May 2

“Save Your Rights” Marks Its 2nd Anniversary

We have just finished our second year of presenting you with information and opinions on issues relating to attacks by our government on our rights, freedoms and way of life as intended and established by our Founding Fathers. These past 27 months under the ideologically radical, intellectually dishonest, corrupt, arrogant, racist and abjectly incompetent Obama Administration have been among the worst (excluding the Civil War) in our nation's history.

Even worse than the Carter's years.

We have a "president" who shows an unmistakable and perpetual disdain for our country and a majority of its citizens (which has been on display internationally). His actions have consistently been geared to weakening us economically and militarily and to reducing us to a non-exceptional and middling nation in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Domestically, he has relentlessly sought to abrogate our rights, freedoms and choices often by resorting to unconstitutional or fringe means and regulations that frequently make use of his hand-picked radical, anti-American and often Marxist czars and far-left infested government agencies. These are imposed against the will of the people - US!

These are the signs and manifestations of tyranny and MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.

Obama, as well as those in his Administration, in Congress and elsewhere who seek to negate our rights like that which occurred in the old Soviet Union through the Politburo, must be vehemently and vociferously opposed and either neutralized or removed from office or government positions.

Information is power and we must use it to Save Our Rights!

Thank you for your continued support ... and spread the word.


Print This Post Print This Post
Apr 19

Legal Thoughts on Obamacare and Other Ramifications

The following article elucidates the cited issues challenging the constitutionality of the Obamacare legislation and provides supportive legal history/cases bolstering this position. His argument is quite cogent and may serve as an appetizer for the argued positions when the States’ case is ultimately heard by the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this case can be considered to be a watershed one that can serve to vanquish and turn back the tide of ever expanding federal government insinuation and encroachment into our daily activities. Thus, if it is struck down by the Supreme Court, this defeat may very well be the Waterloo of the Progressive agenda.

ObamaCare: The 28th Amendment?
Roger D. Luchs    April 17, 2011

ObamaCare is under assault, and properly so, because it tramples on enumerated constitutional rights of individuals and the states.  Given President Obama's predilection, it must also be viewed as his most aggressive effort to date to recast the Constitution to empower the Federal government to inject itself into areas of everyday life from which it has been fenced off since its inception.

In a 2001 interview, Obama expressed frustration that the Constitution was framed as a "limiting" document rather than an "empowering" document.  He understands that there is simply no prospect of amending it to bestow on Congress and him substantially broader authority to regulate broad sectors of the private economy.  His sole option, then, is to convince the public that 225 years of constitutional jurisprudence is wrong or outdated.

ObamaCare is his opening salvo for making his case.  No doubt there are more than a few liberal judges who will back him up.  Some have already ruled in Obama's favor.  If Obama succeeds even in only small part in recasting the Constitution as transferring powers to the central government beyond those expressly identified therein, then, to Obama and his liberal allies, it will be seen, to borrow a phrase, as "the  end of the beginning" rather than "the beginning of the end."

Obama knows better, of course, which is why he said what he did in his 2001 interview.  He can't change history, as much as he'd like to try, so he hopes to erase it from people's memories so over time, it is replaced with "progressive" reading of the Constitution.  Facts, however, are stubborn things.

The colonies ceded to the newly-established Federal government only those powers they agreed among themselves would benefit the separate states, collectively.  The Tenth Amendment reserved to the states those many powers not expressly ceded.  The Bill of Rights was adopted to ensure that the Federal government could not infringe on the liberties the Revolution was fought to restore and preserve.  Citizens of the colonies, and later of the territories, agreed to this arrangement with the understanding that the states and the Federal government would honor what was a set of covenants among them, which all agreed to honor so the nation would succeed.  The Civil War was fought, in part, because to the Southern states, the North, when it elected Lincoln, signaled its willingness to violate that compact, by changing one of the key terms to which it had agreed to obtain Southern participation in the union.  The Civil War, once concluded, was followed by several amendments which extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to state governments.

Though the Civil War brought forth a "new nation," by destroying the institution of slavery, and causing the amendment of the Constitution to protect freedoms of newly-liberated citizens, in all other respects, it reverted to what it was originally intended to be, i.e., a compact that ceded to the Federal government only those powers that would enable the nation to take on the character of a unified assemblage of willing actors.  Although in the New Deal, its powers were broadened, neither Roosevelt nor succeeding presidents sought to recast the fundamental nature of the Constitution.

Those states which have already challenged ObamaCare have focused, in part, on the Tenth Amendment's preservation of state power over those realms of governance and regulation not expressly ceded to the Federal government. Historically, each state has exercised sovereign authority over the conduct of the insurance business within its borders.  Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that certain aspects of the insurance business were subject to the Commerce Clause and, therefore, the sovereignty of the states to regulate insurance within their respected borders could be preempted by Congress, in its regulation of interstate commerce, Congress rebelled.  It overrode the Court's ruling, by enacting legislation reaffirming the sovereignty of the states over the insurance business, except as specified in the statute.[1]  Absent a change in that law, then, the President's ability to infringe upon and override state sovereignty over insurance business conducted within the states' respective borders is minimal.  ObamaCare, nevertheless, includes several mandates to insurers which arguably exceed the Federal government's powers to regulate insurance.  However, those pale in comparison to the individual mandate.

It is that mandate that most clearly signals Obama's intent to "rewrite" the Constitution to dispense with its fundamental character.  The mandate implicates the Bill of Rights' guarantee that persons may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  Obama, in this regard, must be creative, because his mandate infringes upon the same right of privacy liberals fought for years to establish, in order to afford women a constitutional right to abortion.  It seems self-evident that if that right inhibits the Federal and state governments from intruding upon a woman's choice, then it also protects women, and men, from government interference in their choices affecting their personal physical and mental well-being.

ObamaCare's guiding principle, however, is not paternalism.  It is about the government's power to identify "public uses," as contemplated by the Fifth Amendment, and then compel unwilling individuals to engage in conduct that would, in the government's view, advance such uses.  Requiring someone to buy health insurance from a private insurer is no different, in kind, from forcing New London, Connecticut property owners to sell their land to a private development authority established by the city, so that it could devote that property to more "productive" uses.[2]  In the case of ObamaCare, the "public use" contemplated is a Federally- controlled, all encompassing healthcare system that would compel the citizenry to purchase insurance, to facilitate the government's exercise of control over how they make use of the healthcare system, which comprises about 16% of the private economy.  It is a means to achieving a Federally-prescribed end.

However unjust the circumstances in Ms. Kelo's case, at least the Fifth Amendment ensured that she would receive "just compensation". The Constitution expressly recognizes the doctrine of eminent domain, though that is an ancient doctrine founded on the principle that real property belongs to its owners, and they may not be compelled by government to part with it, except under limited circumstances, and for a fair price.

Anyone forced to buy health insurance will also be compelled to part with private property, i.e., private wealth, but unlike in Kelo, what he receives in return is what the government instructs him to receive, i.e. insurance from a private insurer, the content of which will be regulated, to some extent, by the Federal government. It is fair to ask, if the Constitution required amendment to authorize a Federal income tax which taxpayers must pay to avoid punishment, why should an amendment not also be a prerequisite to the implementation of ObamaCare?

If there is any doubt about government's power to compel ordinary citizens to engage in conduct mandated by the Federal government, one need only look at Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of Federal rent control statutes to allay such doubt.  Rent control, and its intersection with Constitutional rights, was taken up in challenges to rent control statutes enacted in World War I and World War II.  In two precedential decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws were constitutional, because they were adopted as temporary measures, enacted by Congress in the exercise of its police power, to meet the exigencies of  the pending wars.

In its decisions,  the Court, both implicitly and explicitly, focused on provisions in each statute that carved out an exception for property owners who wanted to remove their properties from the rental market.  Each statute reserved to this right to landlords, even if they did so solely to avoid being subjected to Federal regulation.  In the decision upholding the World War I statute,  Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, commented that "there comes a point at which the police power ceases and leaves only that of eminent domain."[3]  Applying this same reasoning to ObamaCare, anyone forced to purchase health insurance will find himself entangled in the Federal regulatory scheme that will accompany that law's implementation, but, unlike government-imposed rent control, without any viable way to escape participation.

It is no answer that ObamaCare offers the  uninsured  a choice, i.e. the option to  pay a fine in lieu of mandated  health insurance.  Under the doctrine of eminent domain, there is no "option" to pay a fine in lieu of selling one's property to the government, but the government must pay the property owner the value of his property and the property owner may use that payment as he wishes.   Under ObamaCare, the government will pay the involuntary purchaser nothing in exchange for forcing him to buy health insurance.  The uninsured's choice, then, falls somewhere  between Scylla and Charybdis.

Beyond this, the Eighth Amendment, which bars "cruel and unusual punishments," contains a separate provision which raises an additional doubts about ObamaCare's constitutionality.  That provision prohibits government from imposing "excessive fines."  This language was included to prevent the arbitrary use of what in feudal times were known as amercements, employed by the crown to punish those who offended the king, or violated the king's law.  Amercements had sometimes been used to ruin people financially.  Because ObamaCare's fines are intended as punishment for those who refuse to buy health insurance, they too, may be excessive, at least in some instances.  Absent a binding court ruling in which it is held that the statutory fines may be imposed uniformly, they are ostensibly subject to review on a case by case basis.  It is doubtful that the blanket imposition of more than a token fine without regard to each person's circumstances can withstand judicial scrutiny, except, of course, by liberal judges who are indifferent to the merits of challenges to ObamaCare's constitutionality.

To Obama and his fellow "progressives", it is too much to ask that the compact upon which the nation was founded should stand in their way.  The Administration and the political movement it represents are intent on changing the rules of the game for all times, and not just to legitimize ObamaCare.  If they succeed, over two centuries of jurisprudence consistent with the Founders' intent will be replaced by a new jurisprudence that leaves the Constitution, as drafted and originally adopted, just dust in the wind.  Over generations, any understanding of the framers' original intent will gradually fade into the background.

But properly and aggressively challenged, ObamaCare could become this century's Hindenburg.  If it does crash and burn, there is little doubt that whatever takes its place will have to heed the limits on government's power set by the Constitution.  If fully informed, the public will expect, and demand, no less.
[1]   United States Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993)

[2]   Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

[3]   Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154(1921).  The World War II law is addressed in Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944).  ("There is no requirement that the apartments in question be used for purposes which bring them under the Act.")


Print This Post Print This Post
Apr 4

Congressional Republicans Are Seeking A Balanced Budget Amendment

Congressional Republicans are continuing a welcomed pattern of pursuing fiscal responsibility by the federal government – just what the voters charged them to do. Their political counterparts and their ideological antithesis, the Democrats, instead are plotting to sabotage talks on federal spending and speciously blame and attack the Republicans. Their philosophy is that there can really never be too much spending.

Prudently, the Republicans are resurrecting the idea of a balanced budget amendment in order to force restraint in spending and taxation. They are conflating ideas from the past with new ones to create a Constitutional Amendment that will facilitate this.

In the end, they will irrefutably show that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint so that the taxpayers can keep more of what they earn and all of us can enjoy a higher standard of living.

Budget Balance By Law
Investor’s Business Daily   03/28/2011

Fiscal Policy: The balanced budget amendment idea has lain dormant for years. But Republicans are bringing it back. In a day when runaway spending is running away faster than ever, we need a mechanism to rein it in.

GOP leaders expect in the next two weeks to introduce to the public a balanced budget amendment that they believe will fix the profound debt and deficit problems that lawmakers have created for the taxpayers. Done correctly, a balanced budget amendment might do just that.

Congressional Republicans had planned to announce their intention to amend the Constitution in the middle of the month, but decided to wait for a few weeks until they could come up with a bill they could all support.

Once lawmakers have agreed to a piece of legislation, the GOP will go public with it — and the promise is the process will be highly transparent.

In other words, Congress won't have to pass the amendment before everyone finds out what's in it.

"We will have a genuine rollout," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, guaranteed Human Events, "so the American people can know what we're doing and they can call, and email, and fax, and demand their senators and congressmen support it and create a true grass-roots effort."

While there are competing versions of the balanced budget amendment among Republican lawmakers, Human Events reported last week that the likely final version of the amendment will:

• Cap spending at 18% of GDP. Under President Obama, spending has soared to 23.8% (fiscal 2010) and 24.7% (current fiscal year) of GDP.

• Allow federal spending to exceed federal revenue only when two-thirds of both chambers approve a specific dollar amount beyond government income.

• Prohibit tax hikes to balance the budget unless two-thirds in both chambers vote to override the limitation. The significance of this can't be overstated. Any amendment that enforces a balanced budget without such a restraint would only make matters worse. A large number of Democrats and a few soft Republicans would be giddy at the prospect of endlessly raising taxes.

• Require increases in the debt limit to be approved by three-fifths of both chambers.

• Force the president to submit a balanced budget each year to Congress.

In return for allowing the debt ceiling to exceed its current $14.2 trillion threshold, the GOP is demanding that Congress vote on a balanced budget amendment.

Should Republicans get their vote, and two-thirds of each chamber approve the amendment, it will go to the state legislatures. It must then be ratified in three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

To get it through the House, Republicans will need help from Democrats. Their 49-seat majority does not reach the two-thirds level required to approve an amendment. But a balanced budget amendment bill introduced this year by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has 215 co-sponsors, with 13 Democrats among them.

The GOP will also need help from Democrats, who have 51 of the 100 seats, to move it through the Senate. With votes from all 47 Republicans, the amendment will have to attract support from 20 Democrats.

While the numbers would indicate that passage in the Senate is unlikely, the prospect isn't entirely hopeless. Human Events notes that there are four Democrats who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 1997 who still serve in the Senate.

Democratic Sens. Mark Udall — who has offered his own balanced budget amendment — and Claire McCaskill — who has pushed for a 20.6% of GDP cap on spending — are two others who might vote for another balanced budget amendment.

But even if it gets hung up in one or both chambers, Cornyn still believes that the balanced budget amendment will at least be a useful guide to politics.

"I think the voters would know," he told Human Events, "with very stark clarity, who is for a balanced budget and who is not."

Typically all anyone needs to know about where a politician stands on a balanced budget is party affiliation. But maybe the shocking behavior of the Obama spending machine will clear up some Democrats' thinking. For those who refuse to learn, there are the elections of 2012.


Print This Post Print This Post
Mar 13

The Straight White American Male Forced To Bear the Burdens of Institutionalized, Goverment Mandated Preferences

With the insidious infusion of affirmative action and victimization ideology into government policy and law and then collaterally into many areas of the private sector, a rampant state of oppression and discrimination has manifested itself. And it continues to noxiously grow.

What are we talking about?

It is discrimination against the white male of the heterosexual variety.

Big time!

Over time there has been a plethora of discriminating set asides, quotas and other diversity preferences for jobs, schooling, loans, housing, etc.: first for blacks, then other minorities; then women; followed by gay and lesbians and then transgendered. The only group left out of these unconstitutional preferences and the one bearing the full brunt of these institutionalized practices is the straight white male.

This is a reprehensible situation that should not be allowed to persist or exist. It is far more pervasive and discriminatory than most people realize.

The costs of these policies are extremely high, both to the victims and to society. Ultimately we all benefit when the person selected for a position, job or admissions to school is the best one and not the one of politically correct color, religion, sex or sexual preference.

The White Man's Burden
Robin of Berkeley March 09, 2011

I was just filling out an application to be a provider for an insurance panel. And one of the questions they ask is, "Are you a GLBT-owned business?"

GLBT means gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. I rolled my eyes when I saw this. I thought, "So, if I share my bed with a woman, I would be a superior therapist, a more desirable member of your insurance panel?"

Of course, the questionnaire also asked whether I were a minority- or female-owned business. Apparently, if I were an Asian woman who sleeps with other women, I would be a Most Valuable Player in the psychotherapy world.

What also occurred to me while filling out the application is that every special category exists aside from that of a white, straight male. If someone is gay or a woman or a person of color, the welcome mat is laid out. But what about an ordinary Joe, a working-class stiff from Toledo?

How does he get into college when all the recruitment efforts are aimed at others? And if he does get in, how does he afford it -- especially now, with Obama at the helm?

I heard a while back that ObamaCare snuck a backdoor scheme into ObamaCare, for the government to make student loans, not the banks. If this happens, you better believe that the money will be shelled out based on "social and economic justice."

Some young men turn to the military as a way of accessing needed funds for college. What are the consequences?

They are, in fact, grave: white, working class men are at much higher risk of being mortally wounded in the battleground than their privileged counterparts. And while the working class risk their lives, the snooty elite go to college on daddy's dime.

So let's put the pieces together here: everyone aside from a white, straight guy can obtain all sorts of special help in the form of jobs, financial aid, and college enrollment. On top of this, there are scholarships and grants galore for most people, aside from white males. (There are even college scholarships for illegals.)

But a white guy -- even one with who is broke -- gets very little. He may choose to join the Army instead, and possibly be seriously injured.

What is wrong with this picture?

Of course, I really shouldn't talk since I helped create the mess we're in. As a feminist, I spent much of my youth marching for women's rights. I have expended countless hours complaining about inequities toward women.

But I have seen the light. I now realize that we've created a monster with so many people wailing about sexism and racism and all the other "isms."

After decades of grievances, we haven't turned into a fairer nation; we're simply an angrier one. In the age of Obama, aggrieved groups have joined together to demand their rights, endeavoring to put the white man under their thumb.

Now men are marginalized and demonized. They are given the demoralizing message that they are unnecessary. Of course, this message is fallacious.

The United States would cease to operate if conservative white males went on strike tomorrow (not necessarily a bad idea, by the way). We'd do just fine shorn of most of the metrosexual crowd -- the college professors and the activists. But we'd crash and burn without the manly man. It's he who does the essential work that others cannot, like patrol our streets, extinguish fires, and drive tractors.

As a former progressive, I know how tempting it is to blame others for our own problems. It's easier to implicate the "system" or the Man than to take a good and hard look in the mirror.

But this life is not about "getting mine;" it's about what we have to offer the world. It's about living with dignity and honor, not a thirst for revenge.

Life is not fair; it is not supposed to be fair. Someone, somewhere will always have more, while others will have less. Disappointment is hard-wired into this human realm; and this is just as true for the white man as the person of color.

The Buddha put it this way, that life is composed of the "l0,000 joys and the l0,000 sorrows." We grow old, we get sick, and, one day, we and our bodies will perish.

And when that day happens, we won't take anything with us except for our character -- or lack of it. And there are no amount of laws or affirmative action programs that can change the way the world works.

A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 28

Obama’s Consolidation of Power Portends Greater Tyranny From the Megalomaniacal Narcissist

In the following commentary, the author notes that Obama has arrogated the power from the judiciary or at least ignored their rulings and has taken actions and issued regulations that should have been in the sole dominion of the Congress. This is a consolidation of power.

This is why the Founding Fathers so brilliantly and presciently created a government with 3 branches and separation of powers. They did warn us that it was our duty to maintain this arrangement because they were wll aware of the nature of man: that power is addicting and corrupting.

Tens of millions of Americans view Obama as more than a radical ideologue and more than a threat to our rights, freedoms and liberties. He has unequivocally demonstrated that he is what Richard Weltz terms a “megalomaniacal narcissist”.  We strongly concur with this description.

In simpler terms, Obama is a tyrant who presents an existential threat to our country and our way of life. His calculated as well as incompetent actions and inactions in foreign endeavors have engendered evolving anarchy and destruction of apocalyptic proportions that will not only affect the rest of the world but also us as well.

Can we wait until the end of 2012 for Obama to be voted out of office?

We don’t think so!

And what if he is re-elected? Then what?

Given the extent of evil and weapons of mass destruction, we don’t think that time is a whole lot of time left.

The clock is ticking … and it’s a few minutes before midnight.

Obama Completes His Trifecta
Richard N. Weltz    February 24, 2011

With a bold political announcement, President Barack Obama has completed the trifecta  -- de facto coups which bring into his White House the powers and functions of the other two branches, as outlined in our Constitution.

That document assigns the legislative function to Congress, but the Executive Branch blithely and routinely co-opts that power by run-arounds and choosing to enforce or not enforce duly passed laws of the Legislature. Notable examples in the scant couple of years The One has been in office include: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the EPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.

We need not even mention the undemocratic parliamentary tactics and outright bribery used by Obama and his allies to ram through the unpopular and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare bill -- without it even having been read by most Congress members.

On the judiciary side, we witness the executive ignoring a Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare's unconstitutionality, the refusal -- to the point where an order of compliance had to be issued from the bench -- to refrain from imposing an illegal moratorium on oil drilling; and, now the clearest and most blatant power grab of all. Obama has arrogated to himself, in the matter of DOMA, the power to declare that law unconstitutional and order his Justice Department not to contest lawsuits challenging it.

In the meantime, while usurping and/or undercutting the legitimate powers and functions of the other two branches, in the three areas for which the Executive does have power and responsibility  -- faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign policy, and commanding the armed forces -- this megalomaniacal narcissist has proven a spectacular failure.

What have we allowed to happen to the American concept of separation of powers? Are we abandoning this unique and hallowed concept for a tinpot dictatorship dressed up in a fancy suit and fancy oratory? Where and how do we stop this train to ruination?


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 17

We Must Fight For Limited Government and Not Compromise Our Principles and Rights

If we want to protect our rights and freedoms and even recoup much of what has been lost, the relentlessly expanding federal Leviathan needs to be tamed and substantially reduced in size. Its immensity is a perpetual threat to the individual and not what our Founding Fathers desired or envisioned. They presciently knew the threats of a larger, more invasive and powerful central government and warned against this happening.

We need to support and elect individuals like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who declared in his response to Obama’s State of the Union address that: “We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” Of its small role, he also opined that: “We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.”

None of these conditions are being met today.

We must make them a reality!

Choice, Not Compromise
Terry Paulson  2/14/2011

Rep. Paul Ryan’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union provides a clue to the political battle that is coming: “The principles that guide us; they are anchored in the wisdom of the founders in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.”

There is no compromise on opposite principles; it’s either empowered individuals or an all-powerful government. Thankfully the recent overreach by President Obama on healthcare reform, the Republican gains in November, and recent court decisions are moving things closer to a showdown in the Supreme Court and in the coming budget battle.

Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance. Judge Vinson argues that to allow the law to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power and narrow the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would,…allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I." A Supreme Court decision looms on the horizon.

As President Obama delivers his 2012 Budget this week, the battle will accelerate. With Republicans looking to cut the size and spending of government by cutting the funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act, additional stimulus investments, and relief for debt-ridden states, the battle of all battles will begin. Glenn Beck, in his well-documented book Broke, challenges conservatives to focus the fight on the Constitution and core principles. Our founding fathers fought for equal rights, not rights to benefit some at the expense of others.

Beck points to Ayn Rand for an easy way to distinguish whether a right is in accordance with the Constitution. After any right is proposed, simply ask the question “at whose expense?” Is there a universal right to a college education or healthcare? At whose expense? Your right to life and liberty was not to come at expense of anyone else. As Ayn Rand wrote, “The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” Individual rights were to supersede any government power.

Could it be that government “help” has just escalated the cost of healthcare and education? While published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, the median family income rose only 147 percent and healthcare cost rose only 250%. Are those increases a result of true costs to improve education or are they a result of the fact that they can get away with such charges because government provides more loans and grants? Parents, students and taxpayers are left with more debt because government tries to “help” by throwing your money at the “problem!”

How can citizens afford the cost of college and healthcare? By keeping most of the money they now give to government.
John Stossel, in Give Me a Break, shows Federal spending from 1789 to 2003. The line is all but flat until World War II. When America began, government cost the average citizen $20 in today’s money. That’s $20 a year! Taxes rose during wars, but for most of the history of America spending never exceeded a few hundred dollars per citizen. During World War II, government got much bigger. It was supposed to shrink again after the war. It never did; it just kept expanding. In 2010, federal spending ($6.3 trillion) cost every man, woman and child in this country just under $20,000 a year! If you aren’t paying that, you’re making your neighbor pay your share!

It’s not too late. Support politicians who are fighting to take back America to what it was formed to be—a beacon for liberty and opportunity not an invitation to dependence on big government!,_not_compromise


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 12

The “president-King” Obama and His Ignoring of Constitutional Mandates

Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago in between his stint as a community organizer and Chicago politician. You would think that he would have a rudimentary understanding of the separation of powers as designed by the framers of The Constitution - or, at least, a respect for them. As evidenced by his actions these past two years, you would be wrong on both counts.

President Obama has near complete disregard for the sanctity of our Constitution. To him, it is what HE wants it to be and not what our founding fathers intended it to be. As our arrogant narcissistic “president – king” views it, not only is he smarter than all of us, his wisdom and intellect exceeds that of the titans who founded the greatest country our world has ever known.

America's first president, George Washington knew the perils of having a king-like figure presiding over a free nation and in his infinite wisdom and humbleness, stepped down after two terms to let another individual govern; this despite the wishes of the people who begged him to continue to serve as our national leader. To Washington (and many other subsequent Presidents), it was an honor and privilege to serve the people. Obama, on the other hand, considers the position as one of power, personal prestige and the way to impose his ideological diktats on the American “peasants” regardless of whether or not he oversteps the authority assigned to the Executive branch as defined by The Constitution.

Executive Orders and Presidential Prerogatives
Zbigniew Mazurak   February 05, 2011

Some conservatives, including AT news editor Ed Lasky, are worried that despite the election of a Republican-dominated House and six new GOP senators, Obama will continue to advance his extremely liberal agenda -- but this time, by executive fiat rather than by congressional law.
Mr Lasky wrote:

He has already received his marching orders from the Center for American Progress (CAP) -- called his "Ideas Factory" by TIME and his "Policy Font" by Bloomberg News.   After the shellacking, the CAP released a report calling for Obama to rely on increased use of executive powers to pushhis agenda (and ignore the wishes of the American people and the role of the newly constituted Congress):  "Executive orders, Rulemaking, Agency management, Convening and creating public-private partnerships, Commanding the armed forces, Diplomacy."

As Mr Lasky reported, the CAP's Michael Waldman has claimed the following:

[L]ike all presidents, he has a bulging toolkit: executive orders, regulations, spending decisions, the bully pulpit and more.  Obama has lots of power, and he should wield it[.] ...

Consider energy policy, where congressional gridlock seems inevitable, with many conservatives insisting climate change is a myth and taxes are a nightmare.  The Center's experts say Obama could impose a $2-per-barrel fee on imported oil with proceeds steered toward energy research.

Essentially, the CAP has claimed that Obama is an omnipotent king who can issue any edict he wants to on any thematic issue.  The good news for America and its people is that the CAP is flat wrong.

Obama is not an omnipotent dictator, and he doesn't even have a "bulging toolkit."  Like all of his predecessors, he is a president with only limited prerogatives, according to the U.S. Constitution.  And it is the Constitution, not Obama or the CAP, that determines what a U.S. president is allowed to do.

Obama has no prerogatives except those explicitly granted to him by the Constitution (specifically, by its Article II).

As explained (inter alia) in this constitutional primer, the prerogatives of the entire federal government are thematically limited to a discrete group of thematic issues.  On top of that limit, the President of the United States is limited in terms of what he can do about them.

So what about that "bulging toolkit"?

Executive orders and regulations issued by the president are law for no one except federal executive agencies.  Only the Congress can make law for anyone else.  So any executive orders or regulations are not law for you unless you work for one of these institutions.  The same applies to any executive regulations imposed by executive agencies such as the EPA.

Fees on imported products?  Again, only the Congress can impose them.  The exclusive prerogative to impose any duties, taxes, or imposts is reserved by the Constitution for the Congress.  And under the nondelegation doctrine, one branch of the federal government cannot delegate its prerogatives to another.

Spending decisions?  Again, they are for only the Congress to make.  The president can only request budgets, and if he deems whatever appropriations the Congress enacts insufficient or excessive, he can only veto them entirely (not partially -- he does not have a line-item veto right, which the SCOTUS declared unconstitutional).

What about the president's prerogatives as commander of the U.S. military?  The answer can be found in the Constitution and in Federalist #69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it.  It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy, while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

The president is the supreme commander of the military, but he doesn't decide military spending levels, the Armed Services' size, or which countries the U.S. wages war with.  As James Madison clearly stated, you're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war -- and that is the Congress's prerogative.

The Executive Branch can't even unilaterally retire certain categories of ships and aircraft.  It has been forbidden to do so by the Congress.

Article 1, Sec. 9 of the Constitution says that "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law."  Obama cannot determine spending levels unilaterally.  And if he vetoes Republican-proposed spending reductions...fine.  The government will receive no funding, then, which means that Obama will get no budget at all instead of a small budget.

Moreover, according to the Constitution, the Congress has the prerogative to 1) raise and support armies; 2) provide and maintain a navy; 3) provide for the "common defense"; 4) make regulations for the military (such as the former DADT law); and 5) to "define and punish ... [o]ffences against the Law of Nations."  In other words, the Congress regulates the military and makes law for the Executive Branch, and the latter obeys that law.  And not only does the president swear an oath to support the Constitution, but he also is commanded by it to "take care that laws be faithfully enacted."

The president cannot convene public-private partnerships, because the Constitution doesn't list any such presidential prerogative.

Nor can he use the U.S. military against the American people -- the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits him to do so.

As for diplomacy, this can be used only towards foreign countries, again within limits set by the Constitution and the Congress.  The president cannot unilaterally appoint anyone to crucial offices without Senate confirmation, nor can he ratify treaties without the Senate's consent.  Nor can the Senate ratify any treaty it likes -- it can ratify only treaties that are authorized by the Constitution.  It cannot okay a CO2-emissions-limiting accord, because the Congress and the president have no constitutional right to regulate CO2 emissions.

Moreover, the Congress has the right to supervise the president as he manages America's foreign policy.  It can, for example, order a U.S. embassy to be relocated, order (or prohibit) the Executive Branch from doing something, and demand testimonies by Obama administration officials before CSPAN.  The Congress can limit Obama's foreign policy in many ways.

To sum up, Obama will make a serious mistake if he tries to advance his liberal agenda by executive fiat.  He has no constitutional prerogative to do so.  With the exception of employees of federal agencies and the companies that do business with them, Americans will not be bound by any edicts Obama might issue.  Meanwhile, the Executive Branch will be bound by any laws the Congress might make -- and of course, it is already bound by any acts already passed by the Congress to date.

Page Printed from: at February 05, 2011 - 05:38:08 PM CST


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 3

The Future and Legal Prospects for Obamacare

In the following article, Peter Ferrara lucidly and thoroughly dissects Judge Vinson’s ruling on Obamacare which was deemed to be unconstitutional and then conjectures on its future prospects and potential political actions that may need to take place. He reviews the painstaking research including historical precedents and considerations and the flawless logic in arriving at what appears to be a conclusion and ruling that will be extremely difficult to be overturned by the Supreme Court justices if intellectual integrity is employed.

Judge Vinson proclaimed in his verdict that:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting…that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce…it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

The real coup de grace for Obamacare in Judge Vinson’s ruling which ironically touches upon the original Tea Party was his prescient statement:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

This is an outstanding assessment of the ruling and dim future prospect for Obamacare is a must read.

The Legal Future of Obamacare
Peter Ferrara   2/2/2011

As of this moment Obamacare is officially not the law of the land. As Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Monday in Florida, "[T]here is a long standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." That law as declared by the Federal District Court in Florida is now that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

This, of course, is the second federal court ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, following the ruling of Judge Henry Hudson in the Northern District of Virginia on December 13. I predicted in this space at the time that Judge Vinson would rule the same. Now he has. I filed amicus curiae briefs in both cases on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union arguing for these results. Those briefs drew on my work in The Obamacare Disaster: An Appraisal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, published by the Heartland Institute.

Recall former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughing off Tea Party objections that Obamacare was unconstitutional with the reply, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Now she knows just how serious we were.

Limits to Federal Power

Judge Vinson's ruling, as Judge Hudson's before him, represents a return to the original Constitution of limited enumerated powers delegated by the people to the federal government. Vinson opens his decision quoting James Madison in the Federalist Papers explaining, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite," noting further that "the Tenth Amendment reaffirmed that relationship."

Vinson goes on to explain that the reason for that is to "ensure protection of our fundamental liberties" and "reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse." He goes on to quote the ultimate explanation again from James Madison in The Federalist Papers:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The enumerated power claimed by Congress for Obamacare was the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." Trade among the states was mentioned so Congress would have the power to eliminate the protectionist trade restrictions and barriers that had been erected among the states against trade with each other. Eliminating those protectionist trade barriers is a fundamental reason for the long term, world leading prosperity of America. This is the original reason for the Commerce Clause, not to allow abominations like Obamacare.

But this was dramatically changed during the New Deal to allow Congress to affirmatively regulate interstate commerce based on the language of the Commerce Clause, and neither Judge Vinson nor Judge Hudson challenged that change. But more recent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed that there are still limits to Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Both Judge Vinson and Judge Hudson have now ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare exceeds those limits.

Obamacare's individual mandate requires all individuals without employer-provided health insurance to buy insurance with all the politically correct and expensive coverage the government dictates they must buy. But as Judge Vinson noted, " (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States." Every prior regulation upheld as constitutional under the Commerce Clause involved some activity that could be construed as participation in interstate commerce. But failure to buy health insurance involves no such activity, and no participation in interstate commerce at all.

As a result, Judge Vinson concluded:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting…that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce…it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

Then in words that will be memorialized on future Tea Party walls, Vinson wrote:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Judge Vinson consequently ruled, "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power."

They Can't Believe He Ate the Whole Thing

Once the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional, it was inevitable that the whole Obamacare law would be struck down, as Judge Vinson also ruled. The legislation included no severability clause as in most every bill, which provides if one provision is struck down, the rest survives. That was not an oversight.

Without the individual mandate, the rest of Obamacare is transparently unworkable, as President Obama and the Democrats themselves said during the jihad for its enactment. That is because the bill also includes what is known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." Under those provisions, an insurance company must insure whoever applies, and charge them no more than anyone else, no matter how sick or costly they are when they first apply.

This is like fire insurance regulation requiring the insurer to accept whoever calls for coverage, and to charge them no more than anyone else, even if their house is already on fire when they first call! In health insurance as in fire insurance, this would naturally cause premiums to skyrocket. But it's worse than that.

The skyrocketing premiums cause younger and healthier individuals to drop their coverage. That forces insurers to raise premiums even more because the remaining pool is even sicker and costlier on average. The younger and healthier than flee even more,knowing they can automatically get coverage later if they become sick! In fire insurance terms, this leaves the insurer with a "risk pool" of all burnt down houses, which is quite costly to cover. The result is a financial death spiral both for the insurers and anyone still trying to pay premiums.

The individual mandate was intended to be the antidote to this death spiral. If everyone must buy the insurance in any event, premiums would still rise, but no one could drop out in response. The system could then still function, albeit at higher insurance rates, exactly contrary to what was promised. But without the individual mandate, the whole system inevitably collapses as described above.

This is why, as Judge Vinson wrote, "the defendants concede that the individual mandate is absolutely necessary for the Act's insurance market reforms to work as intended. In fact, they refer to it as an essential part of the Act at least fourteen times in their motion to dismiss." Where there is no severability clause, the legal standard that determines whether the whole law must be struck down is whether what is left can still function independently of the part that was struck down, and whether Congress would have intended for the law to continue in that manner. The remaining dysfunctional Obamacare without the individual mandate does not fit this legal standard.

As a result, Judge Vinson rightly concluded:

[T]he record seems to strongly indicate that Congress would not have passed the Act in its present form if it had not included the individual mandate. This is because the individual mandate was indisputably essential to what Congress was ultimately seeking to accomplish….The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

The Supremes in the Final Act

Just as I predicted that Vinson would follow Hudson in making this ruling, I predict as well that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will now follow Vinson and Hudson in also finding the individual mandate unconstitutional, and in throwing the whole Obamacare Act out on the same grounds as above.

The swing fifth vote is as usual up to Justice Anthony Kennedy. I believe what will be decisive in winning his vote as well is to demonstrate there are other alternative means to achieving the goals of Obamacare that would be constitutional, so we would not be asking Kennedy to rule that universal health care for all must be unconstitutional.

Just two basic reforms would provide a universal health care safety net that would ensure that no one need ever suffer without essential health care. First would be to block-grant Medicaid back to the states, with each state then to replace it with Medicaid vouchers for the purchase of private health insurance. Each state would decide how much to provide at each income level in their state to ensure that no one would lack basic health insurance because they were too poor.

This would benefit the poor enormously because the current Medicaid program so badly underpays doctors and hospitals that the poor often cannot find doctors and hospitals that will treat them under Medicare. With these Medicaid vouchers, the poor would enjoy the same health care as the middle class, because they would enjoy the same health insurance as the middle class.

The second reform is state uninsurable risk pools for those who nevertheless still do not buy health insurance, and then become too sick and costly to buy it, like the homeowner who fails to buy fire insurance before his house catches on fire. These uninsurables would get coverage from the risk pool, paying premiums based on their ability to pay. The state would subsidize the pool for the remaining costs. A majority of the states already operate such uninsurable risk pools, and they have proved quite workable.

Everyone would then have the means of obtaining essential coverage and care, without any individual or employer mandate. Indeed, unlike Obamacare, this safety net covers everyone, and so achieves the valid social goal far better.

These reforms would not be costly because less than one fourth of the uninsured fail to get health coverage because they are too poor to do so, and only a relatively small number of people find themselves without insurance and then too sick to get it. If we do this in the context of block-granting Medicaid back to the states, the net result could well be less overall government spending rather than more. The only reason President Obama and the Democrats would not even consider this approach is that it does not involve the government takeover of health care, which was the real goal all along, so the wise government could run health care in the interests of progressive "social justice" (which sometimes means denying people health care).

The only option left for President Obama is to decide when he gets the final death notice for Obamacare, before the 2012 election or after. If he agrees to an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court, he will likely have to run for reelection having wasted his first term putting the entire country through a meaningless exercise, which only served to discredit the Democrat party. If he decides to slog through the Circuit Courts, he will likely suffer further adverse rulings before Election Day, with legal momentum building against him, reinforcing the likelihood that the Reagan-appointed Kennedy would go with the conservatives.

We can see the impact of that legal momentum in Vinson's ruling. Hudson declined to strike down the entire statute, even though that inevitable result was obvious then, undoubtedly because he felt it was brave enough to find the individual mandate unconstitutional. But Vinson was emboldened by his ruling as a bolstering precedent to go the whole nine yards.

But it would be wise to deny Obama even this choice, because which way Kennedy would go can never be certain. That is why Senate Republicans should still force a vote on the House repeal, which is even more likely to win assent now. Obamacare will decline even further in the polls as the public increasingly recognizes its unconstitutionality, and even fewer Senate Democrats will be willing to fall on their political swords for an increasingly doomed cause.

President Obama would then have the choice of killing his own Obamacare baby himself, and then running on taking the credit for it.

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He is author of The Obamacare Disaster, from the Heartland Institute, and President Obama's Tax Piracy.


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 1

U.S. District Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

In a very strong and unambiguous decision, a U.S. District judge in Florida ruled that the individual mandate of Obamacare requiring people to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Judge Roger Vinson further declared that "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

This is very positive news for all Americans who are strongly against the federal government’s legislated takeover of the health care system. As expected, the Dept. of Justice is appealing this verdict to the 11th Circuit of Appeals.

Ultimately as we all know, the final decision on this issue will be determined by the Supreme Court.

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional
January 31, 2011

A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department plans to appeal Vinson's ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," she said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

The case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. But for now, opponents of President Obama's signature domestic legislation exalted while supporters denounced the decision.

"I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson," said Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who, prior to getting elected in November, helped lead the charge against the law.  "In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start -- ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people. ...  Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed."

"Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal. The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.  "If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America's families."

Vinson's decision, while surprising, was not unforeseen. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six counts in the suit led by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 25 other states. But he allowed two counts, including one challenging the law's controversial requirement that Americans buy health insurance, to proceed. Arguments were heard in December.

In his earlier ruling, Vinson said that a government report called the requirement to buy insurance legally unprecedented and worth examining in court.

"The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive," he wrote.

Nearly two dozen suits have been filed in federal courts, but Monday's ruling is the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since Congress last March passed the bill aimed at covering 30 million uninsured Americans whether they want insurance or not.

In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.

"That judge, under his mindset, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold's Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold's Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol," said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. "That is the kind of logic that we're going to right now where you're actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government."

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan that critics say will cost closer to $2.6 trillion. But the repeal bill will likely die in the Senate, meaning Vinson's ruling is the newest grounds on which supporters and opponents proceed.

Defenders of the law say that Americans need to be covered from ruthless insurance companies that either refuse to insure children with illnesses and adults with pre-existing conditions or charge exorbitant amounts for individual coverage. The law aims to provide a federal umbrella under which Americans can purchase and keep insurance regardless of their health, career changes or ability to pay.

But Vinson said that is not the U.S. government's job.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government," he wrote.

Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare.

In his State of the Union address, Obama said he was willing to open his mind to changes in the law if they made dollars and sense and didn't prevent patients with pre-existing conditions or other barriers to insurance companies from gaining coverage.

He pointed to the near-universally hated 1099 provision that orders businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases exceeding $600 as the first provision to be scrapped.

Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley repeated the president's position on Sunday, adding that the law was intended to help employers as much as patients.

"The president has said he's open to changes to this. He is not open to re-fighting the entire fight of health care," Daley told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I absolutely believe, having been in business and hearing from business people, the importance of a need for the reform of health care. It was the business community that was really saying to the politicians, this is costing us too much, it's too much of a wet blanket on the economy," he said.


Print This Post Print This Post
Jan 28

Arizona the First of Several States Seeking to Mandate Proof of Eligibility for Presidential Candidates Before Being Placed On Ballots

Several states are in the process of working on legislation that would require Presidential candidates to provide legal proof of Constitutional eligibility in order to be placed on that particular state’s ballot. Arizona is leading the movement right now, having introduced a bill in the state Senate. Other states working on similar legislation include Texas, Pennsylvania, Montana and Georgia.

Obviously, the precipitating factor for all this legislation is Obama’s unrelenting refusal to release a legal copy of his birth certificate providing more fodder to those who question his true country of origin and birth. Because of Constitutional requirements of American citizenship, there are substantial doubts as to his compliance with this and he has never been mandated to produce the documentation. In fact, some have estimated that he has spent around $2 million to try to avoid “releasing” his birth certificate.

The logical question is if there is nothing to hide why is he trying to hide it?

The answer is also obvious: Obama does have something to hide - like his otherwise Constitutional ineligibility to be President. Maybe this is also why he regularly denigrates and trivializes the Constitution.

If these state bills are passed before the 2012 election, Obama may find it impossible to run for re-election or win just by the sheer loss of potential electoral votes.

Read: Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law

(Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again)


Print This Post Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter
To Contact Members of Congress To Contact Media News Editors Government Run Health Care