FreedomWorks, a conservative political group that supports Tea Party causes, has set its sights on NC Speaker of the House Thom Tillis - who is running for US Senate.
"As Speaker of the House in the State House, Thom Tillis helped bring a bill to the floor that would've established an Obamacare exchange in North Carolina! And now he's running for Senate as an anti-Obamacare candidate. Talk about Turncoat Tillis.
While principled Conservatives were hard at work fighting Obama's job-killing health care takeover, Thom Tillis was working with Democrats to implement the law.
It's time we stop sending speineless, fake Conservatives to Washington."
This was posted on the FreedomWorks Facebook page. Perhaps not coincidentally, Tillis posted this message on HIS Facebook page:
Just back from shoveling the driveway with my son. Someone asked about nullification on another FB page. I thought I would share my response with you as well...
We cannot nullify something that has been deemed Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. Sadly, we lost that battle in the case of Obamacare. I've had my General Counsel and legal staff analyze every so-called nullification bill introduced by all other legislatures and they are nothing more than window dressing and, I believe, dishonest to those who believe they have the consequence intended. When I was sworn in as a House member I swore an oath to uphold the US and State Constitutions. Two particularly relevant sections to this discussion are:
"Sec. 4. Secession prohibited.
This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.
Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force."
I take this oath seriously. I subject every effort to resist the tyranny of President Obama to a legal assessment as to whether our State is on solid footing. In the case of various options to nullify the overreach of the federal government, we have not yet found one. We will continue to search for ways but in the meantime, our best hope is to win a republican majority in the US Senate and to hold Congress accountable for repealing laws and repairing the nation.
On a final note, I'm sure someone will say "But Colorado nullified the federal laws regarding pot. So there!" Not true. Colorado passed a law that is violation of federal law. They just happen to have a President and an Attorney General who seem to be okay with pot and, in my opinion (not confirmed with my legal counsel) they are guilty of breaking their oath to faithfully enforce the law. My guess is if we attempted to "nullify" Obamacare, they may be inclined to bring a suit and, sadly, I believe they would prevail. All we would have to show for would be dashed hopes, millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded legal bills, and lost time that could be spent on seeking viable, honest alternatives.
We cannot criticize the President for disobeying our laws and then offer plans that do the same even if it is for what we may believe is a righteous purpose. In America, the rule of law is sacrosanct. I must obey laws I do not like until I can find a way to legally and peacefully change them.
There are some candidates in the Primary who are far more studied than I am on the Constitution. I am at a loss for why they would advocate for measures they must know would be a violation of their oath of office. If they have specific legislation they believe could be successful, I encourage them to share it. The legislative Short Session begins on May 13th, and I'd be one of the first to sign on as a co-sponsor.
Respectfully, Thom T.
What do you think? Is it hypocritical to criticize President Obama for being lawless while at the same time refusing to follow the Affordable Care Act law?