- A balance budget amendment is worse than smoke and mirrors - it is just plain old deception in plane view. Look at California - they had a balanced budget requirement did it save them from borrow- spend - raise taxes and go broke - NOOOOOOO sir for they are gone. The Political class hides behind creative borrowing - off budget items - unrecognized liabilities like retirements that are unfunded.The proper action is to revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments returning all except the Article I section 8 enumerated powers back to the States and to the people and the budget problems will be gone forever. Each State can then deal with the needs of their citizens. Put SCOTUS back into the Article III limits while we are at it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Franc and group here is a excellent work product on the BBA - this lady is smart.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I hope I'm forgiven for the appearance of topical departure of sorts. One could say the following loosely fits under a "View of the Constitution".Ohio Appeals Court holds ObamacareUnder another thread someone asked “shouldn’t we be focusing on why the decision violates our constitutionally limited system of government”. My response is a resounding NO.I’ve been on this site for quite a while now and it seems a great many of us understand the why of the situation pretty well to varying degrees. You know I love history and political theory but there is a time to put learning to use.Concerning this ruling I will be watching for and focusing on what we’re going to do when the SCOTUS rules Obamacare constitutional or more accurately declines to rule it unconstitutional. Some of the dissent included in the current ruling hints at the outcome.“The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances… [are] the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its [the commerce clause] abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often they solely, in all representative governments.”“Today’s debate about the individual mandate is… no less essential to the appropriate role of the National Government and no less capable of political resolution. Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples’ political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility.”I do try (not always successfully) to limit my speculative forays concerning the outcome of current events but in this case I will take exception my own rule.We should be planning what we will do when the court refuses to do the “hard work” this case calls for and throws the ball back to into our court, the election process.“To the fatalistic view that Congress will always prevail and courts should step back and let the people, if offended, speak through their political representatives, I say that “courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”“[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”“This is the “hard work” Justice O’Connor referred to in her dissent in Raich. It is hard work in part because it can place a federal court in the position of choosing between powerful competing political ideologies with the risk that the court’s judgment may be branded as political.” We must not lose sight of the fact however that the Constitution we interpret and apply itself embodies a resolution of powerful competing political ideologies, including the extent of the power of the federal government”My bet is the SCOTUS will “lose sight” just as the so called judges rendering this decision have. Of all the “issues” we will fight and perhaps loose, we simply cannot IMO afford to loose this fight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- “The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances… [are] the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its [the commerce clause] abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often they solely, in all representative governments.”I agree with some distinct exceptions to voting as a remedy.On a fundamental issue such as the Obamacare intrusion on individual AND States authority vs central government authority, SCOTUS is where the case belongs. I am not implying that SCOTUS is the final word.When the People are not represented by Congress, those non-representative representatives can be ousted in a timely manner. However, the States are not properly represented IMO (the 17thA) and there is no effective way for the States to remedy a mis-representation in Congress. Even at that, the People must wait 6 long years before the opportunity to recall a rogue Senator via elections. In the case of Obamacare, the damage is too immediate to wait for that occurance/remedy.When Only voting for elected officials is available as a remedy, the majority rules and mob mentality will trounce the rights of the minority in direct conflict with the Original Argument. In addition, when an environment exists where lobbyists and "special" interests have undue influence on elected officials, the People's voice is muted. In this regard the tax code is the culprit and the solution IMO. If taxes were levied evenly on individuals and Corporations, no exceptions, no exemptions, rather than progressively and selectively, the interests of lobbyists would be subdued greatly.So, although on a 'day to day' basis the people controlling Congress in regard to what is in the general Welfare or not, may be affected by voting, it is in no way a remedy in of itself.IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- The issue of importance is this appeals court has issued findings that the "COMMERCE CLAUSE" has no limits and Congress can tell us to do what ever they decide has crossed a state boundary? They can Regulate with out limits even removing our "rights" such as choice. It appears tome that this conflicts with several Religions that do not believe in medical intervention - will they be forced to buy insurance or be fined?The Virginia case is going to be the bid daddy of the Obamacare suits - 26 States are involved and this will place the SCOTUS under tremendous pressure like they have not seen since FDR.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Lock, I think you’re correct the mandate would create a conflict for some religious sects. Which is why Congress included exceptions for religious organizations within the bill (yeah God help me I read it, well half of it anyway). I think you're right again the Virginia case will be the one to make it to the SCOTUS and the pressure will be great.When reading several of the related cases I could see the argument made many times for the judiciary to effectively wimp out of ruling and throwing issues back to the legislature. So it was no surprise to see the wimp out argument included in this ruling and why I chose to highlight it.All my instincts tell me as well the Court won’t take responsibility for this, it’s too “risk(y)”. They are going to leave it to the legislature and in effect leave it to us.Atlas’s legitimately observes the election process take a horribly long time, I agree. On that point, I can only say if it were in my power there would be plans being laid today to have not hundreds of thousands but millions of us in DC ready to surround the Court and Congress.This law and case precedent cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. This is the equivalent of FDR’s new deal legislation as you suggest. This issue IMHO will define America’s future for the next one hundred years. Mark my word our children’s children will study what we do, or don’t do here.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jon,While I have not spent a great deal of time on the litigation except to read the first Judges findings on the Virginia case - His name is Judge RogerVinson and he laid out a very complete well researched and the case law base is very supportive of his findings. He even included a video debate between link below - Obamacare.
Professor John Eastman, Erwin Chemerinsky - Law school Deans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk [wheat and weed and Obamacare]*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.
---
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.
How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.IMO - the 26 States are pursuing Nullification under the 10th amendment powers. So, the war is being fought on many fronts. The last option will be the 38 States using Article V to revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments and pushing the three branches of government back under the limits of the original Constitution and the meaning of the words at the time of the Founder and Framers. This can and will be the last best choice short of rebellion of the people ending the Constitution and forming a new nation? No good options IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is a link to a good article on the Obamacare 6th district appeals court findings?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock and all, I have some favorite inspirational letters I like to pull out every once in a while. Now seems like a good time. I have removed some portions of this original letter and only very sparingly modified it. Some sentiments are eternal, enjoy.THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, just as our fathers have, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we win today, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.Look back at the events of last few years, there you will find that our opposition’s successes always contributed to reduce them. What they have gained in ground, they paid so dearly for that in effect their victories have in the end amounted to defeats. We have always been masters at the last push, and always shall be while we do our duty.Shall a band of robbers conquer America, or subdue even a single state? The thing cannot be, unless we sit down and suffer them to do it.Men who are sincere in defending their freedom, will always feel concern at every circumstance which seems to make against them; it is the natural and honest consequence of all affectionate attachments, and the want of it is a vice. But the dejection lasts only for a moment; they soon rise out of it with additional vigor; the glow of hope, courage and fortitude, will, in a little time, supply the place of every inferior passion, and kindle the whole heart into heroism.There is a mystery in the countenance of some causes, which we have not always present judgment enough to explain. It is distressing to see an enemy advancing into a country, but it is the only place in which we can beat them, and in which we have always beaten them, whenever they made the attempt. The nearer any disease approaches to a crisis, the nearer it is to a cure. Danger and deliverance make their advances together, and it is only the last push, in which one or the other takes the lead.There are many men who will do their duty when it is not wanted; but a genuine public spirit always appears most when there is most occasion for it. Thank God! Our numbers though fatigued, is yet entire. Our strength is yet reserved;Gentlemen of the city and country, it is in your power, by a spirited improvement of the present circumstance, to turn it to a real advantage. Those who oppose our independence are now weaker than before, and every effort we make will contribute to reduce them further. We are more immediately interested than any other part of the continent: your all is at stake; you are devoted by our adversaries to plunder and destruction: it is the encouragement which, the chief of plunderers, has promised his army. Thus circumstanced, you may save yourselves only by resisting them, you can have no hope in any other conduct. It is only those that are not in action, that feel languor and heaviness, and the best way to rub it off is to turn out, and make sure work of it.You have too much at stake to hesitate. You ought not to think an hour upon the matter, but to spring to action at once. Other states have been invaded, have likewise driven off the invaders. Now our time and turn is come, and perhaps the finishing stroke is reserved for us. When we look back on the dangers we have been saved from, and reflect on the success we have been blessed with, it would be sinful either to be idle or to despair.I close this paper with a short address to those who oppose our liberty and independence.You are only lingering out the period that shall bring with it your defeat. You have yet scarce began upon testing our resolve, and the further you enter, the faster will your troubles thicken. What you now enjoy is only a respite from ruin; an invitation to destruction; something that will lead on to our deliverance at your expense. We know the cause which we are engaged in, and though a passionate fondness for it may make us grieve at every injury which threatens it, yet, when the moment of concern is over, the determination to duty returns.We are not moved by the gloomy smile of a worthless king, but by the ardent glow of generous patriotism. We seek not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. In such a case we are sure that we are right; and we leave to you the despairing reflection of being the tool of a miserable tyrant.To the defenders of Philadelphia under siege, Thomas Paine, September 12th, 1777
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jon,Ever member of congress should be forced to memorize the letter along with Franklin's letter about maybe hanging if they stay together but surly they will hang separately. We the People are naked and without the promised duty of the States to protect and defend the citizens from an usurping oppressive Federal government. I am starting to have a lot more interest in the anti-Federalist papers for they saw these usurpations and it was their efforts that required the bill of rights to be adopted.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Opps, I mean't to bold this part of the previous letter as I think it speaks to where I feel like we are today."The nearer any disease approaches to a crisis, the nearer it is to a cure. Danger and deliverance make their advances together, and it is only the last push, in which one or the other takes the lead"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Which of these are valid and which are ones that created our current paradigm?Franklin Roosevelt had to govern at a time of crisis. If you're going to make changes in the way a nation thinks, you have to have the ability to take the crisis of the moment and use it to shape an agenda.
Pete du PontI will not let anyone tell me we must spend more money. This crisis did not come about because we issued too little money but because we created economic growth with too much money and it was not sustainable growth.
Angela MerkelOur state is in crisis. Our people are hurting. Now is the time when we all must resist the traditional, selfish call to protect your own turf at the cost of our state. It is time to leave the corner, join the sacrifice, come to the center of the room and be part of the solution.
Chris ChristiePresident Bush is manufacturing a crisis by suggesting that Social Security is in imminent danger. It is not.
Richard NealPresident Ford was a devoted, decent man of impeccable integrity who put service to his country before his own self interest. He helped heal our nation during a time of crisis, provided steady leadership and restored people's faith in the presidency and in government.
Mark UdallProgressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them as the birth pangs of a new order.
Christopher LaschRepublicans are manufacturing a Social Security crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle Social Security.
Diane WatsonSimply put, drilling in ANWR would be expensive, environmentally devastating, and would do very little to fix our energy crisis or to bring down the price of oil and gasoline.
Allyson SchwartzThe administration in my view is once again manufacturing a crisis. There is no crisis in the Social Security system. The system is not on the verge of bankruptcy.
Paul SarbanesThe administration is manufacturing a crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle Social Security.
Jack ReedThe Bush Administration claims there is a Social Security crisis only to distract Americans from its serious mismanagement of the federal budget.
Mark DaytonThe darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.
Dante AlighieriThe environmental crisis arises from a fundamental fault: our systems of production - in industry, agriculture, energy and transportation - essential as they are, make people sick and die.
Barry CommonerThe financial crisis should not become an excuse to raise taxes, which would only undermine the economic growth required to regain our strength.
George W. BushThe President and the Democrats on Congress have exploited the financial crisis to advance their socialist big government tax, spend and borrow agenda.
Bradley A. BlakemanThe whole life of an American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a battle.
Alexis de TocquevilleWhile Social Security faces some long-term challenges, the system is not in crisis.
Chaka FattahYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel
No comments:
Post a Comment