A welcome spotlight on the AG election

Georgia’s next attorney general may have Thurbert Baker — and Barack Obama — to thank. Baker’s decision not to sue to overturn the new federal health law is bringing attention to the Georgia attorney general and the race to replace him.

“Generally, when you used to talk to folks,” says Sam Olens, a GOP candidate for the office, “the first comment you’d get back was, ‘Who is the AG and what does the AG do?’ They still don’t know everything the AG does, but they know [one thing] they want the AG to do.”

The controversy erupted last month after Congress passed the health bill and more than a dozen state attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue asked Baker, a Democrat who is also running for governor, to join the lawsuits but Baker refused.

Now Perdue plans to tap a special attorney general for the case, while Georgia legislators are pursuing both a resolution directing Baker to file suit and articles of impeachment based on his refusal.

All of which is putting an unusual spotlight on the AG race. It’s a welcome development for an important election that risked being lost in the shuffle as races for governor and Congress hogged the attention.

“Quite frankly, my concern initially as a candidate was the lack of attention paid to this race,” says Max Wood, another Republican in the running.

But since the Baker-GOP dust-up, “We have seen a surge of interest in this race,” Wood says. So much so that he thinks the attention will be “second only to the governor’s race.”

It’s too soon to say whom the extra exposure will help most, but Republicans and Democrats alike see some benefits.

“I think it’s going to help the candidates have a broader conversation about the role of the law department, and what kind of AG [the people] want,” says Democrat Rob Teilhet.

“We’ve not had that conversation since the ’40s,” he adds, referring to the fact that, in recent decades, the race has always included an incumbent either elected or appointed to the office by the governor.

So, now that Georgians are paying more attention to the race, what kind of attorney general do we want?

That may depend on events and whether ObamaCare is an isolated instance of Washington extending its authority further than many states will accept or just the first in a new wave of cases relating to federalism.

Wood thinks it’s the latter.

“I think this is the future, as long as Barack Obama’s president,” he says. “I think you’re going to see these kinds of showdowns [more often] because this guy is pushing the envelope of federal encroachment [further] or faster than any president since [Franklin] Roosevelt, and possibly more than Roosevelt.”

That speaks to one of the great themes in American politics today: the balance of power and authority between the feds and the states. Those of us who don’t desire a shift toward Washington need to understand that our next attorney general will play an active role in preserving a balance.

At the same time, activism of another kind — against businesses, in the name of consumers — could stunt our economic recovery every bit as much as bad tax policy. Consumers already have it better in this country than anywhere else, yet Washington is moving in an ever-more interventionist direction. The feds don’t need help from Georgia’s next AG.

These are worthwhile debates. Because of Baker and Obama, we’ll finally have them.

86 comments Add your comment

Michael H. Smith

April 2nd, 2010
7:24 pm

Mr. Wood is spot on. I’m going to look into him. The AG now more so than in past years is becoming a crucial elective office – not simply an important one – for the very reasons Mr. Wood cited. Federalism is something few understand and the importance of why the State’s have exclusive protected rights reserved to them under the tenth amendment of the Constitution, which the Federal government has no authority to re-negotiate, supersede, suspend or ignore. The Federal government has only the powers and authority the Constitution expressly grants to it and nothing more.

Scout

April 2nd, 2010
9:11 pm

Michael H. Smith:

“The Federal government has only the powers and authority the Constitution expressly grants to it and nothing more.”

I couldn’t agree with you more but the Surpeme Court of the United States has ruled otherwise through hook & crook and in violation of the 10th Amendment (usually evoking the Commerce Clause). Therefore, we have become a nation ruled by judicial oligarchy many times by one a margin of only 5 justices.

How we will ever get our Republic back the way it was meant to be is beyond me. I don’t think I will see it in my lifetime and it may unfortunately take a 2nd American Revolution to establish what we once had.

Jon

April 2nd, 2010
10:01 pm

So is the AG allowed to think for himself? Or is he just there to do what the governor tells him? If so, dump the election and just let the Governor appoint that position.

I don’t trust Obama, but I sure as hell don’t trust Sonny either…so if the AG position exists to act as a check on the state government, so be it.

Scout

April 2nd, 2010
11:54 pm

Kyle:

I’m trying to help you here partner but it’s pretty bad that so far only three people in the entire State of Georgia have taken the time to comment on your thread.

You are going to have to get some more provocative material …………………..

96 SC

April 2nd, 2010
11:57 pm

You stated that Baker refused to do Elmer Fudd’s bidding; however you failed to mention the reasons Baker gave for refusing the Idiot;s request. Each State has the ability to develop or not develop Health Plans e.c. Massachusetts did and now Boy Romney who crafted the Massachusett’s Plan is trying to disavow any association with the plan. BOY MITT’s response is typical of GOP Character and Integrity.

BS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2010
4:20 am

Impeach the AG and let loose the law suits of war!

BS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2010
4:21 am

Why am I up at 4 am ? zzzzzz……

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
7:20 am

So is the AG allowed to think for himself?

That is a rhetorical question in that the AG of Georgia is a constitutionally elected officer. The AG of Georgia answers to the people, “We the People” of Georgia not solely to the Governor. Here again, we our protected by check and balance – when our governor does not act then our AG can and vice versa – So be it.

You are right not to trust Obama in respects to his healthcare law specifically relating to the “commerce clause” on two points particularly, even if Gov. Purdue is not focused on them, he is right and acting right as the Governor in this case no matter what anyone thinks of him. The Federal Government has no Constitutional power to regulate commerce inside the jurisdiction of a State or to regulate the commerce of an individual citizen within the State. The Federal Government can only regulate commerce, as the clause declares, “AMONG THE STATES” i.e. “Interstate commerce” not “in-state-commerce” which is the right of the State.

Our State legislator to their credit recently affirmed that “in-state-commerce” right by passing in both houses a bill to permit the sale of health insurance policies from out of state in this State, which is regulated by the Insurance Commissioner of Georgia, another constitutionally elected officer who represents “We the People of Georgia” independent of the Governor. Again, another election that now becomes more crucial than ever before. Footnote: Though some people complained about this state not being able to regulate the commerce (i.e. insurance policies) of another state, their complaint was lodged against the wrong government. That grievance is germane to the Federal government via Article One Section Eight Clause Three.

In any event the constitutionality challenge of Obumercare will make it to the Supreme Court.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause

Morrus

April 3rd, 2010
8:13 am

Vote out the incumbents and start over

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
8:27 am

How we will ever get our Republic back the way it was meant to be is beyond me.

No it is not beyond you or any of the the rest of us, Scout. It was long ago decided, wherein we have abided, to have our revolutions continuously held at the ballot box from time to times specified, instead of in the timeless exchange of bullets upon the bloody fields of battle. If and when our ballots no longer avail us the protection from tyranny we seek, then and only then has the covenant between “We the People” and our government been broken.

This government, our government nor any other government, as it was declared before the eyes of a candid world, cannot exist without the consent of the governed.

VOTE, BABY, VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

jconservative

April 3rd, 2010
9:00 am

Interesting discussion re the commerce clause and states’ rights.

Speaking just to the AG decision not to join the other states in a suit, I believe that was the correct decision. All you need is one injured party for a suit. But the Governor will get his suit as it will be handled pro bono by a local law firm. And it will cost we taxpayers nothing, which is good in a time of disappearing budgets.
To me Baker made the economically correct decision.

The question is whether the Court will even agree to hear the case.
The Roberts court seems to be leaning on the side of expanding federal power as evidenced by recent decisions.

My guess is that they will hear the case as the Court is not immune to
public noise. And there is certainly a lot of noise on the issue.

But remember one thing, the Constitution says what the Court says it says.

Road Scholar

April 3rd, 2010
9:23 am

jconservative: Right on! This issue will not be determined by how many states or individuals file suit! It is not a popularity contest like some wish.

Scout: “How we will ever get our Republic back …” MHS said it best…Vote! Regardless of party! The Conservatives lost the last on…let’s see what happens… That is as long as the consevatives don’t start insisting that a persons right to vote is dependant on skin color, alledged inteligence, owning property, or how much one earns each year, as some have said in the past!

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
9:37 am

To me Baker made a political decision and nothing else. And on this we disagree: The Roberts court seems to be leaning on the side of expanding federal power as evidenced by recent decisions.

Public noise? A rather arrogant disrespectful way of saying the expression of the public’s will is a nuisance. The Court was never meant to be deaf or so disrespectful of the public voice.

While the law remains constantly in the jaw of the judge, as memory serves, that jaw nevertheless is not removed from the grasp of “We the People”.

Remember one other thing, the Constitution is amendable, difficult as it may be.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
9:48 am

Road Scholar, we would have to debate why the conservatives lost the last election. What is not debatable is that Obama was elected because of the economy not because Americans wanted his European style socialism to repeal and replace our “fettered capitalism” with his BIG GUB’MENT expanding its’ size, scope and power, as we have witnessed in as many days.

Scout

April 3rd, 2010
9:48 am

Michael H. Smith:

“If and when our ballots no longer avail us the protection from tyranny we seek, then and only then has the covenant between “We the People” and our government been broken.”

Good points but I took the oath four times ………. once in the military and three times in civilian life. It was always to the Constitution (not the President, the Congress or even the Surpeme Court).

Here’s the question our grandchildren will probably literally have to answer but I would like to hear yours.

At what point does our Constitution become so violated that “we the people” decide enough is enough? What government “act” (from any branch) would it take for you personally for that to happen? Can you give me an example?

Road Scholar

April 3rd, 2010
10:11 am

MKS: Good Morning and Happy Easter! Yes , as in the past we can agree to disagree. Not only was it the economy, but, in my opinion, it was because the John McCain we knew in the past was not the John McCain that ran in 2009. Also while Sarah P excited many on the left, the independants saw through her shallownwess.

We have heard many times the issue of the fed Govm’t expanding. as per your “with his BIG GUB’MENT expanding its’ size, scope and power,” Remember Pres Reagan ran on the same language and expanded government’s size, scope and power. The same has happened since then. With the way Ga has been run the last 8 years it is no wonder the feds have grown in control!

Every Demo that has run since the 60’s has been dubbed a socialist at some time, so it is not a surprise that Pres Obama is considered one! But at least he is smart, listens before he acts, and is in charge…

Where is the Repubs legislation on jobs, immigration, HC (oh yeah they supported many of the HC issues in the recently passed legislation), Wall Street/banking regulation etc.?

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
10:29 am

That point Scout is dangerously close. It’s in this sense I would have to answer your questions parallel to what Justice Potter Stewart said in regards to defining what is obscenity: You know when you see it.

I welcome as much as fear what the Supreme Court says in regards to Obumercare violating the “commerce clause” which will determine legal meanings of the tenth and fourteenth amendments.
When the Federal Government has the power to impose by its’ sole approval on a citizen the purchase of an item contrary to the free-moral will of that citizen by the force of law, the threshold I’m afraid has been crossed for me personally. However, I remain as constantly loyal to the oaths I’ve taken as a citizen of this country as you and must abide by whatever actions the majority of other citizens choose to take.

I’m urging every conservative and every moderately conservative voter to unite based upon our serious common principles and not be divided by our common less significant differences when voting this election year. If the Federal government can tell anyone of us what insurance we must buy or suffer a penalty, then the Federal Government has absolute tyrannical power. We must defeat every politician that voted for or supports ObamaCare.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
10:44 am

Where is the Repubs legislation on jobs, immigration, HC (oh yeah they supported many of the HC issues in the recently passed legislation), Wall Street/banking regulation etc.?

That is why the Republicans lost not why Obama won, silly as that may sound it is true. McCain represented more of the same even to many conservatives and moderates. As I told Rick Bade at the privately, when McCain is chosen as the Republican candidate he would see the first black President of the Unites States that was before Obama was nominated as the Democrats candidate, I might add.

Every Democrat since Woodrow Wilson has been socialist but none since Wilson has been as socialist to the extreme like Obama. He is smart in all the wrong ways and listens to what he wants to hear, then disregards the rest.

If my tea leaf reading skills are on par as they were with the election of Obama, then 2010 is going to be a very, very, bad year for the Democrats at the polls and not merely as a matter of historical consequence.

Chris Broe

April 3rd, 2010
11:08 am

Great article, Kyle. Fresh insight into the dangers using kid gloves against Big Gov.

However, lets be frank about the bill. The very constitutional grounds that allowed existing legislation to prevail for the insurance companies are the same constitutional grounds that will enforce the new legislation.

In other words,

The health insurers have traditionally lobbied 4 legislation that allowed them to deny claims for healthcare and then pay that idle money to their CEOs and shareholders. Nobody challenged the constitutionality of THOSE laws.

So if the new reform bill is unconstitutional, then so are the old laws.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
11:16 am

Nice try but not so. The constitutional contest is the Federal government’s authority to force a citizen to buy only what insurance the Federal government approves of or they shall face punishment under the law.

justin

April 3rd, 2010
11:16 am

I just got done having breakfast with Thurbert Baker and I can tell you right now that there are no grounds to impeach him on. If someone does not want to sue someone else, they do not have to. He is a democrat who is being directed by a republican governor to do something that he does not want to do. If he promotes the health care reform then thats great, but if he does not then he should not be impeached for doing so. Oh, and as of 8 AM this morning, the impeachment was annuled. Jwhite48@student.clayton.edu

Scout

April 3rd, 2010
11:40 am

Michael H. Smith:

Good answer but I still have some “specific” acts in my mind.

That said, what if the government forces us in the future to by life, liability and disability insurance …………… all in case something happens to us, our dependents would not be a burden on the taxpayer. If they can force us to purchase health insurance, they can do those also.

P.S. I pray to the Lord that I will never have to exercise a George Washington or Robert E. Lee moment. I cannot imagine the courage those men must have had.

However, there may soon come a day when literally millions of Americans refuse (hopefully through peaceful civil disobedience) to comply with some government edict. Mass nullification by the citizenry of a scope never yet seen in this country.

Why/when would that be necessary? When elected leaders refuse to obey the wishes of the electorate that voted them into office and we have already crossed that rubicon in my opinion.

CJ

April 3rd, 2010
11:41 am

That speaks to one of the great themes in American politics today: the balance of power and authority between the feds and the states. Those of us who don’t desire a shift toward Washington need to understand that our next attorney general will play an active role in preserving a balance.

Those of you who don’t desire a shift toward Washington…except when you do.
As usual, the hypocrisy is off the charts.

For example, the two major health care proposals of the Republicans—so-called tort reform and allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines—both require “shifting the balance of power” from the states. With regard to tort reform, the federal government would impose limits on non-compensatory damages for each state, thereby taking authority away from the states to establish their own limits. With regard to allowing health insurers to sell policies across state lines, the feds would bar the states from regulating insurance sold in their states if the insurer was based someplace else.

The old states’ rights rhetoric—recycled from the days of slavery, civil rights, and now health care—raises its ugly head when states seek to obstruct the advance of basic human decency; simultaneously ignored when advancing the cause of greed (e.g., tort reform/eliminating state regulation authority).

Gator Joe

April 3rd, 2010
1:03 pm

To quote you Republicans, Conservatives, and the Extreme Right: “Elections Matter”. Legally elected representatives enacted legal legislation, which was signed into law by a legally elected president. You all are constantly calling for tort reform to eliminate “frivilous lawsuits.” The lawsuits filed challenging the recently enacted healthcare legislation, are as good an example of a frivilous lawsuit as I can think of.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
1:17 pm

That said, what if the government forces us in the future to by life, liability and disability insurance …………… all in case something happens to us, our dependents would not be a burden on the taxpayer. If they can force us to purchase health insurance, they can do those also.

That was my point and the answer would be yes. All of that and anything else. Which would be a tyrannical powers.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
1:24 pm

As usual, the hypocrisy is off the charts, from the left.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
1:36 pm

Elections always matter, quoted or unquoted by whomever. As does the court which determines what is frivolous and what is constitutional when contest are brought before it.

Legally elected representatives enacting legal legislation, which was signed into law by a legally elected President, doesn’t make the law constitutional. Even when a law is constitutional under an article or amendment “We the People” can reverse that amendment, as it was in the case of prohibition.

vuduchld

April 3rd, 2010
1:36 pm

You pilgrims are hilarious! Your state can’t afford to buy a roll of recycled toilet paper, but you can find time and money to waste on a lost cause! You folks are silly beyond belief. I got a secret for you: NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FETISH WITH FEDERALISM! People are concerned with job creation, heatlh care and getting our nation back on track. If this all you’ve got poncho, then you’ve got nothing!! But since you near-do-wells have “succession fever” I suggest you do, maybe that will lighen the load for the rest of us carrying your pathetic, sorry state.

When will you idiots wake up and realize that President Obama is smarter, tougher, savvy and visionary than ANYONE you continue to prop up. Pisyah Jindal, McConnell (VA), Sanfraud, Palin and that lackey Romney, bring them on or any new idiot you annonit as “flavor of the moment”. It won’t matter, you plgrims are being exposed for what you were all along, quacks.

So, continue to flirt with your Federalism and bogus “conservative principles”. All you fools will be is left behind. Alexander Hamiltion is dead!!

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
1:48 pm

People are concerned with job creation. Might want to tell that to the socialist Democrats and Obumer.

Oops… too late. After wasting a year and a third on health care Americans don’t want, they have had enough of all the gibber-jabber and will vote on the living and the dead, politically speaking.

Scout

April 3rd, 2010
1:52 pm

Michael H. Smith @ 1:36

…………. or as was done with slavery or the right of women to vote.

The problem will come when “We the People” will be “forcefully” prohibited from doing what you describe in your above post. A time when those so drunk with power will not let the will of the people be manifested ……. even via a Constitutional Amendment.

This begs the question ………. how easy would it be for a “runaway” Supreme Court to simply rule that a new “Constitutional Amendment” conflicts with another “established” part of the Constitution and the new Amendment is therefore null & void upon arrival? A perfect example would be a Constituional Amendment protecting the right of the unborn to live.

I haven’t seen your handle on here much so I will provide you with this quotation (which the liberals are tired of seeing) regarding the Constitution. It’s the best one I have ever read and it shows exactly what is happening today ………….. the Constitution is being “usurped” for the so called “good” of health care …………………………..

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

George Washington

Scout

April 3rd, 2010
1:54 pm

vuduchld:

Wow, you really do have a bad case of “Messiahitis”. You should take something for that.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
2:29 pm

or as was done with slavery or the right of women to vote.

….yep, and in those cases “We the People” eventually got most of it right at least. Birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment still needs redress now that no one remains alive today that was born into slavery.

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

George Washington

In that Scout you have answered your own question in the words of America’s own version of Cincinnatus, George Washington. Hopefully it will not again lead to States’ declaring independence in destruction of the union. However, as a free people we have never forfeited the right to form a new government to replace a tyrannical one. In fact, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson it is said to be our duty – not only our right – to cast off such a government that founders of this country openly rebelled against.

Quit honestly it is far too early in our present affairs to seriously consider taking such radical actions, as we were cautioned by the founders never to change our laws or form of government for transient – whimsical reasons – causes. As stated before when our ballots are no longer honored only then has the covenant between “We the People” and our government been broken: Something which I doubt either of us will ever live long enough to see.

Fortunately, the 2010 election will be over by the time the Supreme Court decides to take up the case of ObumerCare. The Court will not ignore the outcome of that election and what it says nor shall Mr. Obumer.

Scout

April 3rd, 2010
3:32 pm

Michael H. Smith :

I agree you and I will probably not live to see it …….. but given enough time and knowing the human quest for corrupt power …………. it will.

P.S.

Just remember, if “Cincinnatus” had lost, he would have been hung and I doubt if you would ever have even remembered his name from your “Commonwealth” history book.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
3:53 pm

Hang together or hang separately…. unite or die from whence came don’t tread on me. A symbol that has resurfaced among the Tea Party movement.

They all would have hung, Scout: And we would likely be singing God Save the Queen! as her majesty’s now fifty colonies.

Tea Party Anger Reflects Mainstream Concerns

Tea party activists are surprisingly mainstream when it comes to their grievances about politics. They fit right in with most American voters who tell pollsters the country has been headed in the wrong direction under both Presidents Bush and Obama. A Pew poll in early March found 71% of Americans “dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today.” Republicans and Democrats in Congress have low ratings —23% and 31% approval respectively, according to Pew.

A Fox poll in February found that 59% say they don’t trust the federal government. A CNN poll the same month reported results that suggest 56% are well beyond mere mistrust: They agree that the federal government is “so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304252704575155942054483252.html

Ah, my good old fellow Americans, getting right to the gut of it, you haven’t failed me yet!

Linda

April 3rd, 2010
6:02 pm

The House passed the House bill last fall. The Senate, held hostage on Xmas Eve, finally had enough bribes to pass the Senate bill. Republicans won elections in Mass., NJ & VA. Brown was in opposition to the hc bill. As of 1/19/10, the Senate no longer had majority approval for the Senate bill. Several Democratic Senators regretted voting for the bill & would not have done so again. The House did not have a majority to vote for passage of the Senate bill & had planned to use the Slaughter language of deem & pass rather than taking an up or down vote.
The Democrats were prepared to send the health care bill to the President to be signed into law that, at the time, had NO majority support from EITHER the Senate OR the House, an unprecedented historical event, a bill which gave the fed. govt. control of another 1/6 of our economy, which also had no bipartisan support & was against the wishes of vast majority of the American people, & he was prepared to sign it.

Linda

April 3rd, 2010
6:05 pm

Since 1973, 2 generations of liberals have been claiming that the fed. govt. has no business telling women what to do with their bodies. Now, these same liberals are claiming that the fed. govt. has every right to tell every American what to do with their bodies.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
6:30 pm

Re-post of previous link to link current article by Juan Williams

Tea Party Anger Reflects Mainstream Concerns

Dissatisfaction with the economy and the country’s direction cuts across racial lines.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575155942054483252.html?mod=WSJ_comments_MoreIn_Opinion

Chris Broe

April 3rd, 2010
10:00 pm

The AG race will be fun 2 watch.

As we sally forth into a constitutional litmus test, and ask ourselves if the bill will rob peter 2 patch paul, mark my words: the summer will usher in a rally, and the economy will hop along, so by November, the chip will be off voters’ shoulders, and all these barbs about healthcare reform will wayne.

The GOP could be spending the last of their credibility with this spoiled brat tantrum over the new legislation. Watch them flip flop when they start sinking in the polls.

November’s election may be the biggest political surprise since Dewey and Truman. In the end, the economy elects our congress, so the markets are predicting a democratic landslide.

Don Wilson

April 3rd, 2010
10:27 pm

Mr. Smith,

I appreciate your comments regarding Max Wood. I do hope you will consider him as our next Attorney General.

In fairness though, I should share that I’ve volunteered my time in support of Max. I’ve done this, not for any personal gain, but because I know he has the credentials, character and conviction that are all needed for this office.

For you and others who would like to know more about Max, you can see a short speach he made today at the Cobb County Republican Party meeting. The website to see this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RABYxyzLrU&feature=autofb

Thank all of you for your consideration. I truly believe that, when you compare the other candidates for this office, you’ll agree with me that Mr. Wood is the best person for Georgia Attorney General.

Don Wilson
Cobb County, GA

vuduchld

April 3rd, 2010
11:43 pm

Scout @ !:54

You need to look at yourself in the mirror, Frankily, I don’t agree with all of President Obama’s policies. Case in point, his decision to drill in previously untouched parts of Alaska and the Atlantic. You however are a complete lemming shill for the Tea Begger movement and anything aganist “Odumma”. So who are you trying to fool, you’re a boot licking lackey of the dimwit right wing, especially in Jawja. I mean let’s face it, the policies you and that other dimwit, Kyle Wingnut promote is the reason why Jawja is in the sorry state it’s in now. So before calling me out look in the mirror and puke sheepie!!

Michael H. Smith

April 4th, 2010
5:47 am

You gotta love the emotional retorts. Chirp, chirp.

Michael H. Smith

April 4th, 2010
7:38 am

Thank you Mr. Wilson,

I’m glad you shared the video of Max Wood with us. I hope Max and his campaign will make full use of the Internet resources available to inform Georgia voters of important matters we all should consider before casting our ballots to elect Georgia’s next Attorney General.

Clearly Max knows why we have a tenth amendment in our Constitution and has the fortitude needed for the office. As much as States Rights have been misused by the States themselves to serve ill the name of good purpose, these rights particularly present times speaking, have been no less abused by the federal government to serve evil purpose, a good name.

I do find it strange how our President Obama speaks often of bottom up not top down governance, only to in practice govern from the top down, not bottom up. In fact, this reversal of ordered thinking in governing put into practice contrary to the articles and tenth amendment of the Constitution, is rather an infectious aliment all too often found in our Congress. Perhaps it is something in the water or air of Washington D.C. causes it, though, I rather suspect it has more to do with weak corruptible people who are unable to resist absorbing the intoxicant of unlimited power.

Thanks again Mr. Wilson and I hope to hear more from Mr. Wood on other issues of importance that he will have to pursue as Georgia’s next Attorney General.

No More Progressives!

April 4th, 2010
7:45 am

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
11:16 am
Nice try but not so. The constitutional contest is the Federal government’s authority to force a citizen to buy only what insurance the Federal government approves of or they shall face punishment under the law.

Reveled just this weekend, the O-Care bill exempts people “whose Religious beliefs prevent them from purchasing insurance.” Guess what Religion forbids the purchase of any type of insurance? Islam!!!

No More Progressives!

April 4th, 2010
7:51 am

Marine

April 4th, 2010
8:00 am

Lot of out of work lawyers must hang around here.

mike

April 4th, 2010
8:24 am

vudchild –

“Frankily, I don’t agree with all of President Obama’s policies. Case in point, his decision to drill in previously untouched parts of Alaska and the Atlantic. You however are a complete lemming shill for the Tea Begger movement and anything aganist “Odumma”. So who are you trying to fool, you’re a boot licking lackey of the dimwit right wing, especially in Jawja. I mean let’s face it, the policies you and that other dimwit, Kyle Wingnut promote is the reason why Jawja is in the sorry state it’s in now. So before calling me out look in the mirror and puke sheepie!!”

Ah yes. Another “tolerant” and “intellectual” liberal who is hateful, can’t spell and relies on name calling. Par for the course around here.

Michael H. Smith

April 4th, 2010
8:44 am

No More Progressives!

These carve-outs as they are being called are part of another constitutional contest in the making: One that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and in these religious cases case mentioned the 1st amendment as well. What is given to one must be given to all equally.

By the way, if anyone is interested in forming the new First Church of the Exempted, it should only require three members at most:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matt. 18:20

We cannot accept ObamaCare and must be exempted on the Ecclesiastical grounds of our Church. We shall live by faith(sole reliance) in God not Government mandated insurance.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17

See where I’m going with this?

You bethcha Tina Fey! (wink, wink)… Straight to the first amendment.

Happy Gospel Day

Michael H. Smith

April 4th, 2010
8:48 am

Lot of out of work lawyers must hang around here.

Yeah, and a lot more them will soon being come from Congress!

Mr T

April 4th, 2010
9:22 am

So let me get this straight. An Elected official in Georgia doesn’t see things Gov Sonny(or guy on Yellawood commercials) way and the redneck boobs are ready to impeach him! LMAO! You live in the Disneyland of Rethuglican Politics Wingnut. Only Texas would be more friendlier. You idiots are walking into a trap and you can’t see it. Health Care bill passed, Stimulus Bill JUST kicking in before elections later in year. You guys are threw(nation wide I don”t include Georgia since we are so far away from national pulse).. Thank God you landed in Georgia Wing Nut! You are preaching to the church! You realize that most of the country has moved on from Reagan! He was great when you were 10 but you werent paying bills bac then Wingnut!!!!!

Michael H. Smith

April 4th, 2010
9:31 am

Don’t ya love when things get so straightly screwed up.