Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

2012 was the beginning of the end

I won’t lie, the November election was a stinging defeat for Republicans.  Only about 1 million more voters voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 than voted for John McCain in 2008, which is completely dumbfounding considering the polls leading up to the election and the state of the economy under Obama’s first term.  And that on top of the blow the Supreme Court gave to the American people which removed all pretense that government was the servant of the people.  Looking back over these last several months I’ve come to the realization that I simply do not recognize this country any longer.

We as a people are irredeemably envious of everyone around us, spoiled, materialistic, ignorant — of history, of principle, of human nature –, and simply deserve everything we get from this point forward.  We are all now slaves to government; a government that restricts and removes our rights and our privacy more and more each day.  A government that punishes success and rewards failure.  A government that divides us and sets one upon another.  And half of the country applauds and asks for more.  Our media lavishes praise on and proclaims the very cancer as the “second coming“.

Obama is no second coming, rather he’s the beginning of the end.  Obama’s ballyhooed change is all around us.  The economy hasn’t recovered from the recession and threat of a double dip is very real because those running the government today do not believe in the very economic forces that drive the economy.  Businesses all around the country have reacted and are cutting back the hours of their employees and converting full time jobs to part time jobs in order to skirt around Obamacare laws.  Action that will only exacerbate the economic troubles our country continues to face.  When combined with the reality of a dwindling workforce and its impact on entitlement spending and the national budget one can’t look at the state of our nation today and feel anything but a deep foreboding.


We are all slaves now

Today’s SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare’s Constitutionality is not only an affront to the very principles this nation was founded upon, but also the end of any illusion of freedom we had left.  As of today non individual in this country has any real control over the limit government now has on them.  As of today, we are a nation of slaves beholden to government.  As of today government is no longer “of the people, by the people, for the people”.  Today, government is master and can now legitimately rule our lives like it has never been able to do before.

I won’t bother commenting on the ruling itself, other than to say I am ashamed of Justices Kennedy and Roberts.  They swore to uphold the Constitution and did exactly the opposite today.  Our forefathers — Madison the least of which — which weap in shame at what was committed today.  What I did want to comment on, and particularly for the scurrilous Americans that voted for Obama, are the very likely unintended consequences of today’s ruling.  That slippery slope is a bitch, and I hope every single individual that voted for Obama tumbles right over it.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that Government can control what you eat, and can punish you if you do not adhere to the inevitable dietary regulations that are coming.  Don’t believe that’s possible?  Go talk to New York City and Boston.  Today the Supreme Court rules that government can control how much energy you consume, and can punish you if you you do not adhere to the inevitable restrictions that are coming.  Don’t believe that’s possible?  Go talk to the U.N., and the passel of lawmakers in states and the federal level that are working hand in hand to enact carbon taxes.  Today the Supreme Court ruled that Government has ultimate say in your healthcare and can punish you if you don’t adhere to the regulations.  Many of which are already in place.  Don’t believe that?  Go talk to the 43 Catholic Denominations that are currently suing the Government for trampling religious freedom.  Wait and see that its inevitable that rationing will occur.  As has been the case of every single nation that has implemented a national healthcare system.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that we are no longer a single people.  As of today we are “us” and “them”.  As of today we are a nation of mob rule; a nation in which those who pay no income taxes — some 50% of all working adults — make the rules under which the other 50% of adults who do pay income taxes have to live.  Its the ultimate socialist society in which the productive half of the country has to support themselves, along with those who are not productive.  And have zero say about it.

I see little reason why those individuals who do not believe in our founding principles should enjoy the very system those principles created.  Tell me why we Conservatives should not, from this moment forth, use the very tactics of the left to defeat them.  If we are not a nation of principles and laws, why should we not also actively attack Democrats?  Why should we not intrude upon the homes and work places of Democrats?  Why should we not destroy the property of Democrats?  Why should we not perpetrate voting fraud to ensure our candidates win?  Why should we not practice intimidation?

Oh you fools, you know not what you did today.

Obama is so smart we can’t understand him?

Seriously?  This is what the administration wants us to know regarding the President’s outlandish statements on the Supreme Court recently?  President Obama — a Constitutional Law Professor — wants the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and instead wants them to look toward politics when judging law?  Do we understand that correctly Mr. President?  Funny how Democrats want the Supreme Court to look to the law regarding other favored categories, such as Abortion, Title IX, Segregation, and a litnany of other liberal hot button issues. 

No Mr. President, we understood you precisely prior to all of your recent back tracking.  Hypocritical much?

Categories: Law, Politics Tags: , ,

Hayden Panettiere, meet the Founding Fathers

September 20, 2011 Leave a comment

Last Sunday, as it turns out. was Hayden Panettiere day in Washington D.C..  Evidently Ms. Panettiere’s contributions to the city have been such that they wanted to honor her.  What were those contributions, you ask?  Calling attention to Washington D.C.’s “unjust plight“.  You see, Washington D.C. — the very seat of our national government — is not a State of this union, but is instead a federal district.  A district, purposely constructed in such a manner, so as not to stand any State above another and to ensure the federal government would in no way be subservient to any State government.  And despite the careful and considered opinions of our country’s forefathers, Ms. Panettiere believes she understands the issues better than the very individuals who crafted our union in the first place.  According to Ms. Panettiere, among others, believes that Washington D.C. should be a State in its own right, with full voting powers in the United States Congress.  Despite what the Constitution says, of course (hint, see Art 1, section 8).

But just reading the pertinent passage in the Constitution doesn’t give you the detail you might want to understand why the Founding Fathers established the seat of federal government in the fashion they did.  For that you but need read Madison’s Treatise on the matter.  Madison, after all, was the “Father of the Constitution“?  One would think he would have a grasp on such lofty principles.  Yet, even after reading it most still might not understand.  Prior to 1913 the States appointed their Senators, but with the ratification of the 17th Amendment Senators would from that point forward be elected by popular vote.  The original intent of the Founding Fathers was that Senators were the representatives of their States, whereas the Representatives were the people’s representatives.  So as to ensure Congress was not unduly influenced, or at the behest of a State, the Federal government would have it’s own seat.  Congress changed one of the Constitution’s balancing principles, and it’s served as one of the forces that has tipped the balance of power away from the States toward the Federal government.  There was, of course, also the little issue of an insurrection in 1783 that weighed heavily on those crafting our union.

Of course the issue of statehood is not new, and Ms. Panettiere is just the latest celebrity or popular figure  to endorse the measure.  Despite numerous previous attempts at changing the intent of the founding fathers, Individuals like Ms. Panettiere who have no understanding of our Constitution or the intent of its many passages, keep trying.

Repeal of Obamacare will be hard but Republican leaders are playing it sly

September 20, 2010 Leave a comment

I realize the Politico article was written specifically about what a Republican Congress intended to do to repeal Obamacare, and how it could go about it.  But I dislike pieces like this because it only tells half the story.  Indeed, there is a very long row to walk before we could get to total repeal, but there are also some extraordinary circumstances on the Republican side that will help along the way.  The little detail that Obamacare is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down in whole, or in part, by the Supreme Court.  And everyone knows the Republicans are playing both sides of the fence on this one.  Or more accurately, some Republicans are.  Neither of which is addressed in the piece.

Many of the top Republican leaders will do the bare minimum to repeal Obamacare in order to appease the Tea Partiers, yet will not take the hard stance of making it into a knock-down, drag-out fight on the floor of the House and Senate.  Instead they’re waiting for the Supreme Court to do the real dirty work for them.  If it’s over-turned outright they get to crow about how they stood firm in the face of a President who hasn’t a clue what our nation stands for.  And if its struck down only in part, they can reassess and work from there.  It’s pragmatic yet cowardly in my view considering the out-pouring of anger that it and unlimited spending and debt have uncovered.

Permeating and perpetuating this cowardice is the Republican party’s desire to be “liked”.  The party as a whole realizes the main stream media will never give us a fair shake in a debate and that often colors not only the actions we take, but the words we choose to describe our actions.  Better off would we all be if we got over it already and stopped playing nice.  Have we learned nothing from the Democrats?  They’re not the least interested in playing nice with us and compromising, so why are we?

In fact the Democrats have shined the light on a lesson we should be learning.  Politics is no longer about right and wrong, or principle.  It’s about numbers and nothing more.  It’s long past time we got in their proverbial faces and simply did what we thought we ought, instead of what we thought we could get away with.  If after two years our Republican leaders haven’t seen into the heart of the Tea Party movement and understood it for what it is, they don’t deserve to be our leaders.  If they also think they can tip-toe around Obamacare and a Presidential agenda that at its core is all about the systematic destruction of an entire way of life, then not only do they not deserve to be called our leaders, they don’t deserve to be in Washington at all. 

We want real conviction.  We want real steel.  You’ve heard us, now act.

Stupak to retire

Yet another Democrat has walked the plank.  Stupak, however, was instrumental in the final days of the healthcare debate as his group of 12 was whittled down to 6.  And an “agreement” between his group of ostensibly pro-life Democrats and the Administration regarding use of federal funds for abortion coverage ultimately turned the tide.  His group provided the final needed votes that passed healthcare reform. 

Since the vote Stupak has been under intense pressure and his reelection to office was in grave doubt.  On Wednesday he hinted that he would forgo the fight and retire and today he is reporting he will indeed do that.  The pressure he’s been under is specifically related to the “deal” struck with the administration had President Obama sign an executive order that “clarified” the administration’s view on the use of federal funds for abortion.  The problem with that of course is that while executive orders can often have the weight of law, when they run directly afoul of actual laws they have no impact.  In this case there is specific language in the Healthcare reform law detailing how funds are to be used for abortion.  And that language erects a shell-game.  Specifically the law:

  • Establish a mechanism for permitting the funding of elective abortions by private health plans that receive federal subsidies in the form of premium tax credits. The bill creates a policy of segregating funds that presumptively keeps the premium payment for the overall plan separate from a premium of not less than $1 per month per subscriber that pays for elective abortions. All enrollees in these plans would be required to make both types of premium payments, irrespective of age, sex, or family status.
  • Directly appropriate $7 billion over five years in operating funds for FQHCs. Because these funds would not need to be included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Labor and HHS, and because the underlying statute includes no limitation on abortion funding, these funds—as well as $1.5 billion in appropriations for the National Health Service Corps and $1.5 billion for FQHC construction and renovation—could be used to pay directly for elective abortions and to expand abortion facilities.
  • Require OPM to contract with private insurers to offer at least two multi-state health insurance plans in each state. By law, at least one of these plans must exclude abortion coverage, but OPM will have discretion to organize and promote the other multi-state plan so that it includes elective abortion coverage. This multi-state plan would be governed by the same “segregation of funds” device that would oblige every enrollee in these plans to pay not less than $1 per month for abortion coverage. This abortion premium would be executed by check or even a separate monthly payroll deduction for abortion.
  • Leave to the discretion of HHS whether a mandate for “preventative services” for women under the bill could be interpreted to include elective abortions. Efforts to include language clarifying that this does not include abortion were rebuffed.
  • Leave unanswered whether its non-preemption provisions include state laws on abortion beyond those specifically enumerated in the bill. State laws on abortion funding and parental notification and consent are specifically protected from preemption. The Senate bill is silent on whether it could be construed to preempt these state laws regarding such topics as late-term abortions.
  • Stupak and his group knew all this of course, but because of the intense pressure being exerted on them to vote with the majority they needed a veil — however thin — to cover them.  Unfortunately for them the public saw through it and Stupak had little hope of winning reelection in a region barely won by Obama in 2008.

    I knew this was coming

    I linked to the story last week, then Illinois Representative Hare made his now infamous statement that he “doesn’t worry about the Constitution”.  I knew that statement was going to grace numerous print and television adds in the upcoming election cycle.  Viola.

    Nothing says it better that what he said.  This is exactly the difference between Conservatives and Liberals right here:

    I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest…

    Liberals care about the Constitution when they want to, and don’t care about it when it stands in their way.  If that is the mentality of the left, then ask yourself what kind of political social compact we really have.  If we, in effect, have no compact and the rule of law means nothing then the country had better be wary because that is very likely to haunt us all over the long-term.

    In the immediate term, Liberals should not expect their interests to be preserved if they are not willing to preserve the interests of Conservatives.  Social compact, or compact be damned.  Decide.

    %d bloggers like this: