So far, 13 States have joined the Confederacy

[NAO]

After the signing ceremony, Matthews was interviewing some official from Idaho, who is one of the states filing suit against HCR.

The guy says, "well there a lot of states, 13 I believe, who are going to file suits"

Matthews asks, "are you going to act individually, or are you going to form some kind of...are you going to work together?"

I believe the word Matthews was looking for was "Confederation".

And they are STILL screaming about "States Rights", even though that is widely known as a code word for racism.

[BlooInBloo]

1. And who the FUCK is the Washington Atty General and why haven't we voted him out yet?

Sheesh. Got some work on the homefront to do.

[Matariki]

5. Because The Mandate is so awesome. Yay for "Compelled Capitalism"

I'm glad he's doing it. Let's get rid of the mandate and keep everything else. Eventually we'll have real Health CARE, like every other industrialized nation.

[kestrel91316]

10. You ARE aware that any lawsuit right now is by definition frivolous and

will be thrown out (after costing cash-strapped states millions in legal costs)?? No one has been harmed. No one yet has standing to sue over this. Just ask The Magistrate.

FAIL

[Matariki]

12. A challenge to a law being Unconstitutional is frivolous?

Someone has to be harmed for it to be considered Unconstitutional?

Can you explain?

[tekisui]

18. Any lawsuit right now is premature.

No one has standing, as no one has been effected.

The Court will not hear a case if the petitioner doesn't have standing.

[Matariki]

20. Correct me if I'm wrong - I think they've only pledged to sue

they haven't brought it to court yet.

And that doesn't address the right of State Attorneys to challenge the law's constitutionality, does it?

[tekisui]

26. You are correct.

However, as the provisions they intend to challenge don't take effect until 2014, at the earliest, it is all posturing until then.

And, even then. I doubt they will get very far.

[leftofcool]

28. Another reason for the posturing is that

if they get 2/3 of the states to sign on (34 states) they can call a constitutional convention

[tekisui]

36. That's not going to happen, either.

[leftofcool]

27. The lawsuit as written challenges the mandate

It is very well written/briefed

[rhett o rick]

15. He is in a major fight with the governor over this. nm

[BlooInBloo]

16. Yep. Looks like he just killed his own gubernatorial prospects with this, too.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/199041.asp

"Democrats believe the political juggernaut that is Rob McKenna may have just been tripped up.

On Monday McKenna, the state's Republican attorney general, said he'd join GOP colleagues and sue to stop the Democrats' comprehensive health care reform law from taking effect. President Barack Barack Obama on Tuesday morning signed the measure passed by his party in dramatic fashion Sunday night.
Picture
McKenna

"I believe this new federal health care measure unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens. This unprecedented federal mandate, requiring all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance, violates the Commerce Clause and the 10th amendment of the US Constitution," McKenna said in a statement.

Gov. Chris Gregoire and her fellow Democrats wasted no time attacking McKenna.

"I completely disagree with the Attorney General's decision and he does not represent me," the governor said. "This is landmark legislation that will cover over 32 million Americans who don't have health care. I have made it clear to the Attorney General that I will actively oppose this lawsuit if it moves forward.""

[Generic Other]

45. What the hell??? Well he can kiss his sorry political career goodbye!

What a jerk. Not many in this state are going to ride on his stupidmobile!

[mikeiddy]

59. Opie

I used to work in the same office as Rob. We called him Opie (as in Andy Griffith). Things haven't changed too much, I guess.

[donheld]

62. Opie Gone Bad?

[leftofcool]

2. The Constitution allows for the rights of states to sue

the government. They are acting within the law whether we agree with them or not and that does not make them racist.

[kestrel91316]

11. Wrong. They cannot sue if no one with standing has been harmed.

That's known as a frivolous lawsuit and is a BIG no-no for an AG. Actually, impeachment-worthy.

[leftofcool]

22. I beg your pardon

They can most assuredly sue on the "mandate" grounds which is exactly what they are doing. Read the freeking lawsuit.

[-..__...]

3. "States rights"...

is widely known as a code word for racism?

:crazy:

Please explain that one.

[leftofcool]

7. I's like to hear that one myself since it is in the Constitution

[mix]

8. Ronald Reagan, Neshoba County Fairgrounds, 1980...

Reagan's "states' rights" speech kicked off his 1980 presidential run in Mississippi.

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.

That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.

He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

[-..__...]

25. And because Reagan uttered the....

code word term, it's written in scripture that "states rights" can only have racial connotations.

Do you really believe that the states that are opposing the Health care bill, are doing so because of some hidden racial bias?

[mix]

47. It depends on the context.

Who are the states' AGs using this term?

Are they dog whistling to their white constituents?

I imagine most are.

The rightwing is so drenched in racist rhetoric and imagery, particularly since Obama's election, that very little of their opposition to HCR has been policy oriented. It's mostly racist code when it's not overtly so.

Reagan was not the first to use "states' rights" as racist code. And he won't be the last.

In its simplest form, this multitiered message relied on code words. No one who used the phrase "states' rights" in living memory of the massive resistance movement against forced desegregation could be unaware of the message of solidarity it sent to Southern whites about civil rights. (The phrase, of course, had been bound up with racism at least since John Calhoun championed it in his defense of slavery in the 1830s.) But because the term also connoted a general opposition to the growth of the federal government's role in economic life, nonracist whites could comfort themselves that politicians like Nixon and Reagan were using it innocently—and thus shrug off any guilt they might feel for being complicit in racist campaigning. It was a dog whistle to segregationists. In the same vein, Reagan's use of phrases linked to insidious racial stereotypes—his talk of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, or "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps—pandered to bigots while making sure not to alienate voters whom starker language would have scared away.

More important, even where code words weren't at work, Reagan's very ideology contained a strong dose of racial conservatism. On one issue after another, Reagan's image and appeal was shot through with a hostility to assisting minorities with positive measures—affirmative action, legal protections for criminal defendants, welfare programs (which mainly helped whites but were perceived as mainly helping blacks). As a standard-bearer of the conservative movement, the Edsalls have written, Reagan in 1980 "revived the sharply polarized racial images of the two parties … with racial conservatism contributing decisively to the GOP advantage."
http://www.slate.com/id/2178379/pagenum/2/

[Hekate]

29. Thanks for that bit of history. Whenever I hear "states rights" I get a strong visual of fire hoses

... and police dogs and distorted white faces screaming that they will never ever allow n*** children in white schools because of states' rights.

Hekate

[NAO]

17. Please Google "states rights racism"

If you simply Google "states rights racism" and peruse the first half-dozen articles, you will see very clearly that this is a clear-cut, widely documented bit of ugly US History.

[leftofcool]

23. Funny that "states rights" are clearly defined in the Constitution

isn't it

[Hekate]

33. Not so funny that for generations the South used the term to justify Jim Crow laws.

Isn't it.

[mix]

49. And how would you interpret this "funny" fact? nt

[-..__...]

32. And how is that applicable to the HCR opponents?

[Zenlitened]

37. Now would be a good time to simply admit...

... that you didn't know the history associated with the phrase. And that, maybe, you learned a little bit of useful info today.

No? :shrug:

[-..__...]

46. Ahhh, no.

My imagination doesn't run that deep... I'm not the type that sees images of the Virgin Mary in a bowl of cornflakes.

[mix]

51. Your understanding of racism's history and language is sadly shallow as well.

[Zenlitened]

58. I'm referring to your post #3, before you started moving the goalposts around.

Where you said:

"States rights"...

is widely known as a code word for racism?

:crazy:

Please explain that one.

Where you said the very notion that the phrase "states rights" has some connection to racism is crazy.

That statement was pure ignorance, no two ways about it.

I thought you might summon up the character to acknowledge the fact, take responsibility, and admit that you were wrong to scoff and sneer.

But hey, your choice.

[NAO]

44. Exactly what it means, in one sentence

It means that they are able to appeal to the basest, lowest, ugliest part of human nature - while and this is the key - while at the same time appearing to be patriotically defending the Constitution.

Yes, these words had specific meaning when the Constitution was written. But that meaning has been significantly changed by the historical events of the past 150 years.

And if you read a few of the Google links, and take a look at the history and context of the use of the term "states rights", you will see exactly what I am talking about.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Wait, so the notion of states' rights has been irreparably challenged by its misuse?

So Jefferson has been discredited by Jackson and Wallace?

[Bucky]

53. A smart poster would have written "States' rights HAS BEEN USED as a guise for racist policies"

You're correct that not every iteration of states' rights is made for racist reasons. Nor is it now. But the correlation between groups the States' Rights segregationists in the past and the knee jerk anti-federal anti-authority conservatives today is quite uncanny.

[newscott]

4. Pleast tell me we don't have to kick their asses

Again

[wtmusic]

6. Put all of the states on Ignore

Lawsuits will go nowhere, will waste a lot of money and piss off constituents.

They're all riled up now. A cold glass of milk and a nap will take care of the problem.

[Joanne98]

9. Cut off all their money!

[Mari333]

13. if they are working to get rid of the mandate, good for them.

[leftofcool]

24. That is what the lawsuit is about

[Mari333]

31. I hope they win.

the mandate needs to be dumped.

[The Northerner]

35. +1

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. +10000!

[Hubert Flottz]

14. They didn't like "States Rights" in Florida in 2000...

They change the rules as the game goes along...in a poker game that could cause one a big problem.

[girl gone mad]

41. And Obama didn't like the mandates in 2008.

[meow2u3]

19. Penna. AG Tom Corbett's running for governor

His motive is to grandstand. I doubt this stunt will get him any more votes. In fact, the Dems will likely use his threat of a lawsuit against him in the general election, painting him as a cruel teabagger who wants to take away people's health care.

[Bitwit1234]

21. DO NOT DENIGATE THE CONFEDERACY

Most of them were hard working honest people who thought they were doing the right thing trying to repel the Northern aggression. When Lincoln added the slavery factor it changed the face of the war. So real Confederates were not racist and bigots.

[Zenlitened]

30. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

I hope. :eyes:

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. Believe me

that wasn't sarcasm. Look up some of her primary posts.

[Hekate]

34. So defending their "peculiar institution" was just an accident? and Lincoln's fault?

:wow:

[LostInAnomie]

40. That better be sarcasm.

Because it is a steaming load of bullshit if it's not.

[Bucky]

56. Or you could be helpful disagree respectfully.

Don't complain in the Lounge about how nasty GD is if you're contributing to the problem, friend.

[provis99]

42. haha! you made a funny!

[mix]

52. comedy gold (i hope)

"When Lincoln added the slavery factor..."
:rofl:

[Bucky]

55. Disagree strongly

Proud Southerner here. Sadly, my ancestors were not merely defending their homeland. The non-slave-owners among them were stampeded into an anti-federal panic attack by exactly those economic interests profiting from slavery. A solid belief in the superiority of the white man over the black was a defining characteristic of the region. There was a lot of racial prejudice in the North too--their frankness in asserting white supremacy is stunning when you look at the primary documents. But the difference is that the Southerners were doing something about that belief, namely fighting to continue the slave system.

As for "Northern aggression" I think we have to look at who shot first and who armed up first. When the US Army finally got around to marching down to Manassas, they were met by an already armed and trained Confederate army. There was no Northern aggression, just a Northern response to Confederate aggression. The rights we were defending were the right to hold a man in bondage based on his race. Long long before the Emancipation Proclamation was pre-announced in 1862, racial unity among whites and keeping blacks from becoming full citizens and free was the rallying cry of the South.

I love barbecue and I love Garth Brooks, but where the War Between the States was concerned, we were wrong.

[Hekate]

57. Thank you, Bucky. You love bbq and Garth; I love people who remember history. nt

[mix]

60. beautifully put nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. Three Words: Declarations of Secession

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

South Carolina:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


Texas:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

[Green_Lantern]

39. these lawsuits will probably fail....

The Federal govt. has the power to lay taxes which is how this so-called mandate works.

I'm not sure how people can imply that not having insurance is some kind of choice.

People here against this mandate...do you have insurance?

[girl gone mad]

48. Yes, I have insurance.

But I did not have insurance for over ten years. I paid all of my bills out of pocket and I think I came out way ahead of a couple of insured friends who still ended up with mountains of medical debt on top of their premiums.

There has never been a Federal mandate to buy a product from a private company and its surprising to see supposed liberals defending this concept.

[Green_Lantern]

50. I don't think it's really a mandate....

People can't afford health care without insurance which is probably why you choose to have insurance.

This bill caps premiums at 6% of income.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Do YOU have insurance?

"So-called mandate" my ass.

[bigwillq]

54. What happens if they get rid of the mandate?

:shrug:

[HopeHoops]

61. Count PA out - Corbett is just a fucking asshole grandstanding for his run for governor.

What a dickhead.

[hayu_lol]

66. Please let us all know when...

Charleston fires on Fort Sumter.

Ummm...start of the War Of Southern Aggression.

[grahamhgreen]

67. Mandates are a bizarre bastardization of taxes. They are a way to allow corporations to tax us.