into Republicans.
Both sides are basically right. Even in the partisan enactment of the ACA, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party accused the Obama administration and the Democratic Party of caving in because they failed to put in place a single-payer system.
Essentially, government is a machine that preys on the sentiments, wants, needs, and fears of the people to sustain themselves in power. To do it, the incite class and race, sentiments of entitlement and fear of the evils of an out-of-control government, even as they grow the government and help it spin out of control. They garner power by telling us that they will go fight for our ideals, when they have very little intention of actually doing that.
That's why after so many years, the War on Poverty has driven the number of people living in poverty up. Why in the aftermath of every one of the billions of dollars spent in education, our kids are grossly under-performing in the world stage. Why after decades of financial and electoral support to pro-life candidates, legal abortions have been minimally diminished. Why after promising the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve a "more fair" society, wealth is concentrated on an ever-diminishing percentage of the population. The logical extension of wealth redistribution as a governing policy, sees all wealth in the hands of a small number of people holding political power.
What all politicians know is that problems solved dry up cash contributions and political support from voters. So it is in their absolute best self-interest to never actually solve any problems, and most (if not all) politicians are driven by self-interest.
-
The GOP will win the Senate, without the Tea Party.
Assuming this is correct, a most major assumption for a variety of reasons, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
It will be liberating.
-
What all politicians know is that problems solved dry up cash contributions and political support from voters. So it is in their absolute best self-interest to never actually solve any problems, and most (if not all) politicians are driven by self-interest.
Excellent post Luis. As usual. I don't agree with all your conclusions but you make a compelling case. What you didn't touch on was the people of America get the government they ask for. Everybody wants to blame the government nobody points the finger at the voters who choose liberalism. Everybody thinks if the GOP just gets that one charismatic ideologue who can relate conservatism in a way voters can understand he'll convince America. It ain't gonna happen.
It this point in time America is very evenly split between conservatives and liberals with a bunch of people who reject both ideologies in the middle. It's not for a lack of hot air on both sides. Anyone who wants to hear the liberal or conservative message has a lot of outlets. I can hop over to the Huff Poo to read up the liberal side or Drudge for the conservative side. Fox or MSNBC. Rush or NPR.
In fact, In 1988 when Rush hit the radio he used to tell his audience that they needed to listen to the show for at least 4-6 weeks to understand it. Before Fox and Rush and Internet I think a case could be made for ignorance of conservatism. Rush never says that anymore. Apathy is the only case to be made now and how do you message to the apathetic? The American voter has listened to the conservative argument and found it lacking. It's not because it wasn't phrased right.
Much like communists complaining that communism hasn't really been tried in the USSR, or Poland, or China, or Cuba...Conservatives say Dubya's watered down conservatism wasn't real, even though they idolize a man in the 80s who cut taxes, signed bloated budgets, challenged foreign powers, grew our military might, and wanted to solve illegal immigration instead of whine about it.
The power of the extreme right is waning and that is frustrating to true believers. They search for a conspiracy to explain the choice of the voters and pray for a ideologically pure dictator who will ignore the will of the voters...for their own good. Government may be a machine but I see it as a reflection of the voters.
-
All those words. Simplify, simplify. POLITICS SUCK!
It's not apathy it's ignorance that afflicts us. Generations in government schools. All the rest are effects. Liberalism, affirmative action, political correctness, bloated budgets, deteriorating mores. Fix education and you fix America. There! Capt. Obvious to the rescue!
Now that our navel we have gazed it's time to kick some establishment butt in the coming new year and elect conservative/libertarian/constitutionalists at all levels of local, state, federal gov! From dogcatcher to senate. We owe future generations nothing less.
-
All those words. Simplify, simplify. POLITICS SUCK!
It's not apathy it's ignorance that afflicts us. Generations in government schools. All the rest are effects. Liberalism, affirmative action, political correctness, bloated budgets, deteriorating mores. Fix education and you fix America. There! Capt. Obvious to the rescue!
Now that our navel we have gazed it's time to kick some establishment butt in the coming new year and elect conservative/libertarian/constitutionalists at all levels of local, state, federal gov! From dogcatcher to senate. We owe future generations nothing less.
I don't know that the fix lies in getting different politicians. New politicians will just adapt the message to get elected, then maybe when elected will simply revert on public displays of virtuous and righteous outrage at "the way things are done in DC" to maintain support from those who helped him get elected while they do things the way things are done in DC when the cameras are off.
I think that it is "course of human events" time again.
-
All those words. Simplify, simplify. POLITICS SUCK!
It's not apathy it's ignorance that afflicts us. Generations in government schools. All the rest are effects. Liberalism, affirmative action, political correctness, bloated budgets, deteriorating mores. Fix education and you fix America. There! Capt. Obvious to the rescue!
Refreshing. Thank you.
-
All those words. Simplify, simplify. POLITICS SUCK!
BTW... this notion of "simplify, simplify" is either part of, or an indication of what ails us.
This notion that complex messages need to be dumbed down in order to be better absorbed by the populace feeds into a politician's tactic.
People need to fully understand the complex issues, otherwise they will simply vote for the guy who promises that there is hope in change.
The establishment will not give up its power as a result of simple elections.
-
All those words. Simplify, simplify. POLITICS SUCK!
It's not apathy it's ignorance that afflicts us. Generations in government schools. All the rest are effects. Liberalism, affirmative action, political correctness, bloated budgets, deteriorating mores. Fix education and you fix America. There! Capt. Obvious to the rescue!
Now that our navel we have gazed it's time to kick some establishment butt in the coming new year and elect conservative/libertarian/constitutionalists at all levels of local, state, federal gov! From dogcatcher to senate. We owe future generations nothing less.
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. "
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)
-
I don't know that the fix lies in getting different politicians. New politicians will just adapt the message to get elected, then maybe when elected will simply revert on public displays of virtuous and righteous outrage at "the way things are done in DC" to maintain support from those who helped him get elected while they do things the way things are done in DC when the cameras are off.
I think that it is "course of human events" time again.
That may well be but even then the ONLY thing that is going to change anything is a return to governance under the Constitution!
-
That may well be but even then the ONLY thing that is going to change anything is a return to governance under the Constitution!
Or a whole new Constitution.
-
Or a whole new Constitution.
There is nothing wrong with the original.
-
There is nothing wrong with the original.
:amen: :amen: :amen:
The only thing wrong with it is that we haven't used it in a very long time! The current administration amply demonstrates the need for fixing that!
-
There is nothing wrong with the original.
Tell that to Mark Levin.
-
Tell that to Mark Levin.
No need! He knows it very well but apparently YOU misinterpret what he has said!
Click on the link below and read the first line of chapter one!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2#reader_B00CO4IP5M
-
Levin knows very well there will be no "Liberty Amendments". But another big book touting a pipe dream sells well with his die-hard listeners, so that's why he wrote it.
-
No need! He knows it very well but apparently YOU misinterpret what he has said!
Click on the link below and read the first line of chapter one!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2#reader_B00CO4IP5M
Yikes! Talk about turning the US into something the Founders wouldn't recognize.
-
Yikes! Talk about turning the US into something the Founders wouldn't recognize.
Simply putting to rest the idea that he thinks there is something wrong with the original not endorsing his approach!
-
Simply putting to rest the idea that he thinks there is something wrong with the original not endorsing his approach!
Huh?
-
Huh?
Read what I was originally responding to and then proceed forward from there!
-
Read what I was originally responding to and then proceed forward from there!
I did, and truth_seeker's implication is correct, at least if one goes by the book you linked to. The Founders never intended most of the amendments Levin proposes and, in fact, contemplated at least some of them and rejected them. For example, Levin proposes an amendment to set term limits for Supreme Court judges. The Founders must have considered that and rejected it because they specifically provided, in Article III, section 1, that those judges were to "hold their offices during good behaviour," a provision which brooks no limit on holding that office other than bad behaviour (i.e., a lack of good behaviour) and death, which should go without saying.
That alone demonstrates that Levin is not satisfied with the original as written.
-
There is nothing wrong with the original.
Which version?
The original as written?
The original as amended?
The original before incorporation doctrine?
The original as interpreted by the Courts?
The original as modified by statutes?
The original as bypassed by decades of Executive Orders?
Do we roll back emancipation? Term limits? Civil rights legislation? Suffrage (actually not a bad idea)?
Conservatives play that futile game of believing that things can go back to a "better time" always defined as some time other than the present, but not as realistic as the past.
Here's the question you should ask yourself.
If the existing Constitution is, in and of itself, sufficient to stop everything that's wrong today, how in the world did it allow us to get here?
-
I did, and truth_seeker's implication is correct, at least if one goes by the book you linked to. The Founders never intended most of the amendments Levin proposes and, in fact, contemplated at least some of them and rejected them. For example, Levin proposes an amendment to set term limits for Supreme Court judges. The Founders must have considered that and rejected it because they specifically provided, in Article III, section 1, that those judges were to "hold their offices during good behaviour," a provision which brooks no limit on holding that office other than bad behaviour (i.e., a lack of good behaviour) and death, which should go without saying.
That alone demonstrates that Levin is not satisfied with the original as written.
Obviously you either did not read the first sentence of chapter one or believe Mr. Levin a liar because HE says the exact opposite to whit: I undertook this project not because because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite--that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.
-
Obviously you either did not read the first sentence of chapter one or believe Mr. Levin a liar because HE says the exact opposite to whit:
:bigsilly:
I undertook this project not because because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite--that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.
In other words, you have to raze the village in order to save the village.
You should read what you post more carefully. Levin doesn't think the original written Constitution - the words on that piece of paper we have down in DC - is sufficient. Rather, he thinks that those written words have to be changed in order to restore something he calls "constitutional republicanism" but which cannot be coextensive with so-called Constitutional Originalism - fidelity to the Constitution as it was originally written and with the intent of the Founders in mind - because you don't restore the original Constitution by changing the language of the original Constitution, particularly by inserting provisions the Founders rejected. Which leads to the big question: just exactly what does Levin mean by "constitutional republicanism"? What are the details of this concept - how does it unpack - and why does the Constitution require amendment in order to restore this "constitutional republicanism?"
-
I simply have to say that I look forward to the thoughtful and detailed posts of Oceander and Luis Gonzalez.
I gain a new perspective on whatever topic under discussion by reading (and, in most cases, rereading) their work.
Thanks guys. You and massadvj are the philosophers and seers of GOPBR and we are all the better for it.
-
I simply have to say that I look forward to the thoughtful and detailed posts of Oceander and Luis Gonzalez.
I gain a new perspective on whatever topic under discussion by reading (and, in most cases, rereading) their work.
Thanks guys. You and massadvj are the philosophers and seers of GOPBR and we are all the better for it.
:beer:
-
Obamacare is hated by a clear majority. Yet, if not for Chief Justice John Roberts, Obamacare would have been rejected on supreme Court review.
One Justice, one Black Robe, our Chief Justice changed, rewrote the law rather than rule on Obamacare as written. And in incorrectly rewriting Obamacare, foisted totalitarian government control over life and death.
Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare.
For heaven sake the Constitution was once amended for prohibition. Surely we can find it within ourselves to amend it for the purpose of ridding ourselves of judicial Fiat.
-
Obamacare is hated by a clear majority. Yet, if not for Chief Justice John Roberts, Obamacare would have been rejected on supreme Court review.
One Justice, one Black Robe, our Chief Justice changed, rewrote the law rather than rule on Obamacare as written. And in incorrectly rewriting Obamacare, foisted totalitarian government control over life and death.
Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare.
For heaven sake the Constitution was once amended for prohibition. Surely we can find it within ourselves to amend it for the purpose of ridding ourselves of judicial Fiat.
Setting aside the particulars of Roberts' ruling on Obamacare, whose fiat would you put in place of "judicial Fiat"?
-
The representatives closest to the people, the elected representatives in the State houses. And at that would require a supermajority for approval.
Of the two methods prescribed for amending the Constitution this one has never been used before and would require a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
Levine's amendment idea proposes to allow the states to overrule judicial Fiat. Frankly, I like it. If you believe in federalism you can get behind this approach to the people determining their own fate – and not allowing one man, one Chief Justice, to rule over us from behind the bench.
-
The representatives closest to the people, the elected representatives in the State houses. And at that would require a supermajority for approval.
Of the two methods prescribed for amending the Constitution this one has never been used before and would require a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
Levine's amendment idea proposes to allow the states to overrule judicial Fiat. Frankly, I like it. If you believe in federalism you can get behind this approach to the people determining their own fate – and not allowing one man, one Chief Justice, ruling over us.
I do believe in federalism and because of that I do not believe the states should be given the power to willy-nilly overrule the Supreme Court; for one thing, it would make a mockery of the dual-sovereign structure created by the Constitution, putting the cart before the horse. For another, how is this overruling to be accomplished? How would this differ from the way the states already have to overrule the Supreme Court through amending the Constitution? Will each state be allowed to unilaterally overrule the Supreme Court in whatever way it prefers, without regard to how any other state chooses to overrule the Supreme Court? What happens if some states overrule the Supreme Court but others do not? If there's a conflict between how two states have overruled a Supreme Court decision, who gets to decide which state's version wins? What would stop one state from overruling that latter decision?
Further, what makes state legislators any closer to "the people" than their Representative in the House? Also, considering the level of competence state legislatures display when they craft legislation - mostly little to none - why would you assume that same level of incompetence wouldn't be carried over to any such overruling? As anecdotal evidence of this incompetence, the Florida legislature accidentally banned all computers when they passed a bill that was supposed to just ban all internet cafes. The law is discussed in many places, including here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/10/oops-florida-has-outlawed-computers-and-smartphones-says-new-lawsuit.html
Were I a Floridian, I would rather not give that bunch of yo-yos veto power over the US Supreme Court.
There are so many landmines and unanswered questions there that would never get ironed out until, and unless, it was added to the Constitution and then construed by a court of competent jurisdiction; however, whenever the Supreme Court spoke on the matter, the affected state(s) could simply undo that construction, leaving things even messier than before.
-
Luis wrote:
[[ Essentially, government is a machine that preys on the sentiments, wants, needs, and fears of the people to sustain themselves in power. To do it, the incite class and race, sentiments of entitlement and fear of the evils of an out-of-control government, even as they grow the government and help it spin out of control. They garner power by telling us that they will go fight for our ideals, when they have very little intention of actually doing that. ]]
I'm gonna be castigated for saying this, but I think the best chance this country could have for a fresh start -- and for a "new birth of freedom" -- would be for some foreign adversary to attack us and "drop the big one" on that city on the Potomac, obliterating it into ashes.
We'd lose the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and some famous monuments. But everything else there.....
As I said, a fresh start...
(with apologies to DC Patriot and any other GOP-B'ers in or near that place -- get out while there's still time!)
-
[[ Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare. ]]
They could do it right now, by calling a convention of the states, and by proposing and then ratifying a simple ammendment that repeals the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, dissolves all regulations related to same, and dismisses all federal employees hired for enforcement.
If a Constitutional Amendment could be passed to repeal Prohibition, one can be passed to repeal ObamaCare.
Actually, taking this route may become the ONLY possible way to fully repeal ObamaCare and return to the status quo that existed before it.
-
I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.
Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.
-
I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.
Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.
Not a one of them... and I'll take what a constitutional attorney (Levin) has to say about this issue.
-
I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.
Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.
Republicans in congress don't WANT to unburden us from Obamacare, at least not yet they don't! They want to let it hang out there and beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first and to HELL with what that costs the nation in the meantime!
-
I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.
Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.
You do realize, don't you, that a convention isn't limited to a few narrow, predetermined issues? Article V of the Constitution provides that "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, ...." Suppose that conservative/republican legislatures in 34 states applied for such a convention, and that Congress then called such a convention. Presumably every state would then be entitled to send delegates to this convention, although it's not clear whether participation in such a convention is limited to state delegations only (I would guess that this would be a matter of the rules the convention managers would draw up for running the convention). At that point, all hell breaks loose and every proposal under the Sun will be run up the flag, including many that would give pause to a lot of the conservatives/republicans who originally applied for the convention. The end result could very well look nothing like what was envisioned by the legislatures that applied for the convention in the first place. Do we, do you, really want to take a risk like that? I don't.
-
Republicans in congress don't WANT to unburden us from Obamacare, at least not yet they don't! They want to let it hang out there and beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first and to HELL with what that costs the nation in the meantime!
Unless they beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first, as you so eloquently put it, it will never get repealed.
-
Unless they beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first, as you so eloquently put it, it will never get repealed.
Exactly, so we've got to get middle America aware by letting them experience firsthand how expensive and totalitarian your health-care will be under Obamacare.
And on the same token I would be against stopping unemployment benefits. It hurts the GOP brand and provides fodder for their candidates.
Truth is there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion. NONE of it is ever going to be paid back. So I would have let it ride until I controlled all 3 branches.
Then we can all take a hot shower.
-
Exactly, so we've got to get middle America aware by letting them experience firsthand how expensive and totalitarian your health-care will be under Obamacare.
And on the same token I would be against stopping unemployment benefits. It hurts the GOP brand and provides fodder for their candidates.
Truth is there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion. NONE of it is ever going to be paid back. So I would have let it ride until I controlled all 3 branches.
Then we can all take a hot shower.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion, but as a strategic move to put the republicans in a position where they have a much better chance to try and stop things from getting to that point, I wouldn't disagree with your main points.
-
Exactly, so we've got to get middle America aware by letting them experience firsthand how expensive and totalitarian your health-care will be under Obamacare.
And on the same token I would be against stopping unemployment benefits. It hurts the GOP brand and provides fodder for their candidates.
Truth is there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion. NONE of it is ever going to be paid back. So I would have let it ride until I controlled all 3 branches.
I think your strategy is sound, and your observation that reducing unemployment benefits feeds an image of an unsympathetic GOP is true. Reagan would approve.
Reagan's 1983 State of the Union.
http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1983.asp Shortly, I will submit to the Congress the Employment Act of 1983, designed to get at the special problems of the long-term unemployed, as well as young people trying to enter the job market. I'll propose extending unemployment benefits, including special incentives to employers who hire the long-term unemployed, providing programs for displaced workers, and helping federally funded and state-administered unemployment insurance programs provide workers with training and relocation assistance. Finally, our proposal will include new incentives for summer youth employment to help young people get a start in the job market.
-
I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion, but as a strategic move to put the republicans in a position where they have a much better chance to try and stop things from getting to that point, I wouldn't disagree with your main points.
Sorry but no! I am not in favor of creating ANY new entitlements and surely not a You get a paycheck forever whether you work or not entitlement as the democrats were trying to do!
-
Sorry but no! I am not in favor of creating ANY new entitlements and surely not a You get a paycheck forever whether you work or not entitlement as the democrats were trying to do!
My strategy was that the GOP should do absolutely nothing that would provide the Democrats a chance to point fingers at Republicans. Not one Republican voted for the ACA. Not one.
And we're certainly not creating any new entitlement in unemployment bennies.
We just want the voters to enter the mid-term elections with nothing on their minds except Health-Care....and the total failure of Obamacare.
Once we get 3 branches.....we start to ween the public back to work.
-
Once we get 3 branches.....we start to ween the public back to work.
Yeah! Just like they did the last time the Republicans had all three branches!
I understand your strategy but unless the republicans who control all three branches are actual CONSERVATIVES nothing will change! NOTHING!
-
You do realize, don't you, that a convention isn't limited to a few narrow, predetermined issues? Article V of the Constitution provides that "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, ...." Suppose that conservative/republican legislatures in 34 states applied for such a convention, and that Congress then called such a convention. Presumably every state would then be entitled to send delegates to this convention, although it's not clear whether participation in such a convention is limited to state delegations only (I would guess that this would be a matter of the rules the convention managers would draw up for running the convention). At that point, all hell breaks loose and every proposal under the Sun will be run up the flag, including many that would give pause to a lot of the conservatives/republicans who originally applied for the convention. The end result could very well look nothing like what was envisioned by the legislatures that applied for the convention in the first place. Do we, do you, really want to take a risk like that? I don't.
The last time that a Constitutional Convention was called, it was called to "fix" a governing document that wasn't working as intended.
The end result was an entirely new governing document.
To add to your post, this notion that the document generated by this convention would be more in concert with conservative principles is political pollyannaism.
If anything, it would make the new standard of Constitutional government more liberal, since it would create a document to address the present state of our Union.
Our system of checks and balances no longer functions. The three branches of government act in concert in order to impose a "government for the people" style of governance rather than a government of the people as intended. There are no better examples of that than the logical contortions used by the SCOTUS to arrive at the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate, or the passivity of Congress in the face of Obama's constant encroachments of congressional powers.
The concept of federalism is all but non-existent. States are so beholden to Federal money, and so wary of punitive action by the Federal government, that they are largely ineffective in opposing mandates from DC. There are the occasional pockets of defiance, but very few instance of effective broad-based disobedience.
There is a fourth unelected and largely unaccountable branch of government. Here's Daniel Greenfield on the subject (from Rise of the Mediacracy (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/12/rise-of-mediacracy.html))
A nation where governments are elected by the people is most vulnerable at the interface between the politicians and the people. The interface is where the people learn what the politicians stand for and where the politicians learn what the people want. The bigger a country gets, the harder it is to pick up on that consensus by stopping by a coffee shop or an auto repair store. That's where the Mediacracy steps in to control the consensus.
The media is no longer informative, it is conformative. It is not interested in broadcasting events unless it can also script them. It does not want to know what you think, it wants to tell you what to think. The consensus is the voice of the people and the Mediacrats are cutting its throat, dumping its body in a back alley and turning democracy into their own puppet show.
Media bias was over decades ago. The media isn't biased anymore, it's a player, its goal is turn its Fourth Estate into a fourth branch of government, the one that squats below the three branches and blocks their access to the people and blocks the people's access to them. Under the Mediacracy there will still be elections, they will even be mostly free, they just won't matter so long as its upper ranks determine the dialogue on both sides of the media wall.
Government by Executive fiat is the norm, and not the exception. Beyond that, Barack Obama's mere utterances modify standing law, making the White House Press Room a third and omnipotent branch of our alleged bicameral Congress.
We need a new Declaration of Independence, a listing of our grievances, before we think about a new (or revised) Constitution.
It may very well be "course of human events" time again.
-
The last time that a Constitutional Convention was called, it was called to "fix" a governing document that wasn't working as intended.
The end result was an entirely new governing document.
Absolutely a historical FACT!
To add to your post, this notion that the document generated by this convention would be more in concert with conservative principles is political pollyannaism.
If anything, it would make the new standard of Constitutional government more liberal, since it would create a document to address the present state of our Union.
Perhaps but not certain.
Our system of checks and balances no longer functions. The three branches of government act in concert in order to impose a "government for the people" style of governance rather than a government of the people as intended. There are no better examples of that than the logical contortions used by the SCOTUS to arrive at the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate, or the passivity of Congress in the face of Obama's constant encroachments of congressional powers.
Only because WE the people have gone to sleep and allowed it to be so!
The concept of federalism is all but non-existent.
You are misinformed if you think that.
States are so beholden to Federal money, and so wary of punitive action by the Federal government, that they are largely ineffective in opposing mandates from DC. There are the occasional pockets of defiance, but very few instance of effective broad-based disobedience.
Entirely the result of the 17th amendment which has done EXACTLY what it's proponents wanted it to do!
There is a fourth unelected and largely unaccountable branch of government. Here's Daniel Greenfield on the subject (from Rise of the Mediacracy)
Absolutely true! The press, until recently, has become nothing other than the propaganda arm of government and the recent additions are small indeed in the grand scheme of things.