It was debated for an entire year. It overcame a GOP filibuster. It was signed into law. It survived at least 33 repeal attempts. It won a Supreme Court challenge. Its namesake was re-elected president.

But at least one Republican isn’t ready to accept defeat on Obamacare just yet.

Appearing on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Weekly radio show, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) discussed a new constitutional amendment he has introduced to outlaw Obamacare. Called the “Right To Refuse” Amendment, Palazzo’s idea is to enshrine in the Constitution that “it’s unconstitutional to force an American citizen to purchase a product or be taxed,” thus undermining the individual mandate that’s central to ensuring universal health insurance through Obamacare.

PALLAZZO: We’ve dubbed it the Right To Refuse Amendment. With the Supreme Court coming in and actually saying that they can actually tax Americans for refusing to purchase a product, there’s a lot of people out there, an overwhelming majority of the people, who still think that’s unconstitutional, or it’s unfair, or it’s a violation of their personal liberties or their individual rights. So what we did with help from a young man named Marshall Thomas in my office, who is my legislative counselor, we’ve crafted some legislation that is basically a constitutional amendment to say it’s unconstitutional to force an American citizen to purchase a product or be taxed. It’s that simple.

If undermining 30 million Americans’ health insurance isn’t enough, Palazzo’s amendment would completely rework the scope of federal power. There is simply nothing novel about the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most people either carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes. The tax code gives tax breaks to people who take out mortgages or who buy products making their homes more energy efficient. A law giving tax breaks to people who buy health insurance — which is what the Affordable Care Act does — is no different.

Yesterday, the Kentucky Senate overwhelmingly approved an unconstitutional bill forbidding the enforcement of new federal gun safety laws:

Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created on or after January 1, 2013, including any amendment or other change made after January 1, 2013, to a preexisting federal law, rule, regulation, or order, shall be unenforceable within the borders of Kentucky if the law, rule, regulation, order, amendment, or other change attempts to:

(a) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory; or

(b) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.

Nullification, the Nineteenth Century idea that states can simply declare federal laws invalid, cannot be squared with the Constitution’s declaration that federal law “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Yet the sponsor of this unconstitutional bill, state Sen. Jared Carpenter (R-KY), claims that he can make an end-run around the Constitution because the command that duly-enacted federal law are supreme over state law “applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.”

Even if it were true, however, that bans on assault rifles and large capacity magazines and other proposed federal reforms are unconstitutional — and it is not true — that still does not mean that Kentucky has the unilateral power to declare something unconstitutional and therefore invalid within the state’s borders. Indeed, if Kentucky did have the power Carpenter claims, there would be nothing preventing it from declaring any law unconstitutional, regardless of what the Constitution has to say about it.

Giving states such a power would, in the words of James Madison, “speedily put an end to the Union itself.”

Late last week, police arrested a man for allegedly sending threatening messages to Colorado state Rep. Rhonda Fields (D), a supporter of gun safety laws featured in a recent ThinkProgress video. Fields sponsored bills banning high-capacity magazines in Colorado and requiring universal background checks for gun sales and transfers.

According to police, a man named Franklin Sain sent six emails, one voicemail and one written letter to Fields that were riddled with obscenities, racial slurs, sexist language and violent threats:

“I guarantee there is not enough law enforcement or military to stop an all-out overthrow of this government if you or that n—– president tries to take our guns,” one e-mail dated Feb. 13 reads. “Guarantee we will make World War I and II look like child’s play, many will die. Be prepared.”

Another e-mail expresses hope that someone would “Giffords” both Fields and Rep. Beth McCann, a reference to the 2011 mass shooting that nearly killed Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.

The paper letter attributed to Sain states, “There will be blood! I’m coming for you, n—– b—–.” . . . “Limiting magazine sizes is stupid and will not work,” he wrote on Feb. 13. “I for one have 100+ 30 round mags and 150 round drums. I will never give those up and I am far from being some whack job.”

In an email to Fields the following day, Sain wrote: “I ordered a ton of new 30 round magazines today C***bag…go f*** yourself and your new law…we won’t abide by it…C*** N*****.”

Before she joined the legislature, Fields’ own son was shot and killed as he waited to testify against a gang member.

A liberal super PAC in Kentucky is on the defensive after recently sending a racist tweet attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) wife for being Chinese.

McConnell, running for reelection in 2014, is married to former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan after her family fled mainland China during the Chinese Civil War. One super PAC dedicated to defeating McConnell, Progress Kentucky, has spent months relentlessly hammering the Republican on outsourcing.

However, on February 14, they took the matter a step further and sent the following tweet impugning McConnell’s wife’s heritage as an explanation for why Kentucky jobs have been outsourced:

This woman has the ear of @mcconnellpress — she’s his #wife.May explain why your job moved to #China! rense.com/general77/raci…

— Progress Kentucky (@ProgressKy) February 14, 2013

Progress Kentucky spokesman Curtis Morrison issued the following statement to WFPL on the matter: “It’s not an official statement. It’s a Tweet. And we will remove it if it’s wrong.” Nearly two weeks later, though, the offending tweet has not been deleted.

There are a number of reasons why jobs in the United States have been outsourced, from inevitable globalization forces to corporate tax breaks that reward shipping jobs overseas. McConnell’s wife’s ancestry is not one of them. There are also legitimate reasons to criticize Chao’s tenure as Labor Secretary; her heritage has nothing to do with them.

Unfortunately, xenophobic anti-Chinese messages have become a staple in modern campaigns. The last two election cycles alone have featured racist ads from Republicans, Democrats, and anti-spending front groups. Perhaps the most egregious was an ad from Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) in a 2011 special election depicting a heavily-accented Chinese news anchor in the near-future reporting on how American debt led to Chinese army marching in front of the U.S. Capitol as it flies the Chinese flag.

Last week, the administration of Florida Atlantic University raised eyebrows when officials announced that they had sold the naming rights to the school’s new football stadium to the GEO Group, the nation’s second-largest private prison company.

And students aren’t taking the deal lying down. On Monday afternoon, dozens of activists staged a sit-in inside university President Mary Jo Saunders’ office demanding FAU revoke their agreement with GEO Group. After two hours, Saunders agreed to schedule a public meeting with the university community, according to the Palm Beach Post:

After some negotiations, Saunders emerged from her office for a brief meeting with the protesters, who have accused the GEO Group of human rights violations at its facilities, some of which are in Florida.

“I don’t know everything about this company,” Saunders conceded, but she also indicated that she thought some of the accusations against the firm were untrue.

Earlier about 100 persons attended a demonstration at a different spot on campus against the university’s decision accept GEO Group’s money.

Reaction to the news last week was swift and overwhelmingly critical. GEO Group is one of the nation’s largest private prison companies, a leader of an industry rife with corruption and greed. Like other private prison companies, GEO Group profits handsomely by detaining people in often unsafe, unhealthy facilities at an enormous expense to taxpayers.

The GEO Group’s CEO George Zoley is an FAU alum, and the company is based in Boca Raton, Florida, one mile away from the FAU campus.

The photograph is from FAU student magazine the University Press, who were tweeting the protests throughout the day on Monday.

We do not have to guess what the states currently subject to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act will do if the Supreme Court grants their wish to have that provision declared unconstitutional — top Republicans in those states have already told us. In a brief filed last August, Republican attorneys general from six of the states covered, at least in part, by Section 5 of the Voting Right Act complained that this landmark legislation is all that stands between them and implementing a common method of disenfranchising minority voters. Two of those states, South Carolina and Texas, admit that the Voting Rights Act stopped them from implementing a voter suppression law their governors already signed.

Of course, the voter suppression law at issue here are so-called “voter ID” provisions that require voters to present photo ID at the polls. Their supporters clam publicly that these laws are needed to prevent voter fraud at the polls, but this claim is absurd. Voters are more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud. A study of Wisconsin voters found that just 0.00023 percent of votes are the product of such fraud.

What these laws do accomplish is disenfranchisement; even conservative estimates suggest that they prevent 2 to 3 percent of registered voters from casting a ballot. This voter disenfranchisement is particularly pronounced among low-income voters, students and — a fact that is particularly salient for any discussion of the Voting Rights Act — racial minorities.

The Voting Rights Act, of course, protects against laws that expose minority voters to greater burdens than other voters. Section 5, the provision that the Supreme Court will consider tomorrow, requires parts of the country that have historically engaged in voter suppression to “pre-clear” any new voting laws with the Justice Department or a federal court in DC to make sure they do not impose racial burdens. Thus, voter suppression laws such as voter ID can be blocked before an election is held, preventing officials from being elected to office by an electorate that has been unlawfully culled of minority voters.
Read more

Some words and symbols are so commonplace it seems impossible a company could claim exclusive rights to them. Christianity’s central figure might be one of them.

But according to the U.S. Patent And Trademark Office, Jesus Jeans has owned the word “Jesus” since 2007. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Italian company owned by BasicNet has fended off similarly named clothing startups ever since, though it is somewhat more charitable to churches.

The Wall Street Journal’s Jacob Gersham profiles how Jesus Jeans protects its original image:

Before taking on Jesus Surfed, Jesus Jeans objected to “Jesus First,” “Sweet Jesus,” and “Jesus Couture,” among others, which abandoned their trademark efforts. In some cases, when met with resistance, Jesus Jeans warned that it could sue for damages.

Attorneys for Jesus Jeans say they are just trying to protect the value of their brand—no different from Nike’s claim over the winged goddess of victory.

“If somebody—small church or even a big church—wants to use ‘Jesus’ for printing a few T-shirts, we don’t care,” said Domenico Sindico, the general counsel for intellectual property at BasicNet SpA, a publicly traded company based in Turin, Italy, that owns Jesus Jeans and the Kappa sportswear brand.

But when companies like Mr. Anton’s seek to commercialize their products, “that’s a concern,” he said.

It is unlikely that Jesus Jeans actually has a lawful claim to a monopoly on the name “Jesus.” As a federal judge explained in a decision holding that Walmart does not own the trademark to a yellow smiley face, trademarks only cover “distinctive” marks. Thus, a common name like “Jesus” could only be trademarked if it became “associated in the minds of the public with the products or services offered by the proprietor of the mark.” We’re going to go out on a limb and say that when most people hear the name “Jesus,” they associate it with something other than blue jeans.

Nevertheless, for most small businesses, there is little hope of matching larger corporations in intellectual property battles, even when it is over a 2000-year-old figure. The mere threat of an expensive lawsuit can be enough to force small companies to back down.

A Republican congressman wants to impeach Harry Reid, and he might’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling laws preventing Congress from impeaching senators.

Speaking last week to the Mifflin County Tea Party, Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) seethed with anger about budget negotiations between the House and the Senate. His preferred solution to the impasse: impeach the Democratic Senate Majority Leader:

MARINO: I’ve made a suggestion that we should at least start talking about impeachment. I had my office staff do it. But we cannot find anything that permits the House to bring impeachment proceedings against Harry Reid. There’s nothing in the legislation we can find at this point to force him to vote or come up with a budget or anything like that. His membership in the Senate can call for a vote of “no confidence,” but we can’t even get a Republican senator to do that.

Watch it:

The Constitution permits senators to be expelled by a 2/3s vote of the Senate, but this is likely the sole remedy against a member of Congress their fellow lawmakers wish to remove. In 1796, Sen. William Blount joined a conspiracy to assist Great Britain in seizing Spanish territory in Louisiana and Florida, and was eventually impeached for his role in this conspiracy. Although the Senate expelled him, a majority of Blount’s former colleagues voted that they lacked jurisdiction to hear his impeachment. This precedent is often cited as establishing that members of Congress are not subject to impeachment, only expulsion.

This isn’t the first time Marino has floated impeachment as the cudgel for his preferred policies. During his initial congressional campaign in 2010, Marino said he would be willing to use “impeachment if necessary” against President Obama in order to increase border security.