By Matt Holdridge
Two articles have recently appeared criticizing the concept of nullification or state interposition in regard to the health care debate, including comments by a former Reagan official.
From knoxnews.com:
“The notion that a state can just choose to opt out is just preposterous,” said former Reagan administration Solicitor General Charles Fried on National Public Radio this week. “One is left speechless by the absurdity of it.”
E.J. Dionne, Jr, a darling of Sunday morning political shows and not a fan of nullification, commented in the Washington Post,
Still, at least the quarrel over the mandate is about something relatively new. The old states’ rights argument, if successful, could upend years of federal legislation. Will we have a system where states can pick and choose among federal laws? We want our elderly to get Medicare, and give us more highway money, but forget this health-care expansion.
Dionne’s comment raises an interesting point that is said more bluntly in the knoxnews.com article about the consistency and resolve of state politicians pushing for various types of legislation or lawsuits regarding health care,
And so the play-acting goes. The politicians strut and fret their hour upon the stage, telling tales of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The fact that this is even being talked about or lightly pursued is a win to a degree. However, whether this resurgence in state sovereignty signifies anything will ultimately fall on our shoulders. Are we up for the task?