Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Is Obamacare Constitutional?

That is the question that will hopefully soon be answered by the Supreme Court. But the conventional wisdom for those who think that Obamacare  is just dandy with the Constitution, like Pennsylvania Governor Ed (Fast Eddie) Rendell, seems to be calling the health care system put in place in Massachusetts as precedent.

Biggest problem with this, and this is the fallacy of Rendell’s argument, is that the states can make whatever law they want, within their state, and the federal government has no similar autonomy. The federal government is restrained by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution thusly . . .

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Gov. Rendell and the Obama administration are making the giant leap that the federal government is the same as a state. Dictators view those as being the same, but this is not the case in the United States.

If the people of Massachusetts don’t like the health care system there (which they’ve found out is way more expensive then they figured), they can change it, or they are free to move to another state to get out from under it. Our freedom and liberty allow us to do that. If you like to smoke pot, you may want to move to California. If you like to not have your income taxed by the state, you may want to move to Florida. If you like to pay taxes on anything and everything, you may want to move to New York.

The massive centralization of control and power that Obamacare projects is simply antithetical to the original intent of the founding fathers and the documents they created.

Under Obamacare, there is no provision in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to require citizens to purchase anything else they be fined. Under Obamacare, there is no where to go to get out from under it.

State Of The Campaign Speech

An analysis of the road show in Washington, or as Obama has made it, a campaign stop along the way to the remaking of America. Some people referred to it as the State of the Union Address. Your mileage may vary, and your comments are, of course, welcome.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.

Couldn’t agree more. It should stop. How about you go first? And when you get back from your town hall rally in Tampa, how about visiting the Oval Office for awhile? Sit at that nice big desk and maybe do stuff. I know. Ask Speaker Pelosi to show you H.R.3400.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

A year has gone by where you signed bill after bill with thousands of earmarks in each of the major ones. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business . . .Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

Saying no to socialized medicine, economic fascism, and committing inter-generational theft is a good thing. Does your interpretation of bi-partisanship include locking Republicans out of negotiations of important legislation then expecting them to approve it with their vote? And don’t blame Republicans for your failure. You have a super majority in both houses. Truth is, it is Democrats that are pushing back.  It wasn’t Republicans that were being bribed for votes was it? Community organizers handbook, ‘if you say a lie over and over again, it will eventually become reality.’ See above about the Republican’s proposal to reform health care and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.

YOU LIE! And NOT TRUE! See above quote from the Community organizers handbook and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”

We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Yeah. Like that whole openness thing, how negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

To close that credibility gap we must take action on
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

Right, er I mean Wrong again. Well, I guess if you don’t count all those in your administration that you gave waivers to. That trust deficit you speak of is real, and where you are concerned, I think unrecoverable.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Cool, OK, here it is, H.R.3400.

And in true campaign style, the arrogance and disrespect that you showed the Supreme Court, really shows the level of respect you have for the Constitution that gives the Judiciary separate but equal status in our government. You obviously feel that you are above all that and it was embarrassing to see you lash out in that forum in that way. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers.

Related links:

Black Conservatives Condemn Grayson Remarks

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning remarks today by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) comparing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott case.

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns.  In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, U.S. citizens.  The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today’s landmark decision – in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions – to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He’s off base yet again.  It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.”  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution.  In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!”  (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Why The Left Hates Freedom Of Speech

Forget about the fact that McCain-Feingold was plainly and clearly contrary to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Especially the ”Congress shall make no law’ part. Here’s what the First Amendment of the Constitution is . . .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.                    {emphasis added}

Forgive me, but what part of NO is unclear here?

And forget about the negligence of President Bush for signing that gawd-awful piece of legislation. Can’t stop there though. Both Bush and Obama deserve a refresher course regarding the oath they took when they placed their left hand on the bible and raised their right hand to (ostensibly) God.

Just what does it mean ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’ To both those Presidents, apparently it means don’t protect it at all. Shirk that responsibility and schluff it off to the Judicial branch.

But the far Left, including President Obama, is outraged that people and groups of people of any kind have the same right to free speech as you or I. Their straw man villain is ‘corporations.’ They’re foaming at the mouth that big corporations will start buying elections. Uh, does anyone believe that McCain-Feingold took big money out of political campaigns? Can you say ‘George Soros’ and the myriad of 527’s?

What’s ironic to me is the fact that, well gee, Big Labor has the same rights as General Motors now. Oh, bad example, that’s owned by The White House. But you get the point here don’t you? No one is disadvantaged, everyone has not only the right, but the opportunity to group resources together to make political statements of support either for or against any candidate. Whether a club, a union, a town, a corporation, or a wacko forum on the Huffington Post.

I think that’s what ‘freedom of speech’ embodies.

But to think that no one is disadvantaged would not quite be true with the current state of the mainstream media and here’s why. That part of McCain-Feingold what was stricken today prevented political speech either for or against a particular candidate within 30 days prior to an election. The only exception to that is the media. That’s making the large and foolish assumption that the media today is as it was a hundred years ago. But unfortunately, it is no longer the same media watchdog that was afforded specific protection in the Constitution. If you listen to the Left nowadays, they’re claiming that the media is controlled by the Right. Ridiculous of course, but it doesn’t matter to make my point.They help make my point.

That the folks cannot exercise free political speech 30 days before an election, tilts the power of persuasion away from the people and gives it all to the media. And we all know that in the last election, the McCain-Palin ticket was not only running against Obama-Biden, but against the media as well. The sum of which could not be overcome. (aside from the fact that McCain ran with one arm tied behind his back, but that’s another matter) That’s a power that neither the Left or the Right should accept.

But, what is Obama and the wacko Left wanting to do about this freedom of political speech? They want either a Constitutional amendment taking it away, or for Congress to make a law, (echo. . .shall make no law) taking it away. Forfeiting the people’s power back to the media. President Obama’s statement:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

As we just learned with Obamacare, when the Left and Obama over-reach, they do it on steroids.

related links:

Supremes Overrule Sotomayor's Empathy

It comes as no surprise to many that the Supreme Court would overturn the decision made by Sonia Sotomayor. That’s what happened today.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

It is instructive to watch how the Supreme Court decision will be reported. Headlines like these should be a clue.

The storyline will be less about Sotomayer being overruled, less about the fact that the plaintiffs prevailed in getting equal protection under the law, and more about stoking the racial fire and accusations that the court wants to ‘wind back the clock.’

And, more importantly, less about the fact that the court’s solution to the case was only that. A solution of the case. Plaintiffs prevail, end of story. There was no constitutional question regarding racial preferences to be decided.

The constitutionality of racial preferences under the law will come before the Supreme Court some day. And you can bet that a court with Sotomayor and one more ‘sympathetic’ judge would codify government-approved racial discrimination once and for all.

related links: Sotomayor, Equality Or Pay-Back | It’s The Supreme Court, Not Oprah

Sotomayor, Equality Or Pay-Back

Economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell examines President Obama’s Thomas SowellSupreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor from a perspective that is quite refreshing. Her record.

Back when I was on the receiving end of racial discrimination, it was to me not simply a personal misfortune, or even the misfortune of a race, it was a moral outrage. But not everyone who went through such an experience sees it that way.

When it comes to subjecting other people to the same treatment in a later era, some have no real problem with that. They see it as pay-back.

One of the many problems of the pay-back approach is that many of the people who most deserve retribution are no longer alive. You can take symbolic revenge on people who look like them but this removes the whole moral element. If it is all right to discriminate today against individuals who have done you no harm, then why was it wrong to discriminate against you in the past?

These are not just abstract questions. These are serious, real world questions, especially when considering someone to be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some judicial nominees have had racial bias attributed to them, despite their years of unwavering support of civil rights for all— Judge Robert Bork and Judge Charles Pickering being striking examples. But the current Supreme Court nominee is the first in decades to explicitly introduce racial differences in their own words, along with the claim that their own racial or ethnic background makes them better qualified.

For nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Sowell points out from her words and deeds that she is anything but an equal applier of the law. That one point alone is enough to be a disqualifier for judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

link: Equality or Pay-back?

It's The Supreme Court, Not Oprah

Sonia Sotomayor’s life story is one thing. It’s a picture perfect American success story. That is, in the America that she grew up in.

Take away the liberal heart-string tugging of her life’s story as a qualification to the Supreme Court, and what you have is a judge whose decisions have been overturned 60% of the time. A judge that upheld racial discrimination in a case now in the Supreme Court, where it is anticipated she will be overturned again.

It is not right-wing spin to say that her version of justice is not ‘blind.’ It’s just that you won’t see it put that way in the mainstream media. An automatic dis-qualifier for anywhere in the judiciary, let alone the Supreme Court.

President Obama picked an ideological soulmate with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. His idea of the U.S. Constitution seems to be in line with hers. Being overturned 60% of the time turns out to be a resume enhancement for an Obama Supreme Court nominee.

Which begs the question. Will future generations of Americans have the same opportunities that she had in an Obama-remade America?

related link: Why did George H.W. Bush pick Sotomayor for the courts?

audio, in his own words: What Obama thinks of the Supreme Court, and the Constitution

Saddleback Forum And Obama's Words, Just Words

The political forum hosted by minister Rick Warren Saturday night gave us a view of both candidates that none of the previous so-called debates produced. Avoiding campaign talking points, the questions Warren asked exposed the belief systems, character, and motivations of both men. And the country was better off for it.

I came away feeling like Sen. John McCain did the best that I’ve ever seen him do. Judging from reviews of others, this seems to be the overall assessment. Even from Democrats. And Obama’s performance was replete with indecision, obfuscation, and inexperience.

We all know that words mean things. And no one knows that better than Sen. Barack Obama, who made a big deal about it in a stump speech somewhere. Remember ‘Words, Just Words?

McCain came across decisive and confident. Obama, on the other hand, came across as indecisive and less confident, to the point of floundering for a way to end his sentence. Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director characterized Obama’s performance as ‘trying to impress Warren (or to put another away) not offend Warren.’ I saw it as Obama trying not to offend his base.

Two answers that Obama gave were especially revealing about his character and belief system.

On the subject of Christianity. Warren asked ‘What does it mean to you to trust in Christ and what does it mean on a daily basis? I mean, what does that really look like?’ Obama sets the stage with this quite acceptable answer.

But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds the expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting – well, acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with our God.

Next question, about abortion.’At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

McCain answered it in five words, ‘at the point of conception.’ By contrast, Obama said ‘. . . answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.’ Just a minute earlier, he was saying how he was thinking about the very least. What, the unborn, the absolute very least, don’t count? Words, just words?

He then said he is in favor of limits on late-term abortions. Well, except for the fact that he voted against a bill that would allow a live-birth aborted baby, a failed abortion, to live. What happened to the very least among us? Words, just words?

The next subject was about the Supreme Court. ‘Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?’ He caught himself in saying that Justice Thomas was inexperienced, which would have virtually undermined his own candidacy. But he started off with Justice Clarence Thomas. His response . . .

I don’t think that he. I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of Constitution.

Then, Barack Obama, the constitutional lawyer, said he does not like the way Justice Thomas operates. He explained himself this way . . .

One of the most important jobs of I believe the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the Executive branch on the power of the other branches and I think that he has been a little bit too willing and too eager to give an administration whether it’s mine or George Bush’s more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.

Here is another case where the party line trumps reality. Or in this case, the Constitution. There is only one job of a Supreme Court Justice, and by default is the most important one. That is, to decide cases based on the Constitution. Period. End of story. End of job description. The separation of powers was designed so that no branch, including the Judiciary, could do exactly what Obama expects it to do. It all comes back to the ideology of the liberal Democrats, which is, to use the Supreme Court to make laws that the Legislative branch cannot.

Related links: MCCAIN’S BACK IN THE SADDLEBACK | Transcript: Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency

Criminal Safe Haven Endorsed By SCOTUS

The SCOTUS decided to allow a safe haven for Rep. William (Dollar Bill) Jefferson (D-La) to conduct illegal activity by refusing to hear an appeal by the FBI.

Hiding behind the ’speech or debate’ clause of the Constitution creates a safe haven for criminal behavior. Who thinks that was the intention of the founding fathers?

related link: The Godfathers In Congress | Court Declines FBI Jefferson appeal | Best Defense Is A Good Admission?