Posted on 06/29/2012 9:11:12 AM PDT by Signalman
In the past twenty-four hours I have gotten a lot of heat from friends over my take on what John Roberts did. Whats done is done and I really could not get all worked up about it because Obamacare in the Courts has been such a distraction. Yet again the GOP expected a court to save them from something they did not like.
The GOP has largely turned its nose up at the tea party, which is its salvation. The tea party movement provided the GOP with the energy, man power, and money to take back the House in 2010 and come close in the Senate. For that, the GOP has routinely given the tea party the middle finger and, instead of fighting for repeal of Obamacare, excused itself while the Supreme Court did the heavy lifting.
John Roberts, the man who gave us the Citizens United case has now, with a laughably inane ruling, told us we have to fight politically. The millions of people who joined the tea party in 2009 only to go back to their jobs and families after the 2010 election are now awake.
In waking, what they are seeing is a government claiming that food stamps will make you look amazing and that encourages people to party with food stamps. They are seeing a corrupt tourism program. They are seeing tax cheats getting billions from Barack Obama. They are seeing high unemployment, the United States Attorney General held in contempt of congress, the GOP cave on fiscal issues, and the Supreme Court deciding something the vast majority of Americans hate is constitutional.
And they are seeing that, just like in 2010, they are the only ones who can stop Barack Obama and the Democrats. The GOP is nothing without the tea party. Tea Party activists are awake again. And thanks to John Roberts they are mad as hell.
Mitt Romney raised more than $2 million between the time John Roberts sold liberty down the river and sunset. Barack Obamas campaign would not comment. And thanks to John Roberts, the Democrats who want us all to know how popular individual portions of Obamacare are, will now have to campaign on vote for us to save the biggest tax increase in American history that 60% of Americans want repealed.
A giant woke in 2009. It went back to sleep thinking it had saved the republic in 2010. Its awake now and I dont think it is going back to sleep.
I am up.
David Axelrod’s plea for money received this morning.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling was very personal to me.
Thirty years ago, my daughter Lauren, then just seven months old, began having grand mal seizures. They wouldn’t stop for 18 years.
Lauren’s epilepsy robbed her of her childhood, some of her capacities and, very nearly, her life.
We were young parents then, just starting out, with lousy insurance I got from my job. And we very nearly went broke paying for Lauren’s uncovered care and medication.
I was moved to tears when the Supreme Court affirmed the Affordable Care Act, because I know that other families won’t have to face the terror and heartache we knew.
And that’s because of a president who had the courage to defy the politics and all the obstacles in order to fight for people like my Lauren.
Say you’re standing with President Obama:
http://my.barackobama.com/Yesterday
- David
Democrat smug is wearing off in a hurry.
This is the guy who tried to spin Roberts treachery into some plan of political genius to hand us a momentary window of expediency. Forget reviving and preserving constitutional limits on government for the safety of our kids and grand kids. Really what’s going to happen to them when the next, smarter and more effective Obama comes along? We are even more done after the Roberts sellout than we were we started. It just hasn’t caught up to us yet.
As citizens, we may have trusted the "parchment" document called the Constitution to protect us. We may have trusted the "Court" to protect us. In the end, though, as previous justices have warned us, our Constitution, by its own provisions, is "the People's" document.
Unless its principles live in our hearts, minds, and in our will to keep elected and appointed officials from turning it on its head, it is just that: a "parchment barrier."
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court even can do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand
With that said, let us examine a valuable review of the so-called "living constitution" school of thought which brought us to yesterday. In the Bicentennial Year of the Constitution, 1987, the following Walter Berns' essay was included in a larger volume, "Our Ageless Constitution." Berns reminded citizens that, through the Constitution's own provisions, and the Founders' own words, it is, as Justice Story asserted, "the People" who are "the only KEEPERS" of the Constitution.
If "the People" are, in the words of Madison, "awakened," then perhaps America may today begin a return to the principles of the "parchment" document whose Preamble describes its noble intent.
|
||||||
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and independent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example. The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed. Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:
Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America." In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.
The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved. The Enduring American ConstitutionNow, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived. In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the constitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional government. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein. Treating The Constitution As
|
No they won't, because their "Laurens" will go straight to the death panels.
Frankly, I think that was Justice Roberts' intention, all along.
It’s a load of crap. We can donate all the money we want, elect all the Republicans we want, take all the branches of government that we can, and they will do little more than window dressing when it comes to rolling back the Marxist cancer eating away at our country. What little they might accomplish is out the window the next time a Democrat gets in charge of even a single branch, because they have no scruples and the GOP has no will to fight them.
Once Obama has been sent packing and the Congress is back in Republican hands, the TEA Party needs to do one of two things. Either gain control of the Republican Party, or become the new conservative party. If we don’t, we’ll be facing the same ol’ crap in future elections.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
My god-daughter, a beautiful and bright child was diagnosed with epilepsy at age 3. She had mals, grand mals with several episodes daily for 15 years continuing to today. Throughout that time she had the best care money could buy. Her parents were still heart broken and they devoted themselves to her treatment and what little happiness they could bring her.
Her condition was not made better by her parent’s strong health coverage because epilepsy is not curable and it is not always successfully treated.
So your blaming your troubles on lack of access to better health coverage is misguided. Even if you had better coverage it would have made no difference.
Sorry to be so harsh but there are plenty of resources out there for parents that have this tragic condition come into their lives.
Obamacare would have done nothing for your daughter.
In case you didn’t know, you live in one of the most taxed countries in the world where everything you purchase is inflated in price by at least 30% by federal taxation. The heavy tax and regulatory burden on you and your fellows leaves job opportunities scarce and forces jobs to be taken overseas.
I suggest you focus on what makes the government more efficient and more limited. Growing government and making them pay our bills leads to insolvency and downgrading. Obamacare has been tried in many socialist countries and the result is always the same, the health providers find ways to turn people away, throw pills at people or schedule people for appointments months out. Obamacare will be no different. But Obamacare will make the US healthcare system worse by eliminating alternatives. We will have our choice of poor quality healthcare or worse.
You are replying to David Axelrod’s sob stories/plea for money to elect Obama that I received in a email from the Obama campaign.
I couldn’t be more wrong?
You are replying to David Axelrod’s sob stories/plea for money to elect Obama that I received in a email from the Obama campaign.
I couldn’t be more wrong?
Ok my bad. Thanks for the clarification.
I’ve done it myself before.
I am awake!
so you're angry...so you're depressed..so you're hopeless....so you can't find a single constructive thing to do....
who the heck cares...
the rest of us are trying to buck up...
we are awake and we know its a monumental task but we will not slither away in despair like you seem to have done.
I’m not hopeless, I just don’t put my hope in these worthless politicians, or judges, or Presidential candidates. If that works for ya, go with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.