Reflections From a Murky Pond

ObamaCare Is Works For Who Exactly?

Obama periodically likes to claim that the ACA aka ObamaCare is working. My question, given its near universal unpopularity as a whole, constant “issues,” and the plethora of special exemptions from- and delays in its various, convoluted provisions and edicts, is just who is it working for.

Perhaps the boy, whenever he says that ObamaCare is working, means for the thousands of new IRS agents it called for. They’re the only ones that seem to be benefiting from it.

Luscious Is The Dawn

‘Tis sooth! Luscious is the dawn, and it’s made more so by this fine, curvy babe who could and would make most men, at not a few women, look forward to the start of a new day.

Intersectionality is a big thing to many interest groups seeking special privileges and protections. It is most important to the modern Feminists, which is unsurprising since the modern interpretation of this sociopolitical shibboleth was concocted by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Black Feminist.

Intersectionality

Function: noun

Date: 1989

Definition(s):

1. The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, disability, sexuality, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage
2. A term used in feminist discourse to mean “I may drag all my issues into every discussion”
3. A means by which special interest agendists can attempt to broaden the power base.
4. A way for White agendists to claim oppression without feeling like their detracting from the oppression they’ve assigned to Blacks.
5. A methodology of making any issue too complex to be resolved, thus keeping academic theorists in a job

Of course, while very important to these groups, intersectionality does cause them both internal and external conflict. This results in the inevitable rounds of Whitesplaining, Bourgesplaining, and other types of -Splaining to avoid the label of racism or racial insensitivity.

See the issue above? The intersectionality of the idiotic Free The Nipple pseudo-movement of the Feminists and the lie-based meme of Hands Up, Don’t Shoot of Blacks, is bound to cause conflict within those respective groups of self-professed victims. 😉

It’s Called Spring!

Yeah, this just about perfectly sums up the average, rank and file Warmist Climatard. Panicking and teaching their young to panic over anything and everything that they can somehow, some way claim to be caused by Global Warming – err … Climate Change? – err … Climate Chaos? – err whatever the current brand name is today.

It looks rather more likely than not that Arizona will geld Obama or, at least emasculate his ability to harm Arizona through his barely quasi-legal Executive Orders or directive from his DoJ. Last week on March 10, 2015 Arizona’s House of Representatives voted in favor of House Bill 2368 (HB 2368), which bans the use of AZ personnel or monies to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any of them.

So, politically speaking in Arizona, it looks probable that Obama’s testicles will be tied off, wither and rot, and fall off.

Obama supporters and Statists, have quickly put up the spurious and ignorant argument that HB 2368 violates the US Constitution’s, Article VI, Clause 2 (the “Supremacy Clause”):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

But even a passing knowledge of SCOTUS jurisprudence and Constitutional Law shows that Arizona’s HB 2368 in no way violates the Supremacy Clause because, supremacy or not, the SCOTUS via the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” set forth in their 1842 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1981 Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 1992 New York v. United States, and 1997 Printz v. United States decisions has unequivocally stated that the federal government cannot legally commandeer legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program by demanding that those States’ governments to undertake targeted, affirmative, coercive duties.

Oh please pay special attention to Prigg v. Pennsylvania, as it stated that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

In other, simpler words, the Federal government cannot legally compel any of the States to spend their resources in the furtherance of any federal mandate, regulation, or even law. The Supremacy Clause ensures that the States can’t contravene federal edicts but the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine requires that the federal government enforce those edicts with federal resources instead of compelling the States to use theirs to do so.

Hence, in point of legal fact, Arizona didn’t need to limit HB 2368 to merely those edicts spawned within the Executive. The bill would be equally valid on resting upon proven, sound legal grounds if it had include legitimate federal laws enacted by Congress as well.

Now it just remains to be seen how many other states shall go reaching for their gelding knives or similar tools…