From a Republican law maker in MN who is trying ban the mandated participation in the proposed overhaul of health coverage: “They’re essentially saying that state constitutions are meaningless, and I disagree,” he said. “And tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care? This is the essence of the debate.”
So, then, if the state's constitution trumps all, then why do these same people insist in a federal-level Defense of Marriage Act?
These sorts of contradictions drive me nuts but do not surprise me one iota.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Like those whom claim all right knowledge of the Bible message, what agrees with me is good. What doesn't can be ignored as it isn't exactly wrong, it just doesn't apply to this situation. sigh.
word is comeapet - how are your felines?
Post a Comment