State's Rights Scares Cokie Roberts

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Cokie Roberts on ABC News: "You have these fourteen states attorneys general saying that they want to have the court overturn the recently passed health care law. I must say, I was just with my grand kids at Fort Sumter, and the notion of nullification made me extremely nervous because it was, of course, the first step toward the Civil War."

I think what Cokie is trying to say is that the states should just put up and shut up, and let the federal government do whatever it wants to the states, despite the U.S. Constitution.

Does that mean she would support the federal government sending federal troops into states that refuse to comply with the Democrat's government takeover of Health Insurance as Obama's hero Abraham Lincoln was willing to do when the states held out against the federal government more than a century ago?

Perhaps Cokie has no problem with the fact that by the government sticking its nose into the Health Care industry ensuring the privacy of patients' records in a nationalized computer network will be tricky. Doesn't such a system open up the dangers regarding hackers and system failures? What about the new online health record systems? Does she know that these new health record systems such as Google Health are not currently subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the national health privacy law.

Perhaps Ms. Roberts has no problem with the federal government demanding that everyone own health insurance, or else a fine or jail could be the consequence against ordinary citizens.

Does Cokie also fear the states that are demanding the federal government stay the heck out of their gun laws? Should states, based on the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments be able to exempt guns made and kept in the state from any federal regulations? Or is the wording in the Constitution that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" just the words of a bunch of fringe right-wing radicals? Or maybe those words, to her, are subject to interpretation.

I suppose Cokie Roberts believes the federal government should be able to dictate to the states anything it desires, despite the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. I suppose she believes the federal government has the supreme power to control the states, and force them to comply with whatever big government programs they can come up with, right?

Ms. Roberts, that would make the federal government an authoritarian dictatorship. Do you really wish to allow the federal government that kind of power, and for the states to have no choice in the matter? Do you really wish for the states to not have the ability to nullify federal laws that breach the contract called the Constitution that they have with the U.S. Government? What would you have said if a Republican had said what you said in relation to a policy of George W. Bush's?

That's what I thought.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Nevada to Join Suits Against Obamacare - Human Events

ABC Vets Insist Obama Not on Left, Blocking ObamaCare Reminds Roberts of ‘First Step Toward the Civil War’ - NewsBusters

ObamaCare records: How far is too far? - Examiner

Health Care Bill's Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional - CNS News

States exempting guns from rules now total 7 - World Net Daily