Is it just me, or was the coincidence of Scalia being at the State Dinner for Cameron this week and this change of argument on Obamacare being a set up?
Voting for Freedom is Voting against Democrats
The Democrat party is chock full of ‘em. The people whose passion is to be as unlikable as they can be—go vote in synchronized choreography, lining up as lemmings to give away their freedom to power junkies who occupy positions in the Democrat party—the line is solid with those angry liberals—hateful, vile, bad company—the angry unemployed by choice, the angry call themselves lesbians in boy haircuts who make nearly every workplace they happen into a miserable thing for those around them, the anti-life smoozies and their friends who bring benefits to their collectivist tables upon which every top is full of other people’s stuff taken by the force of the law and guns—those who stand in line for food stamps and always want more—much more, numbskulls who believe paying union dues is a good investment, proud to be grotesque feminists, druggies, modern day hippies who are in it for the trip—politicians on the take who work hard to invent or steal as many votes as they can—no voter ID required here!—their ranks are replete with every imaginable kind of psychopath, pervert, murderer, rapist, thief, dumb-ass, violent, anarchist, communist, socialist, environmental slave, anti-religion, full of crap—full of themselves loudmouths, anti-property ownership for everyone except them, knuckle-dragging, brainless, and selfish idiots one can imagine.
To be a democrat is to be a villain—whether purposeful or not. To be a democrat is to be the worst kind of person most often produced by a public “education” that teaches nothing of substance, of truth—but produce losers out of more and more wide eyed children by telling them that having high self-esteem is more important than God, more important than country, and far more important than learning anything of substance—such as reading, writing, and arithmetic—let alone economics, history, or shhh (ethics, morality—or even good manners). To be a democrat is to be against freedom in a real sense, not illusionary—but very real—we watch these miscreants as they band together in their collectivists camps to write ever more tax bills, regulations and laws to artificially take control of everything—our lives, our very being, our money, our time, our faith, our freedoms. Erosion is no longer the word—they’re taking every bit of freedom away from us in chunks of Obama directly made or inspired orders from on high.
Oh—Hell—No!
I will not comply.
There is a vote and surely more people will vote freedom rather than for demon inspired democrat power. God help this country if we do. God have mercy on this country if we don’t.
If the overturn this, then those bloated bustards will have to explain why they let them spend several hundred billion dollars implementing it. They won't.
Criminalizing mind-altering drug use is a far cry from forcing people to pay for government health insurance.
Second, if it's not a “tax” but a fine instead for not purchasing something, then are ALL fines equal and is there due process of law before the fine is administered?
Third, can every person who receives this fine for “violating the law” challenge their specific fine in the courts and if so how far can it go to be upheld or dismissed?
Forth, if a fine is assessed does the court have the authority to reduce the fine as they do with every other statutory violation?
There is a First Amendment objection along with the Commerce Clause, and even more one of 'Equal Protection': Muslims are not required to carry coverage because of a religious objection, but Catholics are supposed to, in spite of one.
Oh when I was helping treat soldiers addicted to alcohol and drugs-and seeing first hand the affects of the rehab programs we were taught the we are the masters of our own fate. We have no control over what any other might do- Obama will do what he wants. And I will oppose the evil in high places.
As to the Necessary and proper—constitutional defense. It seems the interloper and fraudulent resident of the White House has a much different understanding of necessary and proper than what was understood when the Law of our Constitution was ratified. If the Law is understood according to its meaning when it was adopted— It may be necessary for the unConstitutional legislation to stand for the mandate to be included—but is it proper for the Government to dictate what is proper for the people? The rights of conscience ought not infringed by despotic ruler— and if the law is upheld by a Court divorced from fundamental principles the Divider in Chief will have succeeded in making a growing faction of our society ever more hostile and disenfranchised from participatory government.
as justification for anything you want to do.
Madison:
"With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, State ratifying Convention records to support this horrific and purposeful misuse of the necessary and proper clause.
Necessary laws implement enumerated powers. The entirety of Obamacare fails this test.
Proper laws do not violate our God given, or Constitutionally itemized rights. Obamacare is a direct assault on such rights.
At this point, one has to wonder why whether a law is constitutional or not is even an argument. The whole DC establishment tramples in the constitution every chance they get.
The Court will favor the RinoCracy. They had hoped to have Mittens crowned and annointed by the Pubbies at this point to make the ruling less controversial, and less of an issue for the fall election.
Door #1: Overturn Wickard v. Filburn
Door #2: CWII
“A ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional could make it nearly impossible to implement other parts of the healthcare law—which is exactly the point the Department of Justice is highlighting in its most recent briefs. “
If I follow, they’re saying it’s okay to violate the constitution so long as it helps you do whatever it is you want to do, in this case socialize healthcare. Which makes me wonder why we have a constitution at all.
“The court ultimately ruled on Commerce Clause grounds, but Scalia wrote in a separate opinion that it didn’t matter whether the limits on individual growers were an acceptable regulation of commerce. The government could step in as a ‘necessary and proper’ way of carrying out its broader power to criminalize drug use, he wrote.”
That makes no sense. There isn’t any justification for the Drug War except on commerce clause grounds, so far as I know. Or, should I say, on the phantom modern commerce clause; it’s not actually justified at all.
Anyway, “limits on individual growers” has to be an acceptable regulation of commerce whichever way you cut it: either as an end in itself or as a tiny corner of the larger Drug War.
“The government could step in as a necessary and proper way of carrying out its broader power “
To establish Forced Federal Labor Camp, U.S. Territory, every citzen age 26, except the Nazi Exempt Ones, who Exempted themselves.
Arbeitsziehungslager, Forced Federal Labor Camp, Fascists’ Exempt.
A WORD OF CAUTION TO THE MEDIA
by Greta Van Susteren
Mar 16 2012
Sometimes when someone writes an article, others in the media seize upon it and it suddenly gets a ‘life of its own.’ That ‘life of its own’ can start a narrative in the media that is repeated. That is fine if it is correct and does not give a false impression to the public.
(and this is not the author’s fault, but rather how others have already begun to read it.)
_______________________ As the Supreme Court argument date over healthcare approaches, the Obama administration is NOT “shifting” its healthcare defense. (see below.) It is arguing the SAME points it raised in the lower appellate court – including the one that is the subject of this article below (the Necessary and Proper Clause.)
The “Necessary and Proper Clause” is not new to the litigation. It is old. It got plenty of attention in the lower court. (I was even in that Florida Court when it was argued.) That clause, and thus that argument by the Administration using that clause as support, was simply rejected by the lower court so naturally the Obama Administration is now asking the Supreme to review it, to reverse it. This is routine. It is not a shift if you ask the Supreme Court to review an argument you raised in the lower appellate court but which was rejected by that court.
In fact, without first arguing it in the lower court, the Administration would now be barred from raising it FOR THE FIRST TIME in the Supreme Court. You can’t raise new issues in the Supreme Court – you only get issues argued below considered (and upheld or reversed.)
It is appellate practice 101 — you raise every issue you think has merit (as the Administration did in the lower appellate court) and you hope that you are persuasive on one of them to give you the legal victory you seek.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/16/a-word-of-caution-to-the-media/