national debt

Saturday, June 30, 2012

THE FRAUD CONTINUES

By Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs


Just went to barackobama.com and donated $3 using the name Adolph Hitler, 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany and for good measure put in Dictator of Nazi Party as employer. Got an email back saying Dear Adolph, Thank you for your generous donation….

The point? To prevent credit card fraud, merchants require that the address match what the credit card issuer has on file. Called the Address Verification System (AVS), an additional layer of protection requires the three digit security code. The Obama team has disabled the AVS so anyone anywhere in the world can anonymously donate to his campaign, thereby exceeding campaign donation limits and violating federal finance laws. They pulled the same stunt in 2008, but the media wouldn’t report it.

The Obama campaign switched the AVS off in 2008, and the MSM never called them on it. Murray followed up by trying the same trick with two of the Republican candidates’ web sites:






See more of  Pamela Geller here...........................................  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_foreign_contributions/



AMERICA SAYS


By Judith Natale


AMERICA SAYS... "ObamaCareTaxation?...NOT ON OUR WATCH"
Yes America... WE'RE BACK...*T.E.A.... "Taxed Enough Already"
Oh yes... "Bring It On & Light America's Fire"...
America... According to our U.S.Supreme Court... We now have the far left liberal agenda imposing upon us one & all throughout our great nation the "LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY"... Wow... That's Scary... We are taxed enough already & our economy cannot afford anymore DEBT or we will end up like Europe... :(
America... Please... Time for Conservatives join together & tell all of the far left radical liberals... "NO THANKS"... Enough is enough & we are already tax too much...
Well OK... Now the liberals have just "Lit The Fire Beneath Our Conservative Feet" & WE WILL NOT FORGET... Oh yes... "November 2012 Is Coming"... \o/\o/\o/




Friday, June 29, 2012

To Repeal Obamacare, All You Have to Do is Vote in Election 2012


By Jesse Merkel

On Thursday the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that Obamacare was constitutional. Conservatives went into shock, liberals cheered, and the stock markets crashed. Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush 43 appointee, shocked conservatives across the country by voting with the four liberal justices. His statement as to why left Republicans across the country pondering.
While the Court rejected two of the three parts of the administrations argument supporting the individual mandate, they did say that the mandate could survive as a tax. 
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” said the Chief Justice.
To put it bluntly, elections have consequences. If the American public wants to change this law, vote the people out of office that are for it, and vote in those that want it gone.
to, repeal, obamacare,, all, you, have, to, do, is, vote, in, election, 2012,
Chief Justice John Roberts   
After conservatives across the country put down their John Roberts voodoo dolls, they realized that there’s only one option now, and that’s the upcoming election. They also realized that the administration has either been lying for the past three years, or they’re incredibly stupid. Obamacare is a tax. It can now be considered one of the largest tax increases not only in American history, but the entire world. 
Obama once argued with ABC News’ George Stephanopolous, stating that his health care law wouldn’t be a tax. A year before that, candidate Obama claimed that health care should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families. Also, remember when the attorney for the administration argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate did not constitute a tax?
Chief Justice Roberts said that at the end of the day, whatever they want to call it, it’s a tax, and that makes it constitutional.
This isn’t the time for the GOP to play ‘Taps.’ There’s one way forward now. Nine people made their votes known on Thursday. This November, everyone else gets their chance, and it might not go so well for President Obama.
The Democrats took a nearly unprecedented beating at the ballot box in the 2010 midterms. The dominant issue that powered that tidal wave was Obamacare. Now it’s back on the table. It may even replace the still-ailing economy as the dominant campaign issue.
Did the Supreme Court hang an albatross around the neck of the president that he thought he’d finally gotten rid of while giving a gift to Mitt Romney and the Republicans? The law is stillhugely unpopular with the public. The majority of people want it repealed.
Mitt Romney and the GOP will hammer every day until November. Obama will have to once again defend an unpopular bill to a public that remembers and resents how it was passed by Congress at midnight on a Sunday, with favors and payoffs. 
Mitt Romney, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) spoke again today about the need for a complete repeal. House Republicans have already scheduled a repeal vote for early July. Even though they know Majority Leader Harry Reid will never bring it up for a vote in the Senate, at least it will continue to put the Democrat’s support of what’s undoubtedly an unpopular bill on record.
President Obama, members of the blogosphere and the mainstream media will probably spend weeks gloating. Even the DNC’s Twitter account decided to spike the ball with a few less-than-classy colorful metaphors.
Republicans, libertarians and Tea Party supporters had a fire lit underneath them in a way that they have not since 2010. If Obama thought the opposition was a pain before, he hasn’t seen anything yet. While that same passion’s been re-ignited, there is one major difference between 2010 and now. This time, Obama’s name is on the ballot.
President Obama did more than wake the sleeping giant. He spiked the football on its head. His recent support of gay marriage and his attempts to push for amnesty are peanuts compared to the outrage his healthcare law causes. The moment the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, it became an entirely different dynamic.
Obama won’t have the Supreme Court to campaign against. Instead he’ll now have an angrier, reinvigorated opposition. The sleeping giant is awake once again, and it’s pissed. As Mitt Romneysaid Thursday: “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we have to get rid of Obama.”
As for the Chief Justice, there’s one more thing to consider. He ruled the mandate relative to the commerce clause as unconstitutional. By reframing it as a tax, there are actually several upsides. Congress can still levee taxes, but it can’t compel people to buy a product. It also makes Obama look bad after he spoke for three years about how the penalty was not a tax.
Calling it a tax also means that a repeal bill could now pass the Senate by 51 votes instead of 60. All the GOP needs is a few senators this November, and a vice president to break the tie.
Did Roberts join the majority so that he could write the ruling in a way that might in the endharm the president politically? A little payback for all of the insults the president has tossed towards the Supreme Court? And while he was at it, did he toss a little fuel on the fire of the opposition?
We shall see.
Picture Credit: Steve Petteway

See more of Jesse Merkel here..........  http://www.policymic.com/profiles/3696/jesse-merkel

What George H. W. Bush & Barack Obama Have In Common?


By Jared Allebest

Conservative Samizdat 


Everyone remembers George H. W. Bush's famous promise not to raise taxes, right?:



Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush by reminding voters of that broken promise: 


Remember Barack Obama's promise that he would not raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000? 





Obama may not have made a pledge as memorable as George H. W. Bush's but he broke his promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on Americans making less that $250,000. I expect Mitt Romney make a similar commercial in the same way Clinton did with Bush.
Team Romney, you know what to do. Do it.

See more of Jared Allebest / Comservative Samizdat here............   http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Supreme Court Health Care Decision Limits The Power Of The Government

By Jared Allebest

Conservative Samizdat


As I said yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by upholding ObamaCare in such a way as to lay the ground work for the eventual demise of ObamaCare and at the same time drastically limited the Federal Government. 


Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gives a brief interview with the Daily Caller and explains that over time, conservatives will see this landmark decision that reverses the growth of government which is something the Supreme Court hasn't done since the New Deal. Watch the clip below:




Many conservatives are angry and upset with Chief Justice John Roberts. There are unpleasant pictures of John Roberts floating around on facebook, blogs and conservative websites. I understand their reaction but they are only looking at the short term goal of repealing ObamaCare and were disapointed that didn't happen. 
However, legal conservatives such as myself, Ken Cuccinelli and others are quiet happy with this decision because the long term goal of limiting the power of the federal government was accomplished and that this reduction in the size, scope and power is a permanent and lasting change on our government. As a result, John Roberts made a wise decision by going after the long term goals of conservatism rather than focusing on the short term of goal of striking down ObamaCare. 
See Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here .................

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Why Chief Justice Justice John Roberts Made The Right Decision On ObamaCare


By Jared Allebest

Conservative Samizdat
Given that I have been extremely busy lately with my law work, I haven't had time to keep up on my blog. However, I would like to share my thoughts on the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare today. I'd like to my observations about Chief Justice John Roberts which will help me unpack my thoughts on ObamaCare.
Many people on both the Left and the Right are surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. While the Left is overjoyed with him, the Right are not only surprised by his position but there seems to be a bit of a mystery as to when he decided to uphold ObamaCare. For me, I'm not interested in solving that mystery and quite frankly I don't care when or why he switched. 
What I do care about is the impact of his decision on our country. I haven't read the entire decision yet (I'll probably get around to it this weekend) but unlike other conservatives, I am happy with the fact that he joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. Let me explain why. 
Prior to the ruling conservatives were worried that if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was held constitutional, then it would give Congress unlimited regulatory power. But by holding that ObamaCare as unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, he has halted the expansion of that power and has now set the stage to shrink the Commerce Clause back to its proper constitutional boundaries: 
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not tocompel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Chief Justice Roberts may have made a smart and crafty move by giving Obama limited political victory while holding that ObamaCare is unconstitutional under he Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Spending Clause.  
When I say that Chief Justice Roberts gave Obama a political victory, its a limited victory and its a win that may not last very long. In fact, I believe that Roberts intentionally and cleverly designed it to be a short term victory by holding it to be a constitutionally valid exercize of Congress' power to tax: 
Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
How short could this victory be? It could be less than a month
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has promised to hold a vote on July 11th to repeal ObamaCare after Congress gets back from its July 4th recess. House Speaker John Boehner is also behind the effort to repeal this law as quickly as possible.  But a full repeal is not likely to happen. The vote to repeal it will certainly pass in the House where the Republicans are a majority but not in the Senate where Democrats have a slim majority.
The victory could come as short as 130 days when America goes to the ballot box to decide to either keep the current President or get a new one. As Mitt Romney explains it, the only way to repeal ObamaCare is to get rid of Obama. Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised that he will repeal ObamaCare on his first day in office. 
However, voting for Mitt Romney to be our new President won't fully repeal ObamaCare. We need a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. We already have a Republican majority in the House and we need to keep that majority in 2012. We also need to make the Democrats a minority in Congress by getting as many Republicans in the Senate as possible.
But lets get back to small victory that Chief Justice John Roberts gave to Obama. By limiting the constitutionality of ObamaCare to Congress power to tax, he's has laid the groundwork for Congress to repeal it very easily. Congress can do whatever it wants with taxes. They can raise taxes, lower taxes or eliminate it all together.
Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that we had to pass ObamaCare to find out what it is in it. Republicans charged that the federal individual mandate was a tax and Obama denied that accusation.  
Americans hate taxes. And they also hate ObamaCare just as much.  And that's a lethal combination, especially for an incumbent President running for reelection. 
Americans will not be happy to find out that the Democrats lied to them for denying it was a tax and the Supreme Court did what Nancy Pelosi asked the American people to do by looking what is in the law and Congress passed the law only to find out that it was...another tax increase on the American people. That means that 26 million people or roughly around 70-75 percent of the people who make less than $200,000 a year, will now be paying a new additional tax which is estimated to be a $1.7 trillion tax over the first decade.
f you think about it, declaring ObamaCare as constitutionally valid tax increase is such an intelligent yet simple and elegant way of repealing ObamaCare since he properly placed the responsibility of repealing it back to Congress (where it should belong) and the American people.  
Thus, Obama's victory is a limited and hollow one since Roberts is essentially saying that Obama is a tax loving Democrat which leaves nothing really good for the President to cheer about during the election season:
Republicans would have preferred the court overturn the health care bill, an act that would have underscored Obama's biggest liability -- the perception among voters, including those who like and trust him, that he has been ineffective. 

But you can count on them to use Roberts' bill-saving justification to label Obama a tax-and-spend liberal.

"I'm sure they'll nail us on taxes and I'm sure it will work," said a senior White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. "But, given the alternative, that's a bitter pill I'm ready to swallow."
By upholding ObamaCare, Obama's victory is a short lived victory for the President since it leaves him in an politically uncomfortable position for the rest of the election year and may end up costing him his job:
Obama is boxed in. What is he to do? He can't criticize the Court for judicial activism, as it upheld the law (putting aside the way the Court limited the Medicaid provisions, which are not particularly salient to voters). The decision undercuts a potential theme of his campaign -- that a conservative Court is out of control. And yet Obama can't trumpet the decision either, since it states that Democrats overreached in trying to justify the law under the Commerce Clause. Worse yet, it calls the mandate something that Democrats didn't want it to be: a tax.
Conversely, the decision may be the optimal result for Mitt Romney. If the Court had struck down the mandate, it would have taken off the table an issue that Republican base voters care tremendously about. But in upholding the law, the Court didn't just leave that issue on the table; it gave Romney tremendous ammunition he can use to criticize Obama as a tax raiser.
There was much contrarian wisdom floating around prior to the decision about how a defeat might be helpful to Obama, as he could run against the Court. Jeffrey Toobin criticized this as "nonsense": "Winners win, and losers lose." We'll never know if Obama could have potentially won by losing the health care case. But the coming months will tell whether he might have lost by winning.
In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by joining the liberal 5-4 majority by working within the system to engineer the eventual demise of ObamaCare. 

See more of Jared Allebest here.......................
 http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/ 


Romney: I'll do what justices didn't



 

 
Added on June 28, 2012In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on health care, Mitt Romney says the decision is equivalent to a tax increase.




ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional

By Jared Allebest
Conservative Samizdat
The Supreme Court of the United States has announced that it has has decided hear ObamaCare in this term rather than next term. According to the National Journal, the Supreme Court has asked that the parties focus their arguments to three main issues: the individual mandate, severability, and jurisdiction.
The fact that the Supreme Court has chosen to take this issue on now will have a big impact on the 2012 election especially if Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination and faces off against Obama in the general election.


Regardless of who wins the Presidential election, ObamaCare will be most certainly held unconstitutional but explain that the individual mandate is constitutional at the state level like in Massachusetts under Governor Romney.


In other words, ObamaCare is unconstitutional whereas RomneyCare is constitutional.
Dr. Matt Moody, who isn't a lawyer, has given a good legal analysis why Obama's health care law is constitutional and why Mitt Romney's health care law is:


Federalism
For the 21% of Massachusetts citizens who don't prefer RomneyCare, moving to another State to escape perceived government oppression only works when 49 other States have constitutional power to create their own unique "experiments" in governance. Thus, when a limited Federal Government steadily morphs into a dominating Central Government, constitutionally-defined Federalism slowly erodes. James Madison succinctly described the principle of Federalism with these words:


The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.


Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.


The opposite of Federalism occurs when Americans have an overreaching central government that, in the words of Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, "seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance." When "We the People" look to central government to take care of every problem, the power and importance State governance is diminished — which is the opposite of Federalism.


Here's how Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandies described Federalism:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.


In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion for a 6-2 majority; Brandeis ruled that there is no such thing as a "federal general common law" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction (interstate lawsuits). This Supreme Court decision overturned Swift v. Tyson (1842) — precedent law which had been in place for 96 years. This landmark ruling meant that federal courts must apply the law of the State where the legal injury occurred. This High Court decision strengthened the sovereignty of States, and reversed a trend toward centralizing government power.


As established by the Founding Fathers through the United States Constitution, federal government was intended to be limited with "few and defined" powers. But in direct defiance of Original Intent, ever since the New Deal, federal government has gradually grown larger and larger, gaining more and more power — that's not Federalism, that's not what the Founding Fathers put in place.


Why the ObamaCare Mandate is Unconstitutional


ObamaCare is Unconstitutional because the 2,700 page bill is not just about Affordable Health Care for all Americans; instead, ObamaCare is an enormous usurpation of power that pushes far beyond the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.


To justify ObamaCare, the federal government must find authority to do so in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution — wherein the federal government is delegated enumerated powers that are, as James Madison described, "few and defined" in contrast to State powers that are "numerous and indefinite."


In both the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the federal government has tried to find justification for the Obama-Care Mandate in three clauses from Article 1 Section 8 — the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.


Here's why each of these clauses fail to justify the ObamaCare Mandate.


Commerce Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify ObamaCare through the "Commerce Clause." Here's how the United States Constitution describes that power:
The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus "doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of "doing nothing" on the part of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State, that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State residents.


But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting" in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises: Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service (health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?


But this question jumps the gun! The "act of non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme, is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."


In other words, the constitutional regulation of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.


So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?


According to the Federal Judges who have ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.


Necessary & Proper Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify Obama-Care through the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congressional powers that are not necessarily enumerated powers but always directly buttress an enumerated power. In an 1819 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Marshall wrote that Congressional Authority via the Necessary and Proper Clause, while broad, "its authority is not unbridled." Thus Congress has only power to enact laws that are "within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." The Necessary and Proper Clause states:


The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Notice that Congress is empowered to make "necessary and proper" Laws specifically to carry "into Execution the foregoing Powers" — referring to the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. In other words, mandating that a person must buy health insurance needs to be justified, in the first place, by the few and defined powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. So the Necessary and Proper Clause can only be invoked as one of the enumerated powers is also invoked. That is why Judge Henry Hudson ruled as he did in the Virginia Lawsuit against Obama-Care.


Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obama-Care mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” (p. 24) "If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution." (p. 19)


General Welfare Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify the Obama-Care mandate via the "General Welfare Clause," a clause that is embedded within Congressional Taxation Power. But to invoke the General Welfare Clause, the Government must first establish that the "penalty" for not buying Health Insurance — the very "penalty" spoken of in the 2700 pages behemoth called Obama-Care — is really a tax, and not a penalty.


While the Federal Government does have taxation power via Article 1 Section 8, here's the problem:


In the effort to pass ObamaCare through Congress, President Obama and the authors of Obama-Care played politics with words; trying to distance themselves from the perception of higher "taxes," the President, the Obama-Care authors, and Democrat Senators and Congressmen all called the monetary assessment for failure to purchase health insurance a penalty — and not a tax!


This is precisely why Judge Henry Hudson pointed to the historical record of "pre-enactment representations," where both the "Executive and Legislative branches" consistently called the "penalty" for failure to purchase healthcare insurance, a "penalty" and not a "tax." Thus, Federal Judge ruled that the General Welfare Clause has no force.


NEVERTHELESS, even if the penalty were deemed a tax, there is still a huge Constitutional problem this virtually impossible to overcome: All federal taxes, save income taxes, must be assessed proportionally according to State populations — this is called a "Capitation" Tax.


A Little Known Fact about Federal Taxation: All Federal Taxes must be Proportional to State Populations


Even if the penalty for failure to purchase health insurance were a tax, and not a penalty, here's another constitutional problem. All taxes laid by the Federal Government, save income taxes, must be proportional to the populations of each State.


Article I Section 9
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Again, the only Constitutional exception to a "capitation" Tax, proportionally paid among the several States, is the federal income tax. Since income tax is NOT a "capitation" Tax, that is why Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:


16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Because the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT an income tax or a "capitation" tax, proportional to State populations, this means the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT Constitutional — and thus NOT legal.


Police Powers
Within a Constitutional context, the term "Police Powers" has a broader definition that goes beyond "law enforcement." The root of the word "police" is "polis" which means "city" or "state." The root "polis" is found in the word "metropolis." — metra = mother + polis = city, hence Metropolis is the Mother City.
Police Powers refer to powers held primarily by Cities and States; thus, Police Powers literally means polis powers, in other words, City or State Powers. The United States Constitution directly empowers the States to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry. The exercise of police power takes the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal consequences and even through physical coercion — this is the common connotation of "police" as "law enforcement."


Again, Police Powers are broader than the common understand associated with the word "police." Because the federal government has limited powers granted by the Constitution, it does not have a general police power directly over the U.S. citizenry, as the states do. Clearly, certain enumerated powers stipulated in Article 1, Section 8 empower federal government to act on matters of foreign relations and border security.


United States Constitution: Article 1 Section 8
Historically, it was the States that created the Federal Government and granted specific powers through the Constitution. Congress may exercise only the eighteen 18 enumerated powers explicitly outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


To provide and maintain a Navy;


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


All other powers to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry are held by the States, as specifically granted in the Tenth 10th Amendment. Given that the States created the Federal Government, and then gave it power to regulate Interstate Commerce, we understand that decisions to originate Commerce in the first place, resides with the States.


Dr Matt's Intriguing Insight: ObamaCare is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (forcing everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created, as provided by the commerce clause."


If the power to require citizens to purchase goods or services is NOT enumerated among the 18 clauses of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, then the Federal Government does NOT have that power.


The Necessary and Proper Clause
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 is known as The Necessary and Proper Clause, and is stated thus:
The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


During discussions of the proposed constitution, this clause provoked controversy: Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power; in contrast, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution — Alexander Hamilton defended this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers.


Arguing in Federalist No. 44, James Madison concurred with Hamilton, stating that without this clause the constitution would be a "dead letter." At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace civil liberties (e.g., liberty from federal powers that force citizens to purchase particular goods or services).


The General Welfare Clause
In the United States Constitution, the "General Welfare" provision is found in the Taxing and Spending Clause as follows:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Through clarifications by Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall, the mention of "general welfare" within the Taxing and Spending Clause was never intended to give unlimited power to the federal government.


Here's how Thomas Jefferson explained the general welfare clause: “the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum [according to pleasure] for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.


Jefferson's statement suggests that the "general welfare" of the people would be an aim reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment. And because the 10th Amendment reserves all rights and powers to the States, that are not enumerated to the Federal Government, thus, it is the States that would address concerns of matters of welfare of the people — whether general or specific.


According to Jefferson, the welfare of the Union, as opposed to the more specific welfare of the people [living within the Union], is the purpose for federal taxation and spending. The "Union" being the collective coalition of 50 states.


In a 1824 ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall described in an "obiter dictum" [said in passing] the following limit to the General Welfare Clause: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. . . . Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." In other words, "general welfare" must be defined within the enumerated powers of the federal government.


Two authors of the The Federalist papers offered interpretations of the general welfare clause:


James Madison maintained that spending must be tied to one of the specifically enumerated federal powers — such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military. Madison argued that the General Welfare Clause is not a direct grant of power, but a statement of purpose that qualifies the taxation power.


Alexander Hamilton offered his interpretation of "general welfare" after the Constitution had been ratified. He argued that federal spending, as an enumerated power, could be done independently to benefit the general welfare — such as to assist national agricultural or educational needs. However such federal spending should be general in nature and would not favor a specific section of the country.


The 9th Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust all basic and fundamental rights. The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It was James Madison who introduces these amendments, thus it is significant to note Madison's words:


"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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


The 10th Tenth Amendment
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.


Based upon how Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens ruled in United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich, they interpret the Interstate Commerce Clause to have few limits, if any. These four Justices have ruled in favor of Federal Government regulation 3 out of 3 times — even when the issues were NOT directly about commerce, nor about interstate dealings.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will likely rule that requiring citizens to buy Health Insurance, is something that the Federal Government can do under the Interstate Commerce Clause — again, here Clause #3 from Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution:


The Congress shall have power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Justices Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor have not made rulings on the Commerce Clause yet. If reputations for being conservative or liberal mean anything, then Roberts and Alito may support Commerce Clause Limits, and Sotomayor would broadly interpret the Commerce Clause as granting powers for the Fed to regulate. The term "broadly interpret" usually means ignoring the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


As for Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, . . . Thomas has come down on the side of Limits to the Commerce Clause three 3 out of 3 times, with Scalia and Kennedy ruling 2 twice for Commerce Clause limitations and once for federal government regulation.
Scalia and Kennedy will likely cast the swing votes on the matter. When the Supreme Court Justices eventually rule on the Virginia Law Suit, they will do so based upon the following precedent cases that involve the Interstate Commerce Clause:


Supreme Court Cases relating to the Commerce Clause
1942 - Wickard v. Filburn
In order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, the U.S. government imposed federal limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer. Filburn was growing more than the federal limits, and was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine -- even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.


Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the "Agricultural Adjustment Act." The intended rationale of this federal law was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The court ruled that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Majority: Jackson, joined by Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Byrnes


1995 - United States v. Lopez
Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. In 1992 he carried a concealed weapon into the school. Confronted by school authorities, Lopez admitted to having the weapon and was charged with violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.


Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals: While Congress has broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power is limited, and does not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns — especially when there is no evidence that carrying them affects the economy substantially.


This was the first Supreme Court case since Wickard v. Filburn to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist identified three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause: (1) channels of interstate commerce, (2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce


In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.


Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence: Kennedy, joined by O'Connor
Concurrence: Thomas
Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent: Stevens
Dissent: Souter
2000 - United States v. Morrison


In 1994, the United States Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That fall a Virginia Tech freshman, Christy Brzonkala, was allegedly assaulted by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, members of the school's football team. A state grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime. Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act.


Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to pass the "Violence Against Women Act." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision."


Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence: Thomas
Dissent: Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens; joined by Souter and Ginsburg (Points 1 and 2 only)


2005 - Gonzales v. Raich
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. California was one of eight states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown marijuana to relieve pain; her use was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law -- the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.


Ruling: The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Federal Government's ability to regulate: Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, to prevent or limit access to marijuana for other uses.


Majority: Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.


Concurrence: Scalia


Dissent: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas (Points 1 and 2 only)


Dissent: Thomas


Scalia's Concurring Opinion:


“As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”


Again, Scalia voted in favor of Commerce Clause limitations in Lopez and in Morrison.


O'Connor's Dissenting Opinion:


"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently."


"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."


Justice Rehnquist joined O'Connor's dissent. Her use of the word "experiment," referred to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:


"Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."


Thomas's Dissenting Opinion:
"Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce ... among the several States.' . . . Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that 'commerce' included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value."
"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits."
"Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"


Dr Matt's Bottom Line: Why Obama-Care will be Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
In Gonzales v. Raich, what tipped the Supreme Court decision in favor of federal regulation? It was the principle of "undercutting" a broader scheme of Interstate order. In his concurring opinion, Scalia wrote:
Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”
If the Supreme Court had allowed individuals to grow marijuana at home for "personal medicinal purposes," this would have opened Pandora's Box: thus Interstate sales and use of marijuana would have become a nuisance for other States where marijuana growing and using is illegal — state anti-marijuana laws would have been "undercut."


One of the key differences between the State of Virginia's Lawsuit compared to Gonzales v. Raich, is that Marijuana use is illegal in most States and exercising one's liberty NOT to purchase Health Insurance is NOT illegal in all States — that is, until ObamaCare introduced its coercive Mandate. This means the threat of "undercutting" a broader network of State Laws is NOT a factor in the Virginia Law Suit. Expressing one's liberty to NOT purchase a good or service has never been illegal; in contrast, growing and using marijuana is illegal — that's a key difference in the two court case, thus the undercutting principle should not apply in the Virginia Lawsuit.


This means the freedom for individual citizens to NOT engage in commerce (to choose NOT to buy Health Insurance or any other good or service) is NOT regulate-able by the Federal Government via the Interstate Commerce Clause, because that choice is NOT an act of commerce and further does not involve Interstate coordination or Interstate "undercutting" — which was the tipping point for Gonzales v. Raich, according to Scalia.


Clearly a citizens choice to "do nothing" need not be coordinated and regulated between the several States by the Federal Government; therefore, the Health Care Freedom Act passed by the State of Virginia should be ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court; and the universal mandate forcing citizens to buy health insurance, and levying a monetary penalty if they don't, should be found Unconstitutional.


The power for Governments to regulate an individual's decision to "do nothing" (to NOT buy a good or a service) is unquestionably reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution — that is IF, as the Declaration of Independence says "by the consent of the governed," a majority of citizens want such a regulation. The people of the State of Virginia have decided they want liberty from being compelled to buy health insurance! In contrast, if the majority of Massachusetts citizens want to be insured, they have the liberty to elect representative government to establish it — and thus enjoy the freedom to be insured. That's Federalism.


The best Health Care Reform at the federal level will be Compassionate, Constitutional, and will NOT kill the Economy by driving up the National Debt. But operating from limited powers, the best federal government can do is to remove interstate restrictions and open up free market competitive among the States.


Ultimately Healthcare Reform must happen at the State level, because States have numerous and indefinite powers that federal government does not have. Because ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government, making it more of a Central Government that overreaches and diminishes the numerous and indefinite powers of the States, the Supreme Court should rule 5-4 that Obama-Care is unconstitutional.

See more of Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here......  http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

"American's Question Obama's Christian Faith"

By Tim Shaw Sr.                
A recent national survey found that about 36% of Americans believed President Obama's report that he was a Christian. This got me thinking of why this might be the case. There are the usual claims that he is a closet Islamist, I have seen no real evidence of this. But, I started thinking on Jesus statement, that you could tell his disciples by applying a simple test, He said: "By their fruits you shall know them."
One of the reason people suspect Obama's claim that he is a Christian is his overpowering arrogance. Anyone who has made a serious attempt to be a disciple of Christ realizes the very first thing that has to go out the window, before the Lord can enter ones heart, is arrogance and pride. Discipleship requires humility and complete subjugation to the Lords will. Then the new disciple watches in amazement as the Lord removes from your character this terrible arrogance (which when you had it, while using it you in fact are declaring to the world you consider yourself a god, and are in no need of any other god, for you can do it all yourself). After the Lord removes the arrogance and pride, the Lord assists you in rebuilding you a new character, in essence creating spiritually a new man. Your a weak piece of a wet noodle. But a strong man, built on a foundation of correct timeless principles (honesty, integrity, kindness, mercy, compassion, service to others, a devotion to causes greater than ones self etc).


Most pronounced, if this man is called to a life of community service is Gratitude and he makes continual references to God as the source of his strength, and of all of our gifts we enjoy as a nation like Freedom, Liberty and Freedom to Worship, and any gifts he may posses as a leader (This Christian leader now shows humility.... the opposite of arrogance). He does not take credit, he takes joy in giving credit to those whom he serves with that have worked so hard to accomplish the task, the foot soldiers if you will. It reminds me of my dear friends of the Greatest Generation. I never heard one of them boast of the WWII or Korean War heroism. But as I pestered them, and dug their stories out of them, I was simply astonished at the absolute hero's in my life. And, I knew they were still downplaying their stories. The truly humble man, has no need to boast, he knows who he is, and from whom his strength comes from.


Mitt Romney is a man of modesty. People know he spent 10 years in up close and personal work with the poor and needy (emotionally, spiritually and temporarily) as a church leader, but he never speaks of it, when he is accused of being unapproachable. He is accused of being so rich bla bla bla. He never mentions he worked for no salary for 4 years as President of the Olympics, he refused to be paid as Governor of Mass. A little known fact is that he and Ann have a charitable foundation, called "The Tyler Foundation" where they donate millions of dollars to children's charities. He would rather take the slings and arrows of the dishonest left than violate his principles of being the disciple he is to boast about his good works. How does this contrast with the man of arrogance?


He is a man of modesty that does not boast of his good works (he sees Jesus as the real source of his good works). I heard Ann Romney say to Neil Cavuto in an interview, when Neil was giving her a hard time that Mitt did not boast enough about his good works, she said "Well, that is because he is a very modest man. I have been pleased to see these qualities in Mitt Romney. To me these qualities makes him even more qualified to be President. Not because he is a Christian (well, he would call himself one through and through... other's would debate that on theological grounds, and that is fine if they want to hold that point of view, but I understand how intensely he has studied the life of Jesus and tried to apply them directly in his life, and he has sought the miraculous working of Christ's grace to achieve "the might change in his heart," He is by no means perfect, and a true disciple is always acutely aware of his weaknesses and the need for the Lord to help him overcome them. But, it gives me hope there is such a man on the horizon, prepared to assume leadership of America.


Hopeful my assessment is accurate, but I have seen little or none of these attributes demonstrated by President Obama. Obama has done, and tried to do very good things for people. But the difference is he always seems to have clear political motives, followed by an endless need to boast about what "He" did, this is not the way the Christian disciple would respond. Boastfulness was high on the Savior's lists of actions that brought him displeasure, which he tried to teach people against and to replace it with humility. There is no hidden scripture on this. It's all over the Bible. Just read the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. Jesus taught you will know his disciples by how they live their lives "By your fruits you shall know them." I submit that the fruit of Arrogance in a man's life is a sure indication of where a man stands in his Christian discipleship.

Of course, I want to make it abundantly clear, I have no religious test to be president. I found recent surveys interesting were I believe something like only 36% of American's believed President Obama's claim that he is a Christian. I have been mulling over in my head why that would be the case. This is what I have reasoned. I am simply trying to contrast the two candidates according to the attributes of Christian Discipleship as I understand them from my own study and life, while watching both men in action. Who ever is elected has a solemn obligation to be the president of ALL the people regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation. But, religion has been an issue in this campaign. Romney has very much tried to steer clear of it, and all other issues, other than the economy. But I believe a man's character and inner integrity is a legitimate issue when considering a president.