Sen. Rand Paul Reacts to SCOTUS Ruling on Obamacare: "This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare"

From Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) office: 

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CockGobbla||

    And the President Rand Paul has in mind?...OH, SHIT! MITT ROMNEY!

    Fucking god bless america.

  • WWNGD?||

    Of course, electing the big government liberal you don't like is better than the big government liberal you don't like that is currently in office.

  • Cloudbusting||

    I'm officially depressed.

  • dunkel||

    Foist?

  • dunkel||

    ...nope

  • Sudden||

    Faust.

    He wants us forced into the Faustian bargain.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Good thing the GOP elected a candidate to run who has stood against government run healthcare from the beginning. Someone whose small government credentials are beyond reproach. He will surely ride the wave of anti-ObamaTax feeling into the White House in November.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I mean imagine if they had instead chosen the guy who laid the blueprint for ObamaTax. That decision would look really stupid right now.

  • Joe R.||

    I picked a hell of a week to quit drinking.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Jim Beam ounces of discouragement thrown back by a freedom-minded teetotaler would likely bring a split-second twinkle to the eye of Liberty as it nears the precipice of its End Times.

  • Cloudbusting||

    I just laughed a very sad laugh.

  • Brendan||

    In a way, this mindset isn't that different then the other side.

    I fully understand Romney was in favor of mandates and all sorts of onerous restrictions in Massachusetts.

    This doesn't automatically mean he's in favor of a federal version. If had any brains, he might realize that the concept of state sovereignty is what allowed MA to choose to do their health care this way.

    A person can support a comprehensive state run education system without supporting federal involvement in education.

    We'll see if Romney has any integrity on the issue of limited government as it pertains to the federal government.

  • JilliBrown||

    Pretty wishy washy Brendan, unless you don't require principles and convictions are important.

    romney also can't run against "obamacare" mandate based on it being a tax either because Romney explicitly sold his Massachusetts mandate as a tax enforced through a tax penalty.

    He can't run against it on the basis of the 10th amendment either his objections to Obamacare previously had been rooted in the 10th amendment. He didn't have a problem with Obamacare in Massachusetts—he called it Romneycare.

    During the primary he claimed that he opposed Obamacare because it was unconstitutional. Well, it's not. So now he's coming up with new reasons to be against it because, well, he has to be against it or his tea party masters will rebel against him.

    Any way you look at it, it's pretty thin guel. It just depends on how low your standards are I guess.

  • Brendan||

    No. One can support a state doing something that AND simultaneously oppose the federal government doing that same thing to all states.

    "Romneycare" can be a tax in Massachusetts and a MA governor can support that while also opposing the same thing be done at the federal level.

    I can support my state having it's own crazy comprehensive education system while also opposing the federal government's attempts to do the same thing to all states.

    I can support my state taxing something and oppose the federal government implementing the same tax on everyone.

    What are you saying here? I think you missed a word:"He can't run against it on the basis of the 10th amendment either his objections to Obamacare previously had been rooted in the 10th amendment."

    Do you mean he can't be against Obamacare on 10th amendment grounds because his previous objections were NOT rooted in the 10th amendment?

  • CE||

    Too bad the primary voters didn't look at the actual records of the various governors seeking the nomination, and pick Johnson over Romney.... Luckily, they'll both still be on the ballot in November....

  • mr simple||

    It will destroy our health care system.

    No way! Now we'll finally get a good a healthcare system as Cuba!

  • benji||

    He's switching his endorsement to Gary Johnson?

  • CockGobbla||

    We should send a T-800, model 101 back in time to protect the young Gary Johnson.

  • ||

    This isn't going to happen. Obamacare is not going to be repealed. The sheep/serfs have been bought off. And fucks like us who think this is a tragedy and basically the end of the American Experiment of limited government are going to be made to look like vicious traitors of the country.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But polls show most people hate this thing.

  • ||

    I don't think "most people" have a fucking clue as to what is going on in government at the federal level. All they know are the bullet points from either Fox or MSNBC.

  • JilliBrown||

    Most folks don't know what's in the legislation, nows their time to learn the facts not the hyperbolic hooey the right has been peddling like government takeovers and death panels.

    recent polling showed that the public was pretty evenly split between those who would be happy, upset, or have mixed emotions if the legislation was deem unconstitutional. there's room to win over those who weren't informed enough - those with mixed feelings. this decision may do more to turn the tide to greater favorability especially since the republicans have no viable replacement plans.

  • ||

    Considering that most Americans are learning about an impending tax increase, I highly doubt they'll suddenly find they "favor" the legislation if they opposed it before.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Actually, if you look at the actual data, disapproval of the law is highly correlated with knowledge of it and approval is highly negatively correlated.

  • CE||

    That ship sailed and sank a long time ago.

  • Apostate Jew||

    "It will destroy our health care system."

    Because it was like super-awesome before.

    Color me nonplussed, senator.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's just going to finish what Medicare and Medicaid started.

  • db||

    Angling for a VP slot on strong public opposition to OCare? It would be nice to have a Paul as President of the Senate.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Uh, except the Rethuglicans just lost the presidential election today.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ?

  • ||

    I think it much more likely that this will slightly strengthen Mitt's chances. Unfortunately.

    A strikedown of the mandate would have been a fantastic marketing gift to the Obama campaign. As it stands, there are no big winners.

  • robc||

    He wants to be president, not VP. And with only 2 years in the Senate, he doesnt have the record to be president yet. Running for Veep would be stupid.

  • db||

    You're probably right. Better to spend 4 years building credentials and relationships and a reputation with national voters. He could come in as a VP candidate for Romney's 2nd term or the presidential candidate against Obama's democratic successor, depending on wo wins this Novemeber.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He wants to be president, not VP. And with only 2 years in the Senate, he doesnt have the record to be president yet.

    Oh really? Which president signed this bill into law?

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. I don't know why anyone would want to be the VP candidate for the Republicans. You get to stand on stage with Joe Biden for debates and remind the whole world that you're running for an office currently occupied by Joe Biden. Sure you look better than Joe, but you're saying that's your level.

  • JilliBrown||

    You're kidding right db? If not, seek help.

  • db||

    Only if you pay for the treatment.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Unfortunately Rand, the asshole YOU ENDORSED will not be in favor of repealing it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    CITATION?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Is a citation a penalty or a tax?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

  • Flyover Country||

    Except Obama is going to get pounded on his claim (lie) that the mandate would not increase taxes on the middle class:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....not-a-tax/

  • JilliBrown||

    You're arguing semantics not substance. the tax applies to those choosing to remain uninsured, you know, the ones whose health care bills you're currently paying for.

  • db||

    Ah, so it is a tax on the poor and unemployed?

  • ||

    Most of the "uninsured" are self-insuring and we're not paying their healthcare bills.

    If that is the real concern, it would have been so much cheaper to lay down a .1% tax give a credit on money spent on health care.

    No, the whole point of this law was to buy off private companies and increase federal power at the expense of citizens and the states.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Don't fret too much Reasoners, there is some good news.

    I found a little market hidden away in one of pittsburgh's many small neighborhoods that has an honest to goodness, real life butcher. Bought a test variety of meats yesterday to compare against the big stores. I bought some of their site made hot sausage and ground beef. I also picked up a filet.

    So far I have only tried the ground beef. Made some burgers on the grill last night and they were very good, everybody was pleased. I noticed that when I was making them the meat smelled like meat, not of old blood as the stuff from grocery store often does.

    Think I'll try the filet and sausages either today or tomorrow. The steaks there looked amazing; thick, marbled, good color, etc. And all the stuff I bought was 25-40% cheaper than the grocery store, can't beat that.

  • db||

    Where?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Brighton Heights. Here's the website with a link to a map. Awesome place with very friendly workers(it was nice not to be treated like a burden as when you go to Giant Eagle).

    Cheap too, man. I bought a filet, three big hot sausages, a couple pounds of ground beef, chips and buns for $25.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Don't let the neighborhood scare you away; it's not that bad there. Breadworks is very close to there so that's another reason to make the journey. They have good deals on bulk purchases; so good that I'm considering buying a chest freezer.

  • db||

    Cool. It's not near where I live but Dr. Girlfriend sometimes comes home via 65. It's also not too far from Neville Island, where I occasionally spend time working.

  • Bee Tagger||

    How's it compare to places at the Strip District (if there are any)?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've only been to one butcher in the strip (can't remember the name) and the meats were of comparable quality but at a higher price in the strip.

    The vendors in the strip seem to have caught on to the fact that a good portion of their clientele is upper-middle class foodies willing to pay premium prices. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that you're not going to find good deals on premium meats.

    Now for salamis and various italian meats Parma sausage cannot be beat regardless of price. Same with Wiess for corned beef and pastrami. I'd take wiess' meats over any new york brand any day of the week; they're that good.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Great info. Thanks.

    Just picked up some prosciutto at Penn Mac last weekend to make these: Porkitos

    I don't have any other places to compare it to but it tasted great to me.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh my, that's a wonderful thing there.

    I just got back from the store but I may have to go out again to pick up some prosciutto.
    ------------

    I forgot about penn mac. They too are awesome for all things italian.

  • Pagan Priestess||

    That's awesome Nekkid Fighter Man. My grandma used to be a small time butcher. It was a thing of beauty to watch her turn a buck strapped to the hood of someone's truck into a pile of neatly wrapped venison steaks, roasts, and sausages. I miss her.

  • General Butt Naked||

    A good butcher is like an artist. They'll make a steak so pretty that you almost feel bad cooking and eating it. Almost.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Logic requires food. You are furthering a machine of beauty. I'm 1250 miles from this- this deviation from Rand Paul reacts to SCOTUS, but physical distance is no barrier to my hungry imagination, kind sir.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Also, alt-text. Almost missed it in my scotch-fueled rage.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    What alt-text?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If Rand gets his wish, eventually Team Blue will have to do everything in their power to elect a Team Blue president and Senate.

    Which is as it should be. Neither Team should compromise by way of helping one another win points.

  • JilliBrown||

    Good lord...Rand Paul is an idiot with the intellectual maturity of a spoiled 7 year old.

  • CE||

    What's the over/under on new Senators being elected this time? 3? 2?

    And how many of them will be an improvement?

  • Huh.||

    “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

    He's kidding, right? Nobody could be that stupid as to say that.

  • JilliBrown||

    Rand Paul obviously is that stupid. Surprised?

  • ||

    He's saying that even the Supreme Court can get it wrong.

    Pretty sure that's what the left has been saying about Citizen's United and all the other decisions they've opposed.

  • Metazoan||

    No, no, that's different.

  • RemainCalm||

    Carpetbagger Rand Spawn of Ron needs to check with his high school social studies teacher about his claim abotu what is constitutional. We read the words and decide what we agree with and what we don't agree with, based on our personal comprehension of the text of U.S. Constitution. But the phrase "constitutional" pretty much means "as decided by the courts." The Constitution provides for a series of courts including the Supreme Court and those courts decide what is and isn’t congruent with the Constitution. It's a bit of a closed loop. We can change the Constitution via the procedures in Article Five, or elect better representatives and executives who will appoint/confirm better judges.

  • ex0du5||

    Very strange. Laws can impose a tax on income. That is constitutional. Laws can provide for tax breaks when an individual has satisfied certain criteria (like purchasing something). That is constitutional. But somehow levying a tax that has a corresponding tax break when you purchase health care is unconstitutional, the end of society, etc.?

    As a libertarian who truly believes that legitimate government is defensive government, I am appalled at all these so-called libertarians who oppose government run health care. A government rightly defends against harm with a military, but at some magical size of organism, suddenly protection becomes a socialist nightmare? So very sad. Healthcare obeys all of the classical reasons for libertarian rightful defensive action of government, including universality of applicability and an obvious economy of scale.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "A government rightly defends against harm with a military"

    Well-worn semantics. I'm willing to bet the 'A' here is the U.S. so let's just cut to the chase. In the last 100 years we've expended several hundred thousand lives and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars 'defending' our 'ideals'... yet, here we are DESTROYING the fabric of the Open Society THROUGH militaristic endeavors which are so far-reaching and totalitarian a bright HAS to wonder what the FUCK are we defending ourselves from.

    When one avoids the ideologue game pragmatism forces the cognition to consider realities of governance rather than the ideals and fuzzy concepts perpetuated by the various circles of 'loving' and protective friends.

    There is no stretch in assuming that Universal Health Care (however well-meaning) will likely require its own multi-million dollar public relations arm JUST to create false perceptions that society can longer exist without its government health care, in spite of the realities that this government health care will squander billions, INCREASE government arrogance, LOWER medical accountability (since when is the government accountable for ANYTHING) and I'm just getting started.

    Our corrupt, abusive, arrogant, degenerate, power-hungry, belligerent, LYING, and non-responsive government is the BEST option for those in medical need?

    I'm reminded of the desire of many to trust in a 'loving' god. Leftist Progressives trust in their 'loving' gov.

  • blackomne||

    Vote the SOB out with the rest of them. He did not vote when it was before congress the first time. If he didn't have an opinion then why should he have one now...

    http://www.opencongress.org/pe.....on2=412492

  • Bill Dalasio||

    HE WASN'T IN OFFICE when it was before Congress the first time!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement