Sharron Angle’s Pointless Crusade


Remember Sharron Angle, the extremist who managed to lose a senate seat to Harry Reid that the Republicans would likely have won with a more reasonable candidate? Well she’s back and trying to pass a constitutional amendment in Nevada to outlaw the state healthcare exchange set up under Obamacare.

Conservative activist and failed U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle filed an initiative petition Tuesday to outlaw health insurance exchanges in Nevada.

Angle, a crusader of conservative causes, filed the petition with the secretary of state’s office in Carson City. The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit state or local government entities from creating or maintaining a health exchange allowed for by the federal health care reform law.

Called the Healthcare Freedom Protection Act, backers will need to collect more than 101,000 signatures by June 17 to qualify for the ballot. Voters would then have to approve it in November and in the 2016 general election.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval opposed the health care reform law that requires everyone to have health insurance or face tax penalties. But he supported Nevada creating and operating its own online insurance marketplace for consumers to shop for and purchase insurance, saying it was in the state’s best interest to manage its own online portal than to cede control to the federal government, which would then bill the state.

And guess what? If it passes, it will do absolutely nothing because the federal government would just set one up themselves. Surprised? Don’t be. This is the woman who said during her senatorial campaign that people should just trade chickens to their doctors in exchange for health care.

Comments

  1. Jeremy Shaffer says

    This is the woman who said during her senatorial campaign that people should just trade chickens to their doctors in exchange for health care.

    I may be mistaken but I think that was Sue Lowden that made that winner of a suggestion. Angle was the “Second Amendment Remedies” lady.

  2. acroyear says

    State Constitutions are far too easily malleable.

    I do love how these particular types tend to go on and on about how sacred the U.S. Constitution is in ensuring Democracy, yet treat their own states’ documents as their personal toilet in making sure anything they don’t want is permanently codified (via a referendum that often only gets voted on by a minority of the state as a whole) as being beyond the power of legislation to even be allowed to vote on.

    When one uses ‘Democracy’ to crush even the possibility of democratic discussion and representative legislation, one totally doesn’t understand the word.

  3. reddiaperbaby1942 says

    Jeremy at #1 is right about Angle being the “Second Amendment Lady” — but even better, she’s the one who spoke the immortal words (paraphrasing from memory): “We need the press to be our friend. We need them to ask the questions we want to answer.” Or was it “the things we NEED to answer”? (She was furious at the media for reporting, accurately, some of the crazy things she had said.)

  4. Randomfactor says

    Of course, that’s not what it’s intended to do. Like the “bathroom privacy” initiative we’re sweating here in California, it’s designed to drive the right-wing whackos to the polls for the general elections.

  5. Michael Heath says

    acroyear writes:

    State Constitutions are far too easily malleable.

    I do love how these particular types tend to go on and on about how sacred the U.S. Constitution is in ensuring Democracy, yet treat their own states’ documents as their personal toilet in making sure anything they don’t want is permanently codified (via a referendum that often only gets voted on by a minority of the state as a whole) as being beyond the power of legislation to even be allowed to vote on.

    When one uses ‘Democracy’ to crush even the possibility of democratic discussion and representative legislation, one totally doesn’t understand the word.

    I don’t think you do either. We’re not a mere democracy but instead a liberal democracy; it’s critical we distinguish the difference rather than be either oblivious there’s more than approach to democracy or defectively conflate these two types. The state and federal constitutions are the check to protect the individual from the tyrannical tendencies of democracies. That and other checks and balances is what makes us a liberal democracy, e.g., individual access to the courts.

    In this case and contra your claim, Republicans are consistent when they argue for more democracy at the state level, i.e., easier to amend their state constitutions relative to the difficulty of amending the U.S. Constitution. This is a more democratic form government, not less. Pushing for more democracy the closer a government entity is to the people was once a viable argument, that as government becomes closer to the people, the majority will be less apt to encroach on the rights of their fellow citizens. This was the perspective of the framers. However the framers were demonstrably and wildly wrong, history since then teaches us that the national government is generally more inclined to protect individual rights, not the states when we look across the entire country.

    So yes, I agree state constitutions are far too easily amended. Precisely because it moves us away from a liberal democracy and into more of a democracy, where we now know we can’t trust majorities on many issues in many states; basically the confederate states but also purple states like Michigan and Pennslyvania.

    In the early-2000s, conservatives were very full of themselves and falsely perceived an emergent conservative majority. This had them pushing for a more democratic form of government, not less, though they also sought to undemocratically restrict voting rights of both the people and minority factions within legislatures so as always – GOP positions were incoherent and hypocritical.

  6. acroyear says

    I don’t think I’m that wrong. I’m just trying to point out what you also did: there is an inherent contradiction in the term when democracy as applied to a Constitution by referendum is being (ab)used to limit the democracy of the legislation and people (and the protections of our collective rights via the courts) subsequently.

    I respect (as our founders did) that a pure democracy,akin to Athens (our only real example in western history) is pragmatically impossible, not just because of the tyranny of majority and other abuses that follow, but also the inability of the people to truly be able to keep up with all of the issues that may be subject to vote. Hence, the Republic and representation.

    And this is even before the political manipulators take advantage of the fact that they can write up a law and present it in such a way that the final law as the courts would be required to interpret actually states almost the exact opposite of what the people thought they were voting for (e.g., the 2nd clause of the Ohio and Virginia same-sex marriage bans referendums is a very impressive piece of double-speak).

Leave a Reply