![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
He's Mostly Right, I Think
Mar. 26th, 2010 01:00 pmI've been trying to avoid the healthcare debate, but the post to which ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
james_nicoll points here seems fairly sensible to me as far as advice to the Republican party and conservatives goes. This comment seems to sum up how unglued some people have become over this issue.
I heard a talk show host this morning while driving to work start talking about "nullification," in response to some mis-informed caller's contention that "if 3/4 of the states vote to cancel a federal law, it's overridden." (This seems to be someone garbling the Article V rules about constitutional conventions and amendment ratification.) Nullification? Good grief, does nobody ever read history books anymore? Or do we really have a significant number of people who want a civil war? Because IMO that's where debates based on state nullification of federal laws lead. It sure did in the mid-19th century.
People -- on all sides of this debate -- have got to stop demonizing their opponents. I'm pointing at everyone here. Use of violence or intimidation just because someone didn't vote the way you wanted is wrong. You have to accept that not all victories nor all defeats are necessarily permanent, or at least that's the way our government should be. The current inflation of rhetoric is inansely self-destructive, and I worry about the people who think that's good.
james_nicoll points here seems fairly sensible to me as far as advice to the Republican party and conservatives goes. This comment seems to sum up how unglued some people have become over this issue.I heard a talk show host this morning while driving to work start talking about "nullification," in response to some mis-informed caller's contention that "if 3/4 of the states vote to cancel a federal law, it's overridden." (This seems to be someone garbling the Article V rules about constitutional conventions and amendment ratification.) Nullification? Good grief, does nobody ever read history books anymore? Or do we really have a significant number of people who want a civil war? Because IMO that's where debates based on state nullification of federal laws lead. It sure did in the mid-19th century.
People -- on all sides of this debate -- have got to stop demonizing their opponents. I'm pointing at everyone here. Use of violence or intimidation just because someone didn't vote the way you wanted is wrong. You have to accept that not all victories nor all defeats are necessarily permanent, or at least that's the way our government should be. The current inflation of rhetoric is inansely self-destructive, and I worry about the people who think that's good.
