Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’


Twist and turns from an unpredictable Chief Justice of the supreme Court of the land – what does it mean?  While the health care mandate is struct down as unconstitutional under the commerce clause, it is Phoenix rising from the ashes as a tax, under the authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

What does this mean?  Simple, the Affordable Health Care Act survives mostly intact, with medicaid in jeopardy.  States cannot be punished for not expanding medicaid.  The real meaning of the Affordable Care Act decision is that the democrats in Congress and President Obama insisted, promised, that this new Act is not a tax, but when they went to court they argued that it was a tax – gross misrepresentation, again from this administration!

Since the President was adamant that this mandate was not a tax, repeatedly over time and in all forums, then argued in federal court and in the supreme Court that the mandate was justifed as a tax, will he pay the price for this massive deception?  Did he win a battle and perhaps lose the war?  The majority of americans are opposed to the mandate, and it appears that they are not opposed because it is a violation of the commerce clause, and that it really was a tax.  Americans just don’t want to be mandated by our federal government to do anything and don’t care by what means this was accomplished.

Has Chief Justice Roberts, as the swing jurist in this decision, created a mine field for President Obama?  Does the president have to explain his supreme misrepresentation to the american people?  In addition, the hidden decision here is that the federal government has been reined in under the commerce clause, limiting its commerce clause power, but unleashed as a taxing giant to use taxes to control the behavior of the citizens of this nation?

I am sure the founders never dreamed of a free nation under the thumb of the central government created by its states to make the states, as a whole, stronger, but with “limited” powers.  It appears that the federal government under the right to lay and collect taxes to influence the behavior of its citizens is now unchecked with unlimited powers – thank you, President Obama for the deception!

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Do we really want judges making law from the bench based on their own beliefs of how things should be?  Do we really want to obfuscate the legislative process by having unelected jurists – a party of one – make our laws?  President Obama has stated, as recently as yesterday, that he wants jurists who render decisions based solely on the law and to look at the existing law and U.S. Constitution for their decisions.

If he really believes this than why did he nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?  Once again we have to watch both hands when he speaks.  He appears to be shaking your hand with his right hand and quietly picking your pocket with his left hand.  I say this because Sonia Sotomayer is clearly a jurist who openly brags about making policy from the bench.  She has laughingly talked about legislating from the bench. 

We do not need to look at her prior decisions, when she has openly, and I might add arrogantly, admitted legislating or making policy from the appellate bench.  A recent YouTube clip says it all!  Yet she is nominated for the highest court in the land, and is young enough, that if affirmed, will serve for the next thirty years.  Is this what was intended by checks and balances?  If you don’t believe me and you have not seen the clip click here, remember she is the one speaking to law students.  She is explaining where they might best pursue a law career.  She is suggesting appellate court experience, since that is where policy is made.

If we continue to allow jurists to make decision on how they wish the law to be and not how it stands as written, an enterprising defense attorney will, sooner or later, use the “I disagree with the law as written and I feel it should be different, just as Justice so and so does on a regular basis” defense.

Had enough yet?  If you believe in the rule of law and not law of the judge, you may want to get on the phone with your Senators and tell them to keep looking for a balanced jurist.

Read Full Post »


Updated: March 23, 2010

The two most important issues facing this nation are now very clear.  These two issues have now risen past all other issues previously highlighted in this blog.  The first big issue is:

We now have a House of Representatives where the progressives hold just about all committee chairmanships; A Senate with progressives from both parties holding key committee positions; we have an extreme progressive as Speaker of the House; an extreme progressive as Senate Majority Leader; and an extreme progressive, near socialist, as President of the United States.  I use the term progressive, because I believe the progressives have taken over the Democratic Party – it is certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy and not the party that my mother and father admired.  To digress a bit, just take a good look at the advisors with which our President surrounds himself.  These are for the most part radical revolutionaries with the pedigrees to match.

Their agenda is simple, provide as much social legislation without regard to the debt and to our ability to pay the bill.  This is the first big issue facing America.  The means used to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act demonstrated that this group of progressives believes that the end, that they seek, justifies the means with which they achieve the end.

They stopped at nothing in their effort to push a piece of legislation by going outside the rules of each House of Congress, by buying votes from legislators with our money, by a complete obfuscation of the true facts about the bill when informing or rather ill informing the public.  They wrote provisions into the bill to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide a dollar amount that was on the surface revenue neutral, even a debt reducer, when it is neither.  They did this by double counting supposed savings in a number of areas, with an egregious mis-count on Medicare savings to the tune of $563 Billion.

They sold this bill to the public as a bill to insure thirty-two million uninsured Americans, yet they do not cover these Americans for years.  In fact, the thirty two-million includes illegal aliens, but we were told that no illegal aliens would be covered.  What we were not told was that the next bill up in Congress, and they have started to work on this, is to provide amnesty for these illegal aliens, so they will be covered as well.

In this bill the Democrats have given the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority and the marching orders 1,200 times to write her own rules for all sorts of health care, from payments to procedures, to insurance, to who is covered, to rationing, since thirty-two million newly insured will need to be covered by the same number of doctors who now practice – rationing will be necessary.  The Secretary has now been given the ability to write law without Congressional oversight. Remember the Secretary is Kathleen Sibelius, who refused to take action against “Tiller the Baby Killer” when she was governor, because he contributed heavily to her campaign.  “Tiller The Baby Killer” was one of two or three doctors in Kansas who would routinely abort late-term babies for frivolous reasons, before he was assassinated – these were babies who could have lived outside the womb.

This bill is actually a violation of Roe v. Wade – the Supreme Court decision that protected a women’s right to do with her body as she sees fit.  This also applies to men who wish to do with their body as they see fit.  Should men or women choose to not have health insurance and not to seek regular medical care, they have that right under Roe v. Wade. Read: Roe v. Wade to the Rescue: right to privacy or health care mandates.

One last item about this bill, is that you can search it high and low and you will find nothing in it that attempts to control the cost of health care.  Why?  Well, this bill is only intended to drive the health insurance companies out of business, leading to single payer universal health care, just as found in Canada and Great Britain.   Until this happens, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in control of the insurance companies.

The second big issue facing this nation is even more dangerous to us than health insurance reform:

The flagrant disregard for our Constitution by Congressional leaders and our President should be a warning to all.  Speaker Pelosi actually laughed at a reporter who seriously asked if what she was proposing was Constitutional.  At the minimum they have flouted the spirit of the Constitution and at the most egregious they have simply ignored it.  The President is on record with his disdain for the Constitution, in that it does not offer mandates of what the government must do for its citizens.

It is clear that he and his cadre wish to rewrite our storied Constitution that currently prohibits our federal government from taking over the rights of people.  This document prohibits the federal government from diminishing the states and Congress to roles as bit players in the governing of this country.  It is clear that the current leadership in Washington feels inhibited by this Constitution – they cannot ignore the whole thing.

This progressive cadre wants to rewrite the Constitution and the way to do that is to create a national economic emergency the size of which has never been imagined.  They will spend us into oblivion until our economy is broken and our free markets are teetering on collapse.  Then and only then, to solve a national emergency, they will offer a solution to the problem that includes an even bigger federal government driven by an even bigger centralized executive branch.  They will attempt to use the tragic events of a broken economy to rouse public interest to rewrite the Constitution.

Read an indepth look at how the progressives have attempted to marginalize and discard our Constitution in a bookblog dedicated to looking at what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what we need to do to fix the problem at U.S. Constitution – “Sine Die”.

Read Full Post »


I am a citizen of the United States and take my PRIVILEGE to vote with profound awareness that more than half the world’s population does not have the same right to vote, in a truly free and democratic way, to pick their leaders. It is also a RIGHT bestowed upon citizens of this Nation by our founding fathers. This sacred right and privilege has been protected for the citizens of this Nation by the blood of millions of defenders of our Nation’s sovereignty. Protecting the integrity of the voting process by seeking proof that a person attempting to vote in an election has been granted this privilege just adds value to the privilege. Why then do we have an argument that we need to let anyone showing up to vote, vote? Shouldn’t we ensure that the person attempting to vote has been granted this sacred privilege as well; otherwise it is no longer a sacred privilege?

Excerpts found below are from a recent article in the Washington Post by Robert Barnes titled: High Court Upholds Indiana Law On Voter ID
6-3 Ruling Calls Measure Reasonable to Fight Fraud

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800968.html?hpid=moreheadlines

“The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, opening the way for wider adoption of a measure that Republicans say combats fraud and Democrats say discourages voting among the elderly and the poor.

The court ruled 6 to 3 that the requirements enacted by Indiana’s legislature were not enough of a burden to violate the Constitution. Because the law, which requires specific government-issued identification such as driver’s licenses or passports, is generally regarded as the nation’s strictest such measure, the ruling bodes well for other states that require photo ID and for states that are considering doing so…”

What is important about this opinion is the vote. It was 6 to 3. This means that a swing voter and a usually liberal voter both voted to uphold the law. The main consenting opinion was written by Justice Stevens, who is usually considered a liberal justice. According to the article he wrote: “The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,” he (Barnes) wrote.

“Three liberal justices — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — dissented. ‘Indiana’s ‘Voter ID Law’ threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting,’ wrote (Justice) Souter, whose opinion was joined by Ginsburg…”

This reasoning reeks of ideology and not a matter of rights and law. Today, we show valid picture identification to open bank accounts, obtain employment, rent a movie, and often to use a credit card. Obtaining a valid ID in Indiana is absolutely free, and all you need to do is to demonstrate that you have been granted the privilege to vote by our founding fathers. The article further states:“…But Democrats and civil rights groups say that millions of Americans lack the type of identification that Indiana requires, and that such laws discourage or even disenfranchise people who are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports: the poor, the elderly, the disabled and urban dwellers…” These Democrats and civil rights groups fail to state that the reason these people lack the necessary type of identification required is that they never had it in the first place – I dare to guess that perhaps they are not citizens? The Democrats want to dilute and even negate the privilege of voting for their own benefit and this is certainly not in keeping with the intention of the founding fathers. Those on the no ID side do not hold the vote as sacred – it is merely a tool to social change. The more people voting without the demonstrated right to vote, the better the chance to have a fraudulent majority and to make the social changes they seek.

It used to be that dead and imprisoned people voted regularly. I believe that this still occurs, but the problem has swelled with the addition of 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants, and the huge numbers of people who are in this country with visas of differing types, who are also NOT entitled to vote.

The arguments against this law and the ruling validating it are not about voter disenfranchisement and its effect on the poor and elderly. The argument is that one side does not view the right to vote with the same awe and sacred nature as the other side. If something is sacred and limited to those who qualify, should safeguards be in place to ensure that it remains sacred and limited? Isn’t this self-evident? If civil rights groups and Democrats want to be sure no one is disenfranchised, then they should institute a program to help these folks obtain the correct ID, so they can exercise their 219 year old sacred, limited right.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: