Archive for Constitution
Dem Rep Louise Slaughter Concocting Plan to Pass Health Care Without a Vote
Posted by: | CommentsI wanted to go one day without blogging about health care. I’m that sick of it. One stinking day. Then I heard about the latest power grab by the Democrats.
Does Pelosi have the votes? She says she does, but if she did why hasn’t she called a vote? Could it have something to do with Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) plan to ram the bill through without a vote?
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
She said she hasn’t taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi yet, but I don’t believe that.
Red State’s Leon Wolf lays out in no uncertain terms how this is a blatant violation of the Constitution. You should read the whole thing, but here’s the summary.
Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact. They already know the American people don’t want this bill. They know by now that what they’re trying to do is illegal. The question now is whether they still have the shame to care about either.
By now if you don’t know the answer to that question you haven’t been paying attention.
What ever happened to the rule of law?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Graham and Schumer Propose All American Workers Carry Biometric ID Card
Posted by: | CommentsThe onslaught on our liberty continues. Lindsey Graham is a disgrace. He’s worse than Obama and Schumer, because he pretends to be a Republican.
Judge Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell talked about the proposed national ID card. Again, it’s all about control over us. I urge you to watch and listen to the whole thing. They also touched on the Census and the intrusive questions the government wants us to answer.
The Wall Street Journal reported that they’re doing it to crack down on illegal immigration.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Big Government’s Capitol Confidential weighed in.
Adding the national ID cared idea to the mix will cause both the right and the left to band together against this provision forcing all Americans to carry an identification card containing fingerprints and other biometric information. To say this is an invasion of privacy is an understatement. There is no provision in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power nor the right to force Americans to be fingerprinted and to carry an identification card against their will. This is not a new idea.
Read the whole thing. This is a horrible idea. It’s tyranny and all freedom loving Americans should stand in opposition to this blatant assault on our rights.
Popularity: 1% [?]
The National Debt is the Number One Domestic Threat to the US
Posted by: | CommentsThat’s the message Reps. Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence wanted to get across during today’s blogger conference call. They believe the national debt is a huge threat to our freedom, our security, and our future. They believe they have a moral obligation to do something about it.
Yesterday I told you about their Spending Limit Amendment proposal.
Historically, federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product has averaged about 20%. If things go on as projected, by the year 2081 federal spending will rise to a whopping 70% of GDP! Obviously, that’s unsustainable. The current level of spending is higher than it’s been since WWII.
This chart pretty much says it all. (These projections do not factor in ObamaCare.)
You may want to print it out and hang it on your fridge. Make copies and pass them out to your friends, and ask them what kind of future their kids or grand kids are going to have with that red line level of federal spending?
It’s insane. Hensarling and Pence don’t hold any illusions – they know how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. But it’s a debate we must have, and we need to have it now. If not, this will be the first time in history that Americans have left the next generation less free, less prosperous and less secure.
They made the point that we built this great republic without the average federal budget exceeding 20% of GDP. A spending limit amendment would be different than a balanced budget rule, because under a balanced budget rule Congress could spend as much as they want. All they’d have to do is raise taxes to balance the budget.
To find out more about the Spending Limit Amendment visit the website. They told us that after twenty four hours they had already picked up some co-sponsors. They’re all Republicans, but they’re hoping to garner some bipartisan support. They’re well aware of the failings in the past of Republicans when it comes to spending. But come on, the Democrats are like the Republicans on steroids. It’s time to say “enough is enough.”
Erick Erickson calls the SLA “a real Tea Party worthy amendment.”
Investors Business Daily endorsed the plan.
Tea Partyers will no doubt be impressed by the fact that the idea comes from no less than Thomas Jefferson. In 1798, the Declaration’s author wrote: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government.”
There really is no credible argument against the idea. In common-sense fashion, the constraint would be suspended during a declared war, and any other real emergency would surely be recognized as such by two-thirds of lawmakers.
Other attempts to save Americans from the drunken sailors they send to Washington have failed. The automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman “sequester” of the 1980s worked, but the Supreme Court judged much of the law to be an unconstitutional restriction on presidential powers, and Congress defanged it. Gramm-Rudman’s successor, Paygo, didn’t use fixed targets, and expired in 2002. The line-item veto was famously ruled unconstitutional by the high court.
The Hensarling-Pence-Campbell Spending Limit Amendment is actually preferable to the line-item veto because it doesn’t discriminate between big-spending Congresses and profligate presidents. It snaps the public purse closed on every Washington politician’s fingers.
The SLA couldn’t come at a more opportune time. The president and Congress want to add to our current $12 trillion in national debt a $2-trillion-plus big government health overhaul. Medicare, in the meantime, is less than a decade from bankruptcy, Social Security less than three decades away. As the plan points out, “if the SLA is not adopted, all of these programs are doomed on their current auto-pilot glide path as these three entitlement programs alone — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — are set to consume the entirety of the federal budget by 2036.” …
Our elected representatives are like young children. They know no limits. And like little kids, they need limits or they’ll push us all to the brink. In fact, I think we’re already there.
Video of House Republicans announcing the Spending Limit Amendment.
Popularity: 2% [?]
GOP Reps Pence, Hensarling and Campbell Propose Spending Limit Amendment
Posted by: | CommentsI doubt this will go very far, seeing that to amend the Constitution they’ll need a solid 2/3 majority. The being said, it sure would be fun to watch the Democrats talk their way out of limiting federal spending.
Background material on the proposed Spending Limit Amendment can be found here. Historically, federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product has averaged about 20%. If things go on as projected, by the year 2081 federal spending will rise to a whopping 70% of GDP! Obviously, that’s unsustainable. The current level of spending is higher than it’s been since WWII.
Rep. Mike Pence and Rep. Jeb Hensarling co-authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal outlining the plan.
The situation is dire, but don’t take our word for it. “U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering,” Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf said recently. Former Comptroller General David Walker called the rising costs of government entitlements a “fiscal cancer” that threaten “catastrophic consequences for our country.”
Can we tax our way out of this problem? No.
In order to pay for what we are on track to spend under current law, taxes would have to double. This would crush our economy and condemn future generations to a far lower standard of living. That is not an option.
Can we grow our way out? Unfortunately, no. Although pro-growth policies like simplifying the tax code and lowering rates are critical components of any solution, they alone are insufficient. Mr. Walker estimated it would take double-digit economic growth every year for the next 75 years in order to close the fiscal gap.
Can we continue to borrow our way out of the problem? Borrowing of that magnitude would drive up interest rates to unimaginable levels, crowding out borrowing opportunities for families and businesses. As Greece and other European countries like Spain and Portugal face default for their excess spending, and China lectures us on our fiscal irresponsibility, the idea of borrowing at still higher levels seems inconceivable.
Without spending discipline only one option remains: monetizing the debt, also known as inflation. Although Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has repeatedly said that this will not happen on his watch, many think it’s inevitable. If we do monetize the debt, inflation could be so high we may look back upon the Carter era with nostalgia.
Winston Churchill once said that “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” We’ve exhausted the possibilities. Now it’s time to do the right thing.
That is why we are proposing a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would limit spending to one-fifth of the economy (our historical spending average since World War II). The limit could only be waived by a declaration of war or by a two-thirds congressional vote.
As with other constitutional amendments, Congress would be given the authority to enforce and implement it. But for the first time, the federal government would have a limit on its size and scope. The Spending Limit Amendment does not promise a particular spending plan about what programs to restrain and by how much. Rather, it puts a legal constraint on lawmakers present and future.
Personally, I’d like to see federal spending even lower than 20%. But this is definitely a debate worth having, and it can’t come soon enough.
Note: Depending on my schedule, I may have the opportunity to speak to Reps. Pence and Hensarling tomorrow during a blogger conference call. If you have any questions for them let me know and I’ll do my best to get a question or two in.
Popularity: 2% [?]
If you don’t know your history, you’re destined to repeat it!
Posted by: | CommentsWhatever you may think of Glenn Beck personally, in this segment he’s exactly right. From the cycle of slavery, to freedom, to wealth, back to slavery; to the communists in our government.
If you don’t believe him, maybe you’ll believe Amity Shlaes, Jonah Goldberg or Jean François Revel.
Amity Shlaes wrote The Forgotten Man. She detailed the actions of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the way his policies prolonged The Great Depression. Jonah Goldberg authored Liberal Fascism, another well researched book exposing the greatest liberal lie of the past century. Liberals, progressives, communists, socialists, leftists – whatever you want to call them – they are all cut from the same cloth as the Nazis. If you don’t believe Americans, Jean François Revel, a Frenchman, wrote the eye opening Last Exit to Utopia. He explains how the leftists have written the history books, which is why we hear about the horrors of the “right wing” Nazis but not the “left wing” communists. All three of these books will dispel any illusions you may harbor about the Nazis being right wing. They were as far left as Stalin, Lenin, Castro, FDR and any other commie you can think of.
The reason the left fails to denounce the atrocities of despotic communist dictators (both past and present) is that by doing so they would have to admit that there is no utopia. If they can’t promise utopia, what platform will they run on? How can they control you if you’re free? They just believe that somehow they’ll be much better statists than their predecessors.
I won’t even link to my Amazon account. I don’t care if I get a few cents commission, what I do care about is that Americans start waking up. (Disclaimer: One of the books I mentioned was sent to me by a publisher to read and comment on, I bought the other two out of pocket.) I’ll be hanging on to all three, along with quite a few others, and they’ll be required reading for my children when they’re old enough to understand. It’s my job to educate them. It’s my job to educate myself. I’ve learned more in the past two years than I learned in twelve years of public school and four years of college. The more I learn the more disgusted I become not only with our elected officials, but with many of my fellow Americans. But at least my fellow Americans can claim ignorance, thanks to our public schools.
While re-educating yourself, your children, or your friends, don’t stop at FDR and The Great Depression. Go back to our founding, to the Constitution. Read the Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. And then ask yourself if anything you hear these days makes any sense. Read about the Great Depression of 1920. Never heard of it, did you? That’s because it didn’t last that long. That’s because President Harding didn’t meddle. I know, how boring. It’s much better to romanticize a statist who surrounded himself with “progressives” than to honor a man for knowing his limits, and the limits of the federal government.
Mike Church is another good source for information on the Constitution. (He’s not happy with Glenn Beck over the Debra Medina “Truther” issue, but I can’t believe he’d disagree with what Beck said in the video above.)
It’s so important to know history. To know how we got from a constitutional republic to this beast we have today. I could go on and on, but time is limited. Now that my little rant is out of my system I’ll bring you back to my regularly scheduled blogging. You know, keeping up with the statists of today.
Update: History is already repeating itself. Only getting worse. For the first time since The Great Depression, Americans are now taking more from the government than paying into it. How long can we keep this up folks?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Soros: FDR was tentative in first year, too. Then he got tough!
Posted by: | CommentsI guess this is Obama taking the advice of one of his big financial backers and “getting tough.”
White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial “reconciliation” rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the “fix” to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill.
He’s not going to call it “reconciliation” from what I hear. He’s going to call it either a “simple majority” or an “up or down vote.” These folks are all about semantics.
As for Soros, although I’m a non-violent person, I sure would like to smack that smirk off his face. As for Soros’ comment about FDR threatening the Supreme Court Justices, the reason he did that is because everything he did was unconstitutional and he knew it.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Just in Time for CPAC – The Mount Vernon Statement
Posted by: | CommentsUpdate: I’m rethinking my support of the Mount Vernon Statement.
A day ahead of the Conservative Political Action Conference, a group of conservatives came together to sign the Mount Vernon Statement. The purpose is to bring conservatives together to recommit to the founding principles of our republic.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda. ….
You, too, can sign the Mount Vernon Statement.
Find out what others are saying at memeorandum.
Popularity: 1% [?]
OK Fine, I’m a Radical!
Posted by: | CommentsThe left wing media wants you to believe that anyone who believes in the Constitution and states’ rights is a radical. They want you to believe Tea Partiers are radical. As if distrust of the federal government is suddenly an extremist position. Fine then, so be it, I’m a radical extremist! I do agree with Barack Obama on one thing – we do need fundamental change here in the US. But not the kind of change he’s talking about. We need to fundamentally change back to the founding principles of our republic.
I was listening to Mark Levin for a few minutes on my way to the store this evening, and he was talking about those “radicals for liberty” – the Founding Fathers. He said he’s becoming more radical and mentioned how today’s government is far worse to us than King George was to the colonists. It’s so true!
Do you own a home? If so, what do you pay in property taxes? What happens if you fail to pay your property taxes? You lose your home. What happens if you fail to pay federal or state income taxes? You go to jail or pay stiff penalties. Do you drink or smoke? How much are you paying in taxes? Just yesterday I paid our auto insurance bill and there was a $20.00 surcharge tacked on. Guess who it goes to? New York State! I was taxed $20.00 by the State of New York for paying for something they compel me to purchase! And today it was announced that Governor Paterson wants to hold back New Yorkers’ tax refunds to pay the state’s bills. The only reason the federal government isn’t floating a similar proposal is because they can print money and states can’t.
Stop and think about all the taxes you pay. Even if you’re one of those Americans who thinks they’re getting more from the government than you’re giving. Have you ever stayed at a hotel? Do you have a home phone or a cell phone? Do you pay sales tax? Do you pay sin taxes? Do you buy gasoline? Do you pay for electricity? Check your bills and receipts and add up just how much you pay in taxes? And it’s only going to get worse. There aren’t enough rich folks in America to cover the $14 trillion we all owe.
It’s pure insanity. The entitlement society is insanity. The public employee unions are insanity. I wonder how many public sector workers from states like New York move to low tax states when they retire? There ought to be a law, if they want their retirement funded by New York State taxpayers they should be required to stay in New York and pay the taxes along with the rest of us. Then again, if Obama and the Democrats have their way there won’t be any low tax states left to flee to.
So yeah, I’m opposed to all of that. I work hard. I’m responsible. I take care of my kids. I pay my bills on time and I’ve had it. I’ve had it with a government that refuses to be as responsible with my money as I am. So call me a radical. What do I care?
It looks like Mark Levin and I aren’t the only radicals out there. A group of conservatives has gotten together and tomorrow will ratify what they call the Mount Vernon Statement. I love it, radicals for liberty in the twenty first century!
The American Spectator reported:
On Wednesday, more than 80 conservative thinkers and organization heads will come together to ratify a joint manifesto ahead of the 2010 elections. Dubbed the Mount Vernon Statement, its goal is to unite the right — economic, social, and national security conservatives — under a set of shared principles. The idea is to make different conservative groups feel part of the same team and also to bind them in a common intellectual enterprise.
Participants read like a virtual who’s who of conservative movement heavyweights: former Attorney General Edwin Meese, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, among many others. But the final product will be short on policy wonkery.
Unlike the Contract With America, the Mount Vernon Statement is not a detailed legislative agenda. Instead, it intended as a set of philosophical principles that can serve as the foundation for policy formulation later. It is less Frank Luntz than Frank Meyer.
In fact, parts read like Meyer’s “fusionist” conception of conservatism. The document reminds “economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to Americas safety and leadership role in the world.”
The Mount Vernon Statement specifically calls for a new “fusion provided by American principles” through “constitutional conservatism.” “In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics,” the document reads. “The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.”
“Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new,” the statement continues. “But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?” The Mount Vernon conservatives assert “we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
Welcome to the “radical” club, Mount Vernon Conservatives!
What great timing. The Mount Vernon Statement will be ratified just before CPAC kicks off.
I hope the media keeps calling conservatives radical. It makes us sound cool. What’s more hip? Collectivism or rugged individualism? I’ll go with the latter. Apparently, quite a few college students feel the same way. And hey, conservatives must be doing something right if major publishing houses are paying liberals to put out hit pieces on them.
Tune in later this week and this weekend. Thursday and Friday this radical little mommy blogger will be linking to the other CPAC Bloggers, and I’ll be blogging live from CPAC all day Saturday.
Find out what others are saying at memeorandum.
Popularity: 2% [?]
How the GOP can have a big tent
Posted by: | CommentsIt’s really quite simple. The national Republican Party could include conservatives and moderates on all issues. Heck, they could even include liberals if they want, as long as they all agree to one simple principle:
Do what they swear to do when taking office – Uphold the Constitution of these United States.
-Cap and tax would be off the table.
-Nationalizing health care would be off the table.
-Taxpayer funded abortions would be off the table.
-Confirming federal judges that are “activists” would be off the table.
-Wealth redistribution would be off the table.
-Expanding the federal government would be off the table.
The only catch would be that they would have to uphold the Constitution as intended by our Founders, not as interpreted by judges and prior politicians. Past wrongs don’t make a right. The means no longer justifies the ends. Enough is enough.
Think about it – they could be for the most outrageous liberal policies, but say these things should all be left up to the states. Liberal republicans in liberal states can vote for liberal republicans in their state and local legislatures. If the conservatives don’t like it they can vote with their feet and vice versa. The federal government was not created to bailout states for their own bad decisions.
Here’s a new motto: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you’re country is doing to you and future generations!”
It’s time to put “republic” back in Republican.
Heck, maybe those liberal voters in liberal states might think twice about progressive policies if there’s no hope of a federal bailout.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s ‘The Constitution and Freedom’ Part V
Posted by: | CommentsHere’s the last segment of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s series “The Constitution and Freedom.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
Judge Andrew Napolitano ‘The Constitution and Freedom’ Part IV
Posted by: | CommentsPart IV of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “The Constitution and Freedom” deals with the judicial system in the US.
Part I can be found here.
Part II and III can be found here.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s ‘The Constitution and Freedom’ Part I
Posted by: | CommentsJudge Andrew Napolitano created a series of educational videos about our republic’s founding and the Constitution. This should be required viewing for all of our elected representatives, and the constitution should be required reading. They’d probably still ignore it, but perhaps it would sink in for enough of them to make a difference.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Rep. Jim Clyburn thinks federal government can act with impunity
Posted by: | CommentsI was reading about the 13 state attorneys general who told congress that if Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback” remains in the health care bill, they will bring legal action against the federal government. The AGs signing the bill are from Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. Good for them, I thought.
It wasn’t until I read to the end of the article that my blood pressure started to rise.
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said the letter was a political ploy.
“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If [SC Attorney General] Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.“
Um, excuse me, but the states created the federal government, not the other way around. Perhaps Mr. Clyburn needs to read the Constitution. The federal government does NOT have the right to do anything they’ve been doing lately. The suggestion that a state official has no right to question the actions of the federal government is quite telling as to the mind set of those in Washington, DC.
Clyburn may also want to take a peek at the Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Maybe it’s time for the states to come together and scrap the federal government and start over.
Update: For some reason the last sentence didn’t show up in the original post.
Popularity: 2% [?]
DeMint and Ensign Force Vote on Constitutionality of Mandate
Posted by: | CommentsSenator Jim DeMint (R-SC) issued the following press release:
Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality
December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.
“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”
“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”
Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.
The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.
The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
ACORN Suing to Reinstate Lost Funding
Posted by: | CommentsThese cockroaches have some nerve.
Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.
The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.
That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.
Bills of attainder have traditionally been understood to have more serious legal consequences — including the seizure of private property and even capital punishment — than Congress’ decision to withhold funds that are at its discretion to disseminate. Though members of Congress have accused ACORN of corruption, it is not clear how the exercise of its own prerogative is outside the bounds of legislative power.
Critics of the group in Congress blasted the lawsuit as a last-ditch effort to save the foundering organization’s bottom line. …
How about a counter-suit asking where Congress ever found the Constitutional authority to fund them in the first place.
Popularity: 2% [?]
