• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Joni Ernst Supported Arresting "Obamacare" Workers

Unabogie

Philosopher
Unabogie
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
9,692
Location
Portland, OR
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joni-ernst-obamacare-arrest-law-enforcement

State Sen. Joni Ernst, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Iowa, once said she would support legislation that would allow "local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement" Obamacare.

Ernst voiced her support for that, as well as supporting legislation that would "nullify" Obamacare in a Iowa State Legislative Candidates survey for Ron Paul's libertarian-aligned Campaign for Liberty in 2012. It can be viewed here.

The question was: "Will you support legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health care scheme known as ObamaCare?" Ernst answered that question as "yes."
Click to expand...

Last I checked she was leading in Iowa.
 
Unabogie said:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joni-ernst-obamacare-arrest-law-enforcement



Last I checked she was leading in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Assuming for the sake of argument that she's leading because Iowans are unimpressed with Obamacare, or annoyed by federal intrusion into Iowa affairs in general, or both, the Democrats may want to reconsider their strategy of forcing contentious issues on the states by narrow federal majorities.

In before: "She's leading because a lot of Iowans are evil and/or stupid."
 
theprestige said:
Assuming for the sake of argument that she's leading because Iowans are unimpressed with Obamacare, or annoyed by federal intrusion into Iowa affairs in general, or both, the Democrats may want to reconsider their strategy of forcing contentious issues on the states by narrow federal majorities.
Click to expand...

By what margin does a law need to pass before we can rule out armed insurrection?
 
theprestige said:
Assuming for the sake of argument that she's leading because Iowans are unimpressed with Obamacare, or annoyed by federal intrusion into Iowa affairs in general, or both, the Democrats may want to reconsider their strategy of forcing contentious issues on the states by narrow federal majorities.

In before: "She's leading because a lot of Iowans are evil and/or stupid."
Click to expand...

Lots of people oppose lots of laws. The thread is because she wants to arrest people implementing a health care law. No red flags there for you? Nothing?
 
Unabogie said:
Lots of people oppose lots of laws. The thread is because she wants to arrest people implementing a health care law. No red flags there for you? Nothing?
Click to expand...

If you don't want people arrested for implementing federal law then they should have had a bigger majority.
 
theprestige said:
Assuming for the sake of argument that she's leading because Iowans are unimpressed with Obamacare, or annoyed by federal intrusion into Iowa affairs in general, or both, the Democrats may want to reconsider their strategy of forcing contentious issues on the states by narrow federal majorities.
Click to expand...
Of course, and women shouldn't wear tight jeans if they don't want to get raped. :rolleyes:
 
Unabogie said:
Lots of people oppose lots of laws. The thread is because she wants to arrest people implementing a health care law. No red flags there for you? Nothing?
Click to expand...

Plenty of red flags.

One that never seems to get much attention though is the one where forcing through a contentious issue at the federal level hasn't magically resolved all the contention and paved the way for peaceful submission to the new order. Apparently there are people in Iowa who feel the federal government needs to be reminded that there are limits to federal domination over the states, and that narrow victories in Washington don't entitle the victor to meek acceptance in Des Moines.

It seems to me that her candidacy should be raising red flags on both sides of the aisle.
 
theprestige said:
Apparently there are people in Iowa who feel the federal government needs to be reminded that there are limits to federal domination over the states, and that narrow victories in Washington don't entitle the victor to meek acceptance in Des Moines.
Click to expand...
And there method of reminding the federal government of constitutional limits is to propose a law that is clearly unconstitutional?

If that was what they were actually doing, I'd say it's a bag of mixed signals, to say the very least. But that isn't what's going on here. It's a politician pandering to a yokel* electorate that doesn't know any better.




* Having grown up in northern Missouri, I feel more than justified in my unfair stereotype of Iowa.
 
theprestige said:
Plenty of red flags.

One that never seems to get much attention though is the one where forcing through a contentious issue at the federal level hasn't magically resolved all the contention and paved the way for peaceful submission to the new order. Apparently there are people in Iowa who feel the federal government needs to be reminded that there are limits to federal domination over the states, and that narrow victories in Washington don't entitle the victor to meek acceptance in Des Moines.

It seems to me that her candidacy should be raising red flags on both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're thinking clearly on this. We've been living in a country with the Supremacy Clause in place for centuries. If a group of people are so insane that they want to arrest federal employees for simply implementing a law that mimics a formerly Republican philosophy, one that they used to support, then the red flags are clearly on one side of the argument.

There is no rational basis to take law abiding people and literally imprison them over a milquetoast change in health insurance regulations. The fact that half the Iowan population is swayed by such nonsense doesn't give it legitimacy. Our Republic doesn't hold together magically, and pandering to the nutjobs who think that Federal laws are optional, and only legitimate as long as Republican passed them, is a recipe for a civil war.

Over health insurance regulations.
 
Idiots are sometimes (okay often) inadvertently (through obscure preference deals) elected to Australia's Senate. And they are a source of shame. But none quite as loony as this one.
 
How many health officials are there in Iowa?

How much would it cost to arrest, incarcerate and process them all?
 
Upchurch said:
And there method of reminding the federal government of constitutional limits is to propose a law that is clearly unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
It would seem so.

If that was what they were actually doing, I'd say it's a bag of mixed signals, to say the very least. But that isn't what's going on here. It's a politician pandering to a yokel* electorate that doesn't know any better.
Click to expand...
Such perceptive insights, and yet somehow progressives are always amazed that some people would rather see them die in a fire than accept their prescription for the Greater Good.

* Having grown up in northern Missouri, I feel more than justified in my unfair stereotype of Iowa.
Click to expand...
Your irrelevant regional bigotries aside, I'm pretty sure that an unfair stereotype is unjustifiable by definition. But having just handwaved Iowan opinion away as irrational, it's probably only fair that you exhibit an irrational opinion or two of your own.
 
johnny karate said:
By what margin does a law need to pass before we can rule out armed insurrection?
Click to expand...

I think Jefferson's quote in my .sig is a good idea, and he knew about armed insurrections, didn't he?

Enormous innovations to what is considered appropriate for government to do (remember our government was created by limited and listed powers, and every other power is denied until amendment grants it...by supermajority) should indeed be by supermajority.

The vote is just might makes right, and history is replete with demagoguery riding roughshod over freedom because they can stir and fan the transient winds of outrage.

No, infinite control of peoples' lives should not be at a 50% + 1 pie reward. If you can't get most people to believe a big change should happen, and to continue to think so 5-10 years down the road (those pesky transient winds) it probably shouldn't.

Evidence? All of human history.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It would seem so.
Click to expand...
If so, they seem to have misunderstood the situation entirely.

theprestige said:
Such perceptive insights, and yet somehow progressives are always amazed that some people would rather see them die in a fire than accept their prescription for the Greater Good.
Click to expand...
I don't follow.

theprestige said:
Your irrelevant regional bigotries aside, I'm pretty sure that an unfair stereotype is unjustifiable by definition. But having just handwaved Iowan opinion away as irrational, it's probably only fair that you exhibit an irrational opinion or two of your own.
Click to expand...
Relax. That potshot about Iowans was just a friendly joke. They say similar things about those from Missouri.

I wasn't handwaving their opinions as irrational. (Although, I think it largely is irrational, especially in the light of the ACA's successes.) I was making a point about pandering politicians making irrational legislation which has no hope of surviving judicial review.
 
I've said it before, it is absolutely mind-boggling the extents to which some will go to try to prevent others from getting healthcare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom