McDaniel Says "No" to Referendum Language
Secure Arkansas cannot seem to get past AG Dustin McDaniel in their efforts to get a rejection of Obamacare on the ballot. Nor are they apparently willing to do what it would take to stop McDaniel from kicking them around- support a third party challenge to McDaniel who would make every delaying tactic and false legal assertion an issue. Their preference, in violation of the most elementary investment advice that each one of them doubtless adheres to in their personal finances, is against diversification.
It appears their choice is to put all of their eggs in the Republican basket as it regards finding candidates to stand up for them and represent their interests. Sadly, the Republicans have failed to find anyone to oppose McDaniel in November-we are not sure they even tried. That is sticking with an investment that is guaranteed to fail in November. Bernie Madoff investors have a better chance of getting something back than SA does in getting an AG candidate who will go after, and possibly defeat, Dustin McDaniel from the Republicans. That's frustrating because I believe he is beatable. There are a lot of Democrats in south Arkansas who are not looking forward to eight years of Governor McDaniel.
McDaniel is apparently willing to do whatever it takes to stop Secure Arkansas, and they are not willing to do whatever it takes to stop him. I don't approve of the likely result, but who can't see it coming? Remember Proverbs 27:6.
McDaniel's reasoning is pretty weak. But you won't get that from the Morning News version of events. On the nit-picking side of things, McDaniel claims he can't defend the proposal in court because it does not define terms like "compel" and "participate". This is shades of Bill Clinton saying it "depends on what the definition of is is." Meaningful communication is impossible with bad intentioned people like Bill Clinton and Dustin McDaniel, because they don't use words as tools to find truth, but to impose their will. If every word longer than four letters was defined, doubtless McDaniel would reject the measure on the grounds that it is now too lengthy!
AGs in at least two other states are not so finicky as McDaniel on definitions. A very similar amendment to the one SA is proposing is already on the ballot.
"The proposal also contained no language informing voters that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution would prevent it from having any affect on the federal law if the federal law is found to be constitutional" McDaniel said.
Why does it have to inform them of that? One of the main points is to get the thing to the Supreme Court, and SA wants Arkansans to be one of those defending liberty instead of being passive bystanders while other states manfully take up our slack. And the statement is not even true. The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws that are constitutional to begin with, which the health care legislation clearly is not. Google interpostion or nullification, or go to the 10th amendment center. That is a part of our nation's hidden history- hidden because statists want you to believe that all power to interpret the Constitution is centralized in nine persons and they decide for the other 300 million. That is against the spirit of checks and balances.
It appears their choice is to put all of their eggs in the Republican basket as it regards finding candidates to stand up for them and represent their interests. Sadly, the Republicans have failed to find anyone to oppose McDaniel in November-we are not sure they even tried. That is sticking with an investment that is guaranteed to fail in November. Bernie Madoff investors have a better chance of getting something back than SA does in getting an AG candidate who will go after, and possibly defeat, Dustin McDaniel from the Republicans. That's frustrating because I believe he is beatable. There are a lot of Democrats in south Arkansas who are not looking forward to eight years of Governor McDaniel.
McDaniel is apparently willing to do whatever it takes to stop Secure Arkansas, and they are not willing to do whatever it takes to stop him. I don't approve of the likely result, but who can't see it coming? Remember Proverbs 27:6.
McDaniel's reasoning is pretty weak. But you won't get that from the Morning News version of events. On the nit-picking side of things, McDaniel claims he can't defend the proposal in court because it does not define terms like "compel" and "participate". This is shades of Bill Clinton saying it "depends on what the definition of is is." Meaningful communication is impossible with bad intentioned people like Bill Clinton and Dustin McDaniel, because they don't use words as tools to find truth, but to impose their will. If every word longer than four letters was defined, doubtless McDaniel would reject the measure on the grounds that it is now too lengthy!
AGs in at least two other states are not so finicky as McDaniel on definitions. A very similar amendment to the one SA is proposing is already on the ballot.
"The proposal also contained no language informing voters that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution would prevent it from having any affect on the federal law if the federal law is found to be constitutional" McDaniel said.
Why does it have to inform them of that? One of the main points is to get the thing to the Supreme Court, and SA wants Arkansans to be one of those defending liberty instead of being passive bystanders while other states manfully take up our slack. And the statement is not even true. The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws that are constitutional to begin with, which the health care legislation clearly is not. Google interpostion or nullification, or go to the 10th amendment center. That is a part of our nation's hidden history- hidden because statists want you to believe that all power to interpret the Constitution is centralized in nine persons and they decide for the other 300 million. That is against the spirit of checks and balances.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, April 07, 2010
1 Comments:
It also doesn't inform voters that there really isn't a federal holiday called "President's Day" either, but then again, it's not required that proposed legislation contain every scrap of detail that could be squeezed into it.
Maybe if it was 2500 pages like the health care bill and signed by a Democratic president, McDaniel would suddenly have no problem with constitutionality or legal hangups.
Post a Comment
<< Home