Are you saying Obamas administration didnt apply some pressure to those states overtly or covertly....
You want me to prove or disprove the existence of "covert" pressure on Republican governors to set up healthcare exchanges?
Yeah, no. That burden is on you.
Cmon son...If the real difference according to you is the Threats or methods attempted to gain compliance then you really haven't disproved what i said...
Well, the "methods attempted to gain compliance" is what matters for purposes of the Tenth Amendment. So I guess if you think the Tenth Amendment is silly, cool. And no, that's not the only difference. The difference is in what the states were refusing to do and
why they were refusing to do it.
As a consequence of SCOTUS's decision on the Medicaid issue in
NFIB v. Sebelius, Republican governors intentionally refused to take additional Medicaid money for their own citizens
. In
King v. Burwell, the GOP's legal operatives argued that Obamacare tax credits were tied to whether or not a state-created exchange existed. So if a governor didn't want to set up a federal exchange, then nobody in their state got tax credits.
In both cases,
they were literally keeping money out of the hands of their own citizens' pockets because they wanted Obamacare to be a failure.
That's a far cry from strong-arming state and local law enforcement to go around and enforce federal immigration law, which directly hampers their ability to enforce state law because its a disincentive for illegal immigrants to report any crime to the cops.
But now theyre all for state nullification.....its a bizarre twist ...just admit it and stop reaching for straws
WTF are you talking about? "Nullification" is not the same as the Tenth Amendment anti-comandeering principle. Stop using words you don't understand.
Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia
.............................