Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All the worse because he basically agreed with Sandra Fluke when he was governor of Massachusetts. 

According to Mitt, he was never Governor of Massachusetts.

How could he have been?  His home state is Michigan, where the trees are the right size.  And he should know, since Romney is an expert on rightsizing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney really had a Sister Souljah moment here to appeal to independents and women, and he blew it. Even self-admitted Romney-hack Mike Murphy agreed on MTP this morning that Romney failed to show any courage here

Romney has not won the nomination yet. Romney won't need a Sister Souljah moment because, unlike Democrats circa 1992, the furthest right elements of the Republican base will be toning down their tone-deaf ways soon enough.

  Just as they did in 2008?  The tone-deaf idiots of both left and right don't turn their volume down when its general election time.  Quite the reverse in fact.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

So it becomes a question of whether or not this falls within the taxation power, which is what we all knew it was anyway. Politico should have said so from the beginning rather than using this kind of rhetoric.

What rhetoric are you referring to?

If some states want Obamacare, let them have it. But to force it upon states that do not want it is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will decide soon enough.

To interpret that as pro-nullification rhetoric requires either stupidity or dishonesty since having the Supreme Court decide what is Constitutional is the complete opposite of nullification.