Peter Heck - columns - Democrats Fire on Fort Sumter

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2010 Articles

Sunday, March 21 2010

Democrats Fire on Fort Sumter

When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."

Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back and forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.

What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.

In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.

So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.

Here in Indiana, for example, the state has reported that the enactment of ObamaCare will open up the government subsidized Medicaid system to approximately 500,000 Hoosiers. That means half a million more citizens will be receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. But who will pay for it? Well, in order to carry off their outrageous lie to the American people that ObamaCare is going to save us money (the hubris behind such a laughable suggestion is impossible to fully grasp), the Democrats have mandated that the states pick up the tab for this Medicaid stampede.

Someone should tell the teachers' unions who foam at the mouth anytime someone mentions funding cuts to the public school system that they ain't seen nothin' yet. When a state like Indiana has to pick up a tab that equals billions of dollars to fund the excessive doctor and hospital visits that will soon be "free" to 500,000 more citizens, does anyone expect not to see drastic cuts in other areas, as well as massive tax increases? Yet teachers unions' continue to support the very Democrats who are forcing this funding Armageddon.

So the states will undoubtedly sue - indeed somewhere between five to ten are already actively pursuing such a strategy. They will ask the federal courts to strike down multiple provisions of ObamaCare, including the blatantly unconstitutional federal mandate that all citizens purchase healthcare.

Even the most left-leaning constitutional law experts have had a hard time coming up with a defense of the individual mandate. About the best they've got is the silly suggestion that such a mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause. But at the end of the day, they are forced to recognize that if that be the case, the Commerce Clause must be interpreted to give Congress the ability to force anyone to buy anything (next time GM is in trouble, they could just pass a law requiring you to buy a GM vehicle within a year) - a clearly untenable position to anyone who is sane.

A second battle will manifest at the ballot box as Congressional Democrats face the uncomfortable reality that their president and party leadership have made them walk the plank into a sea of furious, motivated citizens. In order to secure enough votes for passage, President Obama promised wary lawmakers that their constituents would forget about this issue come election day. That, of course, is preposterous. The vote Sunday only guaranteed an explosion of growth for the Tea Party movement. And it also demonstrated this crystal clear reality: there is a difference between the two political parties...a BIG difference.

Say what you will about past Republican Party indiscretions (and there have been many), but not a single Republican voted for this atrocity. In fact, Republicans led a courageous effort to thwart the authoritarian Democrats while offering common sense alternatives that actually would help lower health care costs.

So that's what's coming next. From there, it's too early to tell. Millions of citizens are preparing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent their tax money from being used to pay for abortions (as ObamaCare did, does, and will always allow), several states are reviving the nullification theory, and Republicans are promising a fight to repeal the legislation.

But this much is clear: Sunday's vote was only the beginning. Things are about to get very interesting.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:57 pm | Permalink | 21 Comments | Email

Comments:

Democrats finally accomplished something on Sunday! Awesome. Still they're not in good shape, but if health reform actually gets implemented before November, the GOP is screwed. Also, let's be honest. GOP opposes healthcare because in their paranoid corporate minds it's a step to socialism (just like public schools, public highways, and the fire department.) The bill has nothing to do with abortion. That's just another distraction by the increasingly desperate right. How does it feel to be utterly powerless?

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/22/2010 13:23:22

Also, comparing a legal war over healthcare to a civil war over slavery is a slap in the face to slaves and to soldiers. Bad form Pete. That "comparison" is also indicative of how hysterical right-wingers are when they don't get their way.

Posted by N.Gavelis on 03/22/2010 14:38:06

That you are unable to recognize legitimate conservative objections to an individual mandate, money from federal government insurance exchanges being used to pay for abortions, the massive assault on state sovereignty, and the incredibly irresponsible debt this will rack up only demonstrates why the left has dreadfully over played its hand. And utterly powerless? Really? The left has the White House and both houses by massive numbers, and barely squeaked this through after having it whittled away. Not that you're not entitled to gloat, but at least make it believable.

Posted by peterheck on 03/22/2010 14:42:44

Just wait. Nancy and company will be thinking "utterly powerless" come November.

Posted by patriot on 03/22/2010 14:44:21

N.Gavelis ignorantly thinks he is trash-talking Republicans. He ignores that 75% of the American public opposed this action. And they opposed it because they knew what was in it. Independents are now joining Republicans. Who's screwed?

Posted by Tim Larkin on 03/22/2010 14:46:36

Drama queen alert: "comparing a legal war over healthcare to a civil war over slavery is a slap in the face to slaves and to soldiers" Good gosh, could you be a little more over-dramatic? At least you didn't start crying, "Too soon! Too soon!" Lol. The only comparison was that he said the vote was the opening skirmish of a much larger war. But I guess when you can't take on the content, just make up some stupid reason to complain, eh?

Posted by Lemon on 03/22/2010 14:52:56

N.Gavelis, you can honestly take chest thumping pride in what happened Sunday to the American people? You even recognize that the Dems are "in trouble." That means you know how Americans felt about this bill. You then say if it's implemented the Republicans are screwed. And why? Because this bill creates dependency and votes for those that deprive you of what you must have won't occur. So you are taking pride in a bill that wasn't wanted and that creates dependency? That's about right.

Posted by James Madison on 03/22/2010 14:57:40

Hey N.Gavelis, I recognize that you stopped by in order to gloat. That's fine. It's your day. But other than your silly "it's tacky to reference the Civil War" comment, do you think Heck is wrong about what's coming? Do you find fault in his analysis? I tend to think that it's exactly what's coming. The Dems agreed with your philosophy that the people are "utterly powerless," but I suspect they are going to find out otherwise.

Posted by just wondering on 03/22/2010 15:02:37

Is this an ideal situation? Absolutely not. Ideally the healthcare system would not be broken, insurance co.s would not be screwing us, and the feds would not have to intervene. But this is where we find ourselves, and in a nation where private corporations have more rights than living breathing citizens, and anti-trust laws are a joke, Congressional bills like this become a necessary evil. The only alternative is burying our head in the sand like Joe Republican and allowing a new age of Social Darwinism to dawn. In a couple years we'll probably get that anyway, but for now I am pleased.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/22/2010 16:10:23

Desperation, thy name is Peter Heck. Considering how well the doctrine of interposition worked for southern leaders as legal justification for blocking federal civil rights legislation, you'd be better served to move on. Your strategy has no tangible support in modern American law. The Supreme Court has never, ever ruled the doctrine of interposition valid or permissible as a defense to the enforcement of federal law. If the court were to do so, it would directly undercut Marbury v. Madison. Pout all you want, but your "battle" has no chance of success through the courts.

Posted by OliverBrown on 03/22/2010 16:38:30

The real question as this point is when does Rush leave and what country will take him?

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/22/2010 16:49:25

N.Gavelis, I think you seem like a rational person, but come on with the "bad form" bit. Are you serious? Peter constantly talks about the need to fight the enemies of liberty at home just like the military is combating the enemies of liberty abroad. The war analogy doesn't hurt the memory of any soldiers. That's ridiculous and a bit odd coming from someone like you who seems to have a brain (misguided though it is).

Posted by A Listener on 03/22/2010 17:38:11

Don't worry about it, Listener and others. I know N.Gav loves me. :-) Oliver I appreciated your comments, but would caution you that in order for the Supremacy Clause to matter, the federal legislation in question must adhere to the Constitution. This legislation does not, and I think the Supreme Court will strike many of its provisions down for that very reason. Do you think they'll go for the Commerce Clause on something this sweeping, do you?

Posted by peterheck on 03/22/2010 17:41:25

I do, Pete. That much is obvious. In our separate but equally self-righteous ways, we mean well.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/22/2010 18:51:31

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculure inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration. continued...

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/23/2010 11:39:50

At the appropriate time as regulated by US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology at the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the enviromental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at public school. continued...

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/23/2010 11:40:38

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshall's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department. I then log on to the internet which was developed by the advanced research projects administration and post on peterheck.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right. END (not my own work, but gets the point across.)

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/23/2010 11:41:26

Kind of shocking to realize just how much we've allowed government to intervene in nearly every area of our life isn't it, NGav? We're a far cry from Lincoln's admonition: "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they cannot so well do for themselves. But in whatever people can do for themselves, government ought not to interfere."

Posted by peterheck on 03/23/2010 14:41:55

And just so we understand each other, you are suggesting that without the government neither the alarm clock, your shower, your TV, your food, your car, your mail, your school, your house, your computer would work properly or as well? Coupled with your earlier cries of how the insurance companies are screwing us all and we're helpless without government intervention, it's pretty apparent that you have given up any desire for autonomy, independence, and controlling your own destiny, in deference to letting the geniuses in Washington do it for you. That's kinda sad, isn't it?

Posted by peterheck on 03/23/2010 14:46:13

It shouldn't be shocking to learn this country's basic intrastructure and services are largely controlled by the gov't. That should only be shocking if you're awaking from a century-long coma, but that's most tea partiers I guess. We disagree, Pete, because at the end of the day, I'd rather have the essential services controlled by democratically elected officials rather than by corporate kingpins. In the form case, the electorate maintains at least minimal control.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 03/24/2010 10:32:49

You're close. At the end of the day we disagree over what "essential services" are...the vast majority of those things you listed are not what I (nor our Founders) would call essential services. Further, government supply of such "services" are almost always over-priced, over-regulated, bureaucratic nightmares. Do you disagree? Surely you can understand why liberty loving people would oppose doing that to healthcare?

Posted by peterheck on 03/24/2010 10:39:30