Yet, even after a considerably more conservative House Republican Caucus rejected a similar bill last year, Representative Joseph Haveman (RINO - Holland) introduced House Bill 4111 on January 29, 2013.  As far as I can tell, the logic behind this bill was that, since ObamaCare is going to be implemented anyway, we might as well "handle it" at the state level, else the feds will dictate this to us.

You fools!  Do you honestly think that our benevolent federal overlords will actually allow the states to negotiate terms when it's federal money that will be funding this process?  Have you ever seen one instance where federal dollars came without strings attached?  When have you ever known the federal government to be a good faith partner with the states in regard to federal programs?

As I pointed out in my dissection of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision, the federal government does not have the authority to force either the exchanges or the Medicaid expansion on the states; the states themselves must voluntarily sign on.  The plain language of the Supremacy Clause actually protects the states here, as federal law and treaties must first be constitutional for supremacy to attach.  Thus, state legislatures have the authority to neuter ObamaCare by merely refusing the technology expansion and Medicaid expansion.  "The States are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it."

Nullification, pure and simple.  No matter how the feds try to spin it otherwise, the PPACA doesn't provide them with the independent authority to set up the exchanges.  The states can shut down ObamaCare by simply saying, "no."  If we're that damn hot to set up an exchange, then we should find the money in the state budget.  (This, of course, would mean either raising taxes, or cutting spending elsewhere, or raiding the rainy-day fund.)  You'd have thought that the point was made last year with the dust-up over the Senate version of the bill that was subsequently killed in the house.

Two big, bold, waving-in-the-breeze red flags should have been: (a) that the Governor is relying on democrat votes to pass a bill that he's personally advocating, and (b) that the federal grant contract to implement this technology expansion is considered a classified document until after the Governor signs the bill.  (Does "we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" sound at all familiar?)  Either of those two should have been an indicator that there was a snake in the woodpile somewhere.  That means, of course, that we need to get in touch with our state senators, and stay in their ears on this.  I can believe that Richardville & Co. will try to pass this at some point before the next recess (the rumor is that they're going to try it today), and all we need are 20 "no" votes to shut this down.  We don't even need the "no" votes to be republican.  Scott Dianda (D-110, Calumet) established that there are some democrats who will vote against ObamaCare, given the right reasons.

So that we can make their names known, what follows is a list of the 29 "republican" representatives who voted "yes" on House Roll Call # 11 to approve 2013 House Bill 11:

• Bolger, Jase (District 69, Marshall):  Termed-out
  
• Callton, Mike (District 87, Nashville):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Crawford, Hugh (District 38, Novi):  Termed-out
  
• Denby, Cindy (District 47, Fowlerville):  Termed-out.  Nick, please tell us that you're not okay with her vote.
  
• Forlini, Anthony (District 24, Harrison Township):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Foster, Frank (District 107, Pellston):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Glardon, Ben (District 85, Owosso):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Haines, Gail (District 43, Waterford):  Termed-out
  
• Haveman, Joseph (District 90, Holland):  Termed-out.  This is the slimeball who introduced this bill.  Word is that he was promised a job on Snyder's second-term administration in exchange for pushing this bill.  He needs to be singled out for "special attention" . . . to the point of political emasculation.
  
• Heise, Kurt (District 20, Plymouth):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Jacobsen, Bradford (District 46, Oxford):  Eligible for re-election in 2014
  
• Kesto, Klint (District 39, Commerce Township):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  This was the one republican State House pickup in the 2012 election cycle.
  
• Kowall, Eileen (District 44, White Lake):  Termed-out
  
• Lori, Matt (District 59, Constantine):  Termed-out
  
• Lyons, Lisa (District 86, Alto):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  A primary challenger has already been recruited.  For some goofy reason, CPAC is listing her as a featured speaker this year, as a "rising star" within the conservative movement . . . somebody needs to make a phone call.
  
• MacGregor, Peter (District 73, Rockford):  Eligible for re-election in 2014, but is planning to vacate this seat in order to run for Mark Jansen's senate vacancy (District 28).  A primary challenger has already been recruited either way.
  
• MacMaster, Greg (District 105, Kewadin):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  I understand that the Northern Michigan Liberty Alliance is already recruiting and bankrolling a primary challenger.
  
• McCready, Michael (District 40, Bloomfield Hills):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.
  
• Pagel, David (District 78, Berrien Springs):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.
  
• Poleski, Earl (District 64, Jackson):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.
  
• Potvin, Phil (District 102, Cadillac):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  If I still lived in Cadillac, I'd primary him myself.
  
• Price, Amanda (District 89, Holland):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  Mr. Chiodo, what say the Ottawa County Patriots about this?
  
• Pscholka, Al (District 79, Stevensville):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.
  
• Rogers, Bill (District 42, Brighton):  Termed-out
  
• Schmidt, Wayne (District 104, Traverse City):  Termed-out.  Jason, your back yard . . . sic `im.
  
• Stamas, Jim (District 98, Midland):  Termed-out
  
• VerHeulen, Rob (District 74, Walker):  Eligible for re-election in 2014.  This guy was informed repeatedly by iCaucus to vote "no" . . . he didn't listen, and a primary challenger has already been recruited.  Further, the logistics of a recall campaign are being worked out as we speak.
  
• Walsh, John (District 19, Livonia):  Termed-out
  
• Zorn, Dale (District 56, Ida):  Eligible for re-election in 2014

One state representative defended his "yes" vote in a district office hours meeting the following day.  One fallacy he tried to use was along the lines of balancing his right-to-work vote against this one.  To echo the tea party leader who responded, no, the RTW vote does not give you a free pass to blow it on another scorecard vote.  If the liberty movement still gives a damn next year, they still can't deliver elections with a disengaged and disgusted public.  Whoring out your principles and destroying the party brand with your voting record pretty much guarantees that the conservative base will sit 2014 out.  Let's see you defend your legislative majorities, executive offices, and Public Act 348 of 2012 then.

As I said a few days ago, the liberty movement in Michigan is populated by people who are "principles first," and are loyal to a political party only to the extent that the party in question supports those principles.  They're not afraid of teaching their current party-of-choice an election year lesson for the purpose of making a point.  (That teaching method is going to be a bit more complex than simply sitting 2014 out, but that's another topic for another day.)  The liberty movement has also noticed that the only member of the "republican leadership" who's actually speaking against HB-4111 is the Attorney General who's spent the better part of his first term thus far fighting ObamaCare at every turn, and a National Committeeman who's perfectly comfortable with primarying every single legislator who casts a "yes" vote to implement the exchanges.

That same grassroots network is also curious as to whom Justice David F. Viviano is, and just how suspicious we should be that his appointment occurred during the dust-up preceding the House vote on the ObamaCare Exchange, that there was nary a peep out of the statewide media network about this, and that it, like House Roll Call 11, was conveniently timed to occur after the state convention.  He's going to have to stand for citizen ratification in 2014, and he might want to start making his case to the grassroots now . . . and often.  As it stands, the GoverNerd's brand is damaged (whether he realizes it or not), so asking the statewide electorate to just ratify the appointment isn't likely to sail well if the liberty movement comes gunning for the chair.

It's also been pointed out that there's a useful third-party option for those members of the liberty movement in Michigan who are serious about walking away from a political party that's turned its back on their principles.  If the State Senate does concur with 2013-HB-4111 (as last year's Senate Roll Call # 663 indicates is likely), then that trickle is going to become a flood in a hurry.  Given that the refugees will likely be well more than enough to form a "critical mass" presence, and given that the duly elected leadership of that third party has made it clear that they're open to the experience that these refugees will bring with them in terms of campaign organizing and political infrastructure, and intend to integrate that knowledge base as fast as possible into their 2014 efforts . . . the rhinoceros party won't have to worry about primary challengers; what they'll have to worry about is 42 vulnerable state legislative seats, in both chambers, being flipped by a third-party presence capable of pulling votes from both sides of an increasingly hazy political aisle that no longer reliably separates the "big two" parties.

A third-party revolt happened once in Michigan, permanently changing the national political landscape.  Given the issues and principles driving the current situation, are the blueblood elites really willing to risk it happening a second time?  We'll know by the end of the week, perhaps as early as a few hours from now.