Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    About last night (‘s elections)

    About last night (‘s elections)

    I did not follow yesterday’s elections as closely as I should have.  I’ve been a bit, er, distracted the past week.

    Ohio was a loss for those who want to save state and local governments from the grip of unsustainable union control.  The national unions went all in, and won big.  There were several factors, including that the legislation also covered police and firemen, and most importantly in my view, the law did not take effect under Ohio’s procedure.  Unlike in Wisconsin, where people are seeing the benefit of the law, in Ohio there was no such experience.  But excuses aside, it showed that dislodging the public sector union grip will be difficult.

    The good news from Ohio is that the voters overwhelmingly approved the legislation which allows Ohio to opt-out of Obamacare. It’s probably ineffective ultimately because of federal supremacy, but it shows that Obamacare remains unpopular even among an electorate sympathetic to unions. (added) This bodes well for 2012.

    In Virginia, Democrats saw the benefits of redistricting maps they drew.  But even so, it looks like the Republicans will take over the state Senate, if only after a recount in one district.

    What else of improtance?

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Mutnodjmet | November 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    TEA PARTIER/CITIZEN REPORTER ATTACKED BY OCCUPY SAN DIEGO PROTESTER!!! I know the woman attacked; she is a long time citizen advocate and highly respectful to others.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Aarradin | November 9, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    VA – ALL non-partisan commissions are leftwing, all of them. Virginia had R Governor, R controlled House, D controlled Senate for redistricting. So, it was farmed out to a non-partisan commission comprised ENTIRELY of former Democrat legislators and current radical leftwing college professors. Needless to say, it didn’t go well.

    Prior to the election, D’s held the Senate by 22-18. Currently it is a 20-20 tie, with an R Lt Gov casting the tiebreaking vote. But, one of the R pickups was by only 86 votes of over 45,000 cast – subject to recount IF the D requests it (hasn’t yet).

    I’ve heard the Statewide vote was 60% R, 40% D, and the redistricting by D’s is all that kept them with 50% of the Senate seats but I can’t find a reliable source. With no statewide offices up, and large numbers of unconstested races for both sides, I’m not sure you can really measure this this year anyway.


       
       0 
       
       0
      barbara in reply to Aarradin. | November 9, 2011 at 6:53 pm

      Heard on the local news tonight that Reeves was ahead of Houck by 200 now. Houck still hasn’t requested a recount, but I wouldn’t put it past him.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Aarradin in reply to barbara. | November 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm

        My boss’ boss (my uberboss? The Germans would definitely have a word for this) is a conservative R that voted for Houck. Like most state level VA D’s outside of Alexandria/Arlington, Houck is strong on 2nd Amendment issues – he’s certainly to the right of, say, Sen Murkowski or Brown on pretty much everything.

        I was trying to talk him out of it on Monday, and he was laying out his reasons for voting for a D. All of which I’ve thrown back in his face today, along with: “You’re going to feel pretty stupid if he wins by 1 vote!”


     
     0 
     
     0
    Aarradin | November 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Mississippi

    Its possible that the R’s will win the state House for the first time since Reconstruction!! There’s a bunch (9 I think) of races yet to be determined though (recounts and runoffs). Last I saw, R’s held a 1 seat advantage with 9 seats still in play.

    They also passed a State Constitutional Amendment prohibiting eminent domain in cases where the property is given to another individual (or corporation) rather than used by the state. This is a reaction against SCOTUS’ horribly misguided Kelo decision that allowed eminent domain to take private property and give it to a private developer on the expectation of higher tax revenue (the company was Pfizer, which after winning the decision declined to develop the land – the houses all got wiped out but nothing ever got built). Note that the NY Times building in NY City is build on land confiscated by the city under eminent domain and given to the Times. Columbia University is in the process of doing the same thing.

    They failed to pass a ‘personhood’ referendum, by a margin of roughly 4:3. Don’t read too much into this, since even the pro-life movement was split on it.

    […] there was a very bright spot for Republicans in Ohio. That was that a lot of Ohio voters voted against Obama’s health scam even as they were voting against the collective bargaining bill. As we have repeatedly warned (HERE […]


     
     0 
     
     0
    valleyforge | November 9, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    A quibble about your reference to “federal supremacy” over the Ohio vote to ban insurance mandates. Try and find anything to that effect in the Constitution in vain. It’s a legal doctrine invented to buttress centralized government. States have sovereignty in areas of law where powers are not explicitly granted to the federal government, including health care. This is not “nullification”, where South Carolina rejected a federal tariff law that was within Congress’ constitutional remit, it is a simple application of the federalist system itself.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Aarradin in reply to valleyforge. | November 10, 2011 at 10:24 am

      Here’s the Constitutional justification for it:

      THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. 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, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      Usually, whenever there are state and federal laws that are conflicting, the courts will nullify the state law.

      The problem, of course, is that most federal laws are unconstitutional – they deal with issues that, under the 10th Amendment, were to be left to the states. IMO, unless the federal law is dealing with something clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, then the courts *should* be resolving these conflicts by nullifying the federal law. Of course, they never do. FDR successfully bullied the Supreme Court. Wickard v Fillmore and cases based on it have resulted in such a massive expansion of the Commerce Clause that the 10th Amendment is meaningless.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend