Category Archives: Supreme Court

How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And illegal_aliensit isn’t—in Mexico.

Learn how Motor Voter (1993) was so important to voter fraud and, why the Supreme Court still prohibits States to show proof of citizenship to vote.

Link: Memo From Middle America | How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t? | VDARE.com.

POLITIFACT Needs A Stomach Pump On Obamacare

So the kids at the Tampa Bay Times are at it again. Angie Drobnic Holan might consider getting her stomach pumped because it is clear she has had way too muchholan of Obama’s cool-aid. Let’s examine, from a purely economic standpoint, the first claim she has allegedly “debunked.” That the Affordable Care Act, you know, the Act that Congress and labor unions are trying to get exemptions from because they can’t afford it, is the pathway drug (no pun intended) to a single-payer system, aka socialized medicine. Just forget for a moment that is exactly what Obama said he intends this bill to do. They were his words to the SEIU in 2007.

Anyway, Angie says the claim is false “because the health care law leaves in place the private health care system and the free market.”

She’s right about that. The law doesn’t say they have to go out of business. BUT it does mandate how they must run. Which WILL cause them to go out of business. The free-market isn’t free when the government dictates how “private” companies must operate. It’s the Marxist Economic Model. Look it up. And by forcing health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and forcing them to cover risks that are not needed by every consumer, and with an industry average net profit of 3.5%, they have to raise their premiums, IF THEY ARE TO STAY IN BUSINESS. The Affordable Care Act also mandates that employers provide insurance for their employees (50 or more) or pay a fine. A FINE that the Supreme Court called a TAX in order to keep from overturning it. It’s now back to being called what it is, a fine.

The Affordable Care Act mandates the fine employers and people must pay for not providing or not buying health insurance, which is thousands of dollars lower than the cost of an insurance policy. It also undercuts the price of an insurance policy purchased through a government exchange by thousands of dollars to one from a “private” insurance company.

Drilling down to your wallet, all those who would prefer to pay THOUSANDS of dollars MORE for health insurance from a private insurance company than from the government raise your hand.

This is how the private health care industry will end. It will be “left in place” to bleed to death. They will find other risks to insure against because the government will have driven them out of the health insurance business. And exactly as the Heritage Foundation says, we will be left with a health system like Great Britain and Canada.

And, according to the Congressional Research Service, there will STILL be over 30 million people who won’t have a health insurance policy. So what has changed? We have  a government takeover of sixteen percent of the economy, a decimated health care industry, and 30 million people without a “health insurance policy.”

Clever huh?

Link: POLITIFACT: Debunked health care claims live on at Heritage town hall  |  Obama’s Plans For Healthcare In 2007

SEC, Obama’s Back Door IRS

Having been caught violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans trying to assemble, contribute, and advocate a cause, the IRS

Mary Jo White, SEC Chair
SEC Chair, Mary Jo White

scandal has been shut down. That, after all, was just symptomatic of the way liberals play politics. They don’t compete in the arena of ideas, they use the government to intimidate the political opposition. And in this case, to help Obama get re-elected by harassing conservative contributors and PACs that would contribute to the Romney campaign. This is what the IRS inquiries into conservative non-profit applications was all about. And it worked. But don’t hold your breath for any lawsuits about their civil rights or First Amendment rights being denied.

But the political intimidation is not over. Liberals also use regulators like the SEC or EPA to do the job that the IRS can not. All of which was triggered by the Citizens United Supreme Court case that guaranteed corporations the same rights to exercise political speech as a person has.

The back door to what the IRS was doing, which was finding out the names and businesses that contributed to conservative organizations for conservative causes, and preventing as much as possible contributions to organizations that would advocate against a liberal agenda, a clear violation of civil rights, is now called the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reacting to, ostensibly, a coalition of Democratic elected officials, activists and labor unions, the SEC is considering making up a new disclosure rule for publicly traded companies. The SEC is considering a regulation mandating that publicly traded corporations disclose all their political donations to their shareholders. Still a violation of civil rights of the shareholders and the corporation. It is Big Brother using the power of intimidation to shut down any and all political opposition. It is instructive too that the assumption is that corporations would not also give to liberals.

A petition to the S.E.C. asking it to issue the rule has already garnered close to half a million comments, far more than any petition or rule in the agency’s history, with the vast majority in favor of it. While relatively few petitions result in action by the S.E.C., the commission staff filed a notice late last year indicating that it was considering recommending a rule.

In response to the growing pressure, House Republicans introduced legislation last Thursday that would make it illegal for the commission to issue any political disclosure regulations applying to companies under its jurisdiction. Earlier this month, the leaders of three of Washington’s most powerful trade associations — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable — issued a rare joint letter to the chief executives of Fortune 200 companies, encouraging them to stand against proxy resolutions and other proposals from shareholder activists demanding more disclosure of political spending.

What we continue to see is the political warfare conducted by liberals. It is liberalism on display. It is what they do. They restrict rights, restrict liberties, ignore the constitution, depress economies, increase debt, spread misery all in the name of social justice. Social justice isn’t justice. It’s harassment.

Link: SEC nears decision on requiring businesses to disclose donations

With All Due Respect, You Go Girl

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed an executive order of her own. Protecting her sovereign (used to be anyway) state,  the order essentially pulls up the welcome mat for illegal aliens. AKA undocumented democrats.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order saying state law bars benefits or state-issued identification for those in the country illegally — including those who qualify for the deferred-enforcement program announced by President Barack Obama in June, which kicked off yesterday. She directed agencies to block access for an estimated 80,000 immigrants in Arizona who may qualify.

I came across this handy map that should be part of their ‘registration package.’

http://rosscalloway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mexicos-guide-for-migrants.jpg

 

Link: Arizona Won’t Grant Licenses to Immigrants in Obama Program

Enemies Welcome!

That may as well be the sign in Arizona. Today’s Supreme Court ruling upheld Arizona’s right to verify legal status if the person is stopped for any other legal reason. Then they can call ICE to report them, who is then supposed to pick them up, decide their status, and deport if they are illegals. The rest of SB1070 was rejected as being the sole responsibility of the federal government.

True to form is the response from the executive branch over the court’s decision. Hey Arizona, don’t bother reporting any illegals you may find. We’re not interested in enforcing the law that the Supreme Court just said was our responsibility. LOL  Deal with it.

When the state can not protect itself and its sovereignty, the union of sovereign states are sovereign no more. Centralized government control and punishment on display.

And the message this sends to the world? All illegals, terrorists, and enemies we don’t even know we have,  are welcome in the United States. Just use the Arizona border with Mexico and behave yourself in public. Have a nice day.

Isn’t it amazing that, to get what he wants, undocumented democrats, he is restrained by no law, no constitution, and no oath. The Obama administration is the lawless administration.

Link: Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion

Presidential, Or Community Organizer, You Decide

The President’s unloading on the Supreme Court Monday, before any decision on his Affordable Health Care Act has been announced, was very un-presidential. You could argue that he should know better than to act that way, but, he has done it before in public. At the 2010 SOTU show over a campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. United States.

Yes, he missed a teachable moment as a ‘constitutional’ attorney. Instead of sitting at his Oval Office desk, giving the American people the confidence that our system of government, big and slow as it is, is working on settling everyone’s concern about the constitutionality of Obamacare1,  President Obama acted more like the community organizer he is than the president he should be. He, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and leading Democrats employed veiled threats and intimidation to try to effect the Supreme Court’s decision, and at the same time, rile up half the country against the Supreme Court, and against the other half of the country. It’s what community organizers do on a country level.

From all the whining and imputing comments from our President over the Court’s decision, expected to be announced at the conclusion of their session in June, makes one wonder if he hasn’t already been tipped off as to how the court voted?

Links: Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling  |    Bruised Obama tries to walk back his attack on the Supreme Court

1 President Obama’s signature piece of legislation that was more important (to him) to enact than creating jobs and our economic recovery.

Obamacare Is Non-Severable, VOID

Let’s go back 14 months to January 31, 2011 when Pensacola’s own Judge Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida became the second federal judge to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate.

But Judge Vinson went further. He dealt with what the Supreme Court is having to decide now, whether or not the legislation is severable. Whether some parts can be stricken and the rest stand?

Judge Vinson’s decision, which was proffered by the government’s attorney, was that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” Accordingly, Vinson concluded: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” {emphasis added}

Had the administration followed the legal process, they would have either appealed the decision or requested a stay. They did neither. The reaction of the lawless administration was that because the judge did “not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said ‘implementation will proceed at pace.’”

Then in August 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit also ruled that the provision of the law that requires people to buy health insurance or face an annual penalty is unconstitutional. The ruling affirmed an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, Florida.

Curiously though, the court also ruled that absent the mandate, the Act can continue. What this means is that three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit pulled a severability clause out of thin air. Because neither the individual mandate or the Act itself contain a severability clause, on purpose.

The future of our country and our relationship with the government rests on whether this bill dies at the Supreme Court. If not, then the 2012 election will be repeal and replace. There is a private-sector alternative.

Links: Obamacare Is Void, Lawless Administration Doesn’t Care  |  11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Judge Vinson, Sort Of  |  An Alternative To Obamacare Already Exists

An Alternative To Obamacare Already Exists

On the eve of the Supreme Court taking up the constitutionality of Obamacare, and a week after the CBO said that the cost of Obamacare is now estimated to be almost double what was promised, it is time to check the private-sector solution to reforming health care.

Introduced in the 111th Congress, where it died in the Democrat-controlled Senate, was a bill called H.R.3400, The Empowering Patients First Act.

It’s not that Americans would not like improvements in health delivery and health insurance in this country. It’s just that they did not ask for and do not want THIS solution.

The alternative exists that will deal with those ten percent of Americans that don’t have and for some reason do not want health insurance. It will do it without ruining the health insurance industry and the plans for the other 80 or 90 percent of Americans and their employers that are just fine with their current situation and the plans they have. The alternative is not a budget buster. Nor does it take your choice away or make your health care decisions for you. That alternative is H.R. 3400

The Empowering Patients First Act, or H.R. 3400, would allow:

  • Individuals to choose their health insurance (no mandates)
  • Deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays
  • Employers to give flexible health-insurance options to employees
  • Health insurance coverage for low-income families (300 percent of the federal poverty level)
  • Health insurance for high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions)
  • Sale of health insurance across state lines
  • Expansion of Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs
  • Individual membership association health insurance plan
  • Association Health Insurance Plans
  • Medical liability limitations (Tort reform)

Unlike Democrat-care, the Republican alternative would not impose fines on workers or employers, require cuts in Medicare, increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a “government health insurance” option nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt.

Pulled this out of the archives . . .

At the beginning of President Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009 a truism was spoken about “comprehensive” (that’s political-speak for government-controlled) health care.

President Obama said “A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.”

The truism that seems to escape Democrats is that for 65 years, they continue to ignore the will of the people. That socialized medicine is one thing that Americans do not want, and it’s time to move on. If the president really believes what he is saying, then he ought to be confident enough to also say that if his plan does not increase the availability and quality of care and the debt, and does not decrease the cost, then he will scrap his version of health care reform before his term ends and enact H.R. 3400, the Republican alternative.

Regarding President Obama, you have a decision to make. Is he lying about their not being a Republican alternative, or is he that far out of touch that he doesn’t even know it exists? Which one works for you?

Besides, if you take the president at his word, it should be President Obama calling for its repeal. He said he would not sign a health care reform bill if it did not bring down costs or if it increased the debt. By any account, Obamacare has not lived up to what he promised. Do you still trust what President Obama says? It’s a rhetorical question.

The American people already answered that one. And it’s time for a change. H.R. 3400, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, ought to be the course of action to take where actual health care reform (as opposed to deform) is concerned. Whatever comes out of it, it ought to be something that the American people want, not what a bunch of idealogues high on government-run health care want. An idea that has been rejected routinely for 65 years.

 

Herman Cain At The National Press Club

The Politico article about two un-named women who claimed that Herman Cain directed ‘inappropriate behavior’ at them immediately cast a huge cloud over his possible presidential future.

After addressing that issue today at the National Press Club’s luncheon, it seems to me that Cain knocked it out of the park as a non-issue. Not only did he knock that one out, but he explained his plans for his administration regarding the economy, foreign relations, and everything else very well.

That said, here is Cain’s date with the National Press Club. For walking into the media’s house and answering all the tough questions squarely, I think he handled himself and his campaign chances very well.

As for the actions of Politico, they are just showing their colors.

11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Judge Vinson, Sort Of

Update 8/13/2011. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled Friday that a provision of the law that requires people to buy health insurance or face an annual penalty is unconstitutional. The ruling affirmed an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, Florida.

Curiously though, the court also ruled that absent the mandate, the Act can continue. What this means is that three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit pulled a severability clause out of their butt.

In Judge Vinson’s ruling, he concluded . . .

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” {emphasis added}

The survivability of Obamacare without forced participation is zero. Well with one caveat. For Obamacare to survive without forced participation, the administration would have to speed up the elimination of the private health insurance industry process to before the next election instead of after. I don’t see that happening. So for all practical purposes, the fact that the rest of the Act may stay is moot. The court knows this. They also know that the Act contained no severability clause. That the court found the rest of the Act is constitutional and ignored the non-severability of the Act looks like a political decision with no real consequences. Well, except for the fact that the judges made a political decision here, instead of a legal one. Isn’t that like, not their job?

Let’s hope this gets to the Supreme Court this year. Today’s ruling did nothing to reduce the FUD factor. In fact, it only made it worse. That’s not what an economy struggling to survive needs if it is going to recover.

Markets don’t do well in an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The power grab the Obama administration has perpetrated over various industries and companies is sending only one message to business. Watch out, you could be next.

Link: LegalNewsline | Eleventh Circuit rules against part of ObamaCare.