Did Supremes just ‘make violent revolution inevitable’? ‘It is fruitless to expect federal government to control the lust for tyrannical power’… | Investor Discussion Board: IDB…..
Did Supremes just ‘make violent revolution inevitable’? ‘It is fruitless to expect federal government to control the lust for tyrannical power’…
A gun-rights leader is warning “the natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse.”
Alas, he says, a chance to defuse Americans‘ growing anger has been lost because the Court refused to do this one thing …
Thursday, after the city’s board of health formally prohibited restaurants from selling sodas larger than 16 ounces after March 12, 2013, organizations around New York City said they would consider suing the city to get the ban overturned.
What does a conservative believe?
Tenth Amendment Network ^ | 7/12/2012 | Marc Gindin
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:56:22 PM by TenthAmendmentNetwork
Let’s lay out the belief system of a conservative, as applied in the 21st century. If you’re a conservative, you believe these things.
Prison Planet.com » Confirmed – Chief Justice Roberts switched sides on Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision
Insider sources have revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts indeed flip-flopped his previous position by deciding at the last minute to affirm the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Jan Crawford, Chief Political and Legal Correspondent at CBS News reports that two unnamed sources familiar with the details of the proceedings have come forward with claims that Chief Justice Roberts caved to eleventh-hour pressures urging support for the ACA, despite having earlier opposed key portions of the legislation.
Feeling misled? You certainly should. Congress created a law so complex that it occupies between 2,400 and 2,800 pages depending on who says what, almost all of them unread by the people who voted for it. President Obama and his Democratic colleagues told you many things about the law – most of which were either mischaracterizations or outright lies. What Chief Justice John Roberts did was tell the truth, and now we can move forward.
Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty which the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandatewas actually a tax.
It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved, for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.
By Alan Caruba Monday, July 2, 2012
In 1832, the threat of nullification by States that opposed tariffs on imported goods came close to bringing about a civil war. Thirty years later as cries for the abolition of slavery reached a fever pitch the War Between the States would begin.
Today, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that found that the Affordable Health Care Act—Obamacare— is constitutional and thereby the law of the land. Republican Governors are lining up to say they will not obey it.
Not only has President Obama and the Democrat Party imposed an enormously unpopular law on the nation, they have initiated a huge constitutional crisis.
Why John Roberts is Mitt Romney’s Secret Weapon (“…, it is clear that John Roberts duped the liberal wing of the Supreme Court into agreeing with him on calling out President Obama as legislatively dishonest, while assisting the conservative wing of the court …”)
I would caution my fellow conservatives on the frustration they may be enticed to express at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It is unwarranted, and it is unwise.
The reason I state such is that it is my firm belief that the Roberts’ decision on the Obamacare mandate will without question bring about ultimate doom to the government control of healthcare, and through the best means possible–not judicial activism–but through the democratic process.
In boxing terminology no one has pulled a “rope-a-dope” this effective since Muhammad Ali himself. In doing so, it is clear that John Roberts duped the liberal wing of the Supreme Court into agreeing with him on calling out President Obama as legislatively dishonest, while assisting the conservative wing of the court into dismantling punitive measures against the states, and greatly limiting the ability of the legislature to use the powers of the commerce clause of the constitution to quietly take over people’s lives.
The Supreme Court decision is devastating for the economy and individual liberty. Apart from creating an all powerful federal government, changing substantially what it means to be an American, the law will send health care costs soaring, further undermining our economy.
It will destroy jobs, impoverish millions, and lead to much higher inflation and lower living standards.
487px File Official roberts CJ cropped
Thank you, Chief Coward Roberts
I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Chief Justice John Roberts for assisting the Obama regime in placing another nail in America’s coffin. Not only did he agree with the liberal communists; he gave them an out by stating that the individual mandate was a TAX rather than something that could be controlled through the commerce clause. The Obama regime had stated from the onset of this Constitution-killing legislation that the mandate was not a tax.
Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John Roberts has served this cause.
(“There is speculation that Roberts ruled this way in order to help conservatives strategically, to leave Obamacare hanging around Obama’s neck for the upcoming election”) Chief Justice John Roberts: Trojan Horse?
Not all legal scholars think this is a triumph for the judiciary over Congress. Professor Friedman believes using the Tax Clause instead of the Commerce Clause is bad news.
He said, “This is far more devastating to federalism and the balance of power between states and the national government,” he says. “You can now tax pretty much anything.” Nick Dranias, a constitutional lawyer, lamented, “It is a turning point in history when the federal government can use the taxing power (the power to destroy) to accomplish regulatory ends denied to it under its enumerated powers.”
Prison Planet.com » Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don’t even want
Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America.
Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.
DEVVY’s EMAIL ALERTS: Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is insane… (“Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress”)
Links are generally posted at my web site
Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress.
(“What if enough is enough? What do we do about it? What if it’s too late?”) What If the Government Rejects the Constitution? Judge Andrew Napolitano…
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:14:38 AM by Kaslin
What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation — in some cases the same human beings — that wrote in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don’t regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?
What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don’t think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people’s backs?
What if there’s no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us Obamacare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don’t want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?
JUSTICE SCALIA: ….And we’ve held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper [the necessary and proper wording of the Commerce Clause] because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.
The argument here is that it may be necessary, but it’s not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers.
And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What – what is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do? [pp. 26-27]JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of the powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government…. [pp. 27-28]
This week, the Supreme Court measured Obamacare to see whether it fits within the confines of the Constitution. The big picture is whether the Constitution limits the behavior of the federal government to the plain meaning and historical context of the Constitution, or whether clever lawyers and politicians can interpret language in the Constitution so as to justify whatever Congress wishes to do. Does the Constitution mean what it says? Does it limit the federal government to the powers it has delegated to Congress? Or is it a blank check for Congress to do whatever it can get away with?
by Doug Book, staff writer
Though Nancy Pelosi responded with a glib “Are you serious” to a reporter’s question about the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act shortly after the measure’s passage, her leftist comrades in the Department of Justice are not being dismissive of the issue any more.
In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional the “minimum coverage provision” or individual mandate which requires everyone purchase Obama-approved health insurance and penalizes those who do not. Judges Frank Hull and Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit ruled that such an arrangement exceeds the power of Congress to regulate “commerce among the several states,” in this particular instance, commerce being the sale and purchase of insurance.
Obama’s legal brain trust had perhaps hoped the powers of Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause would be enough to safely see ObamaCare through a flock of waiting appeals and into full operation. But Judges Hull and Dubina ended that bit of wishful thinking, writing a brilliant, decisive and thorough rebuke of the individual mandate in their 300 page opinion. And as their ruling conflicted with that of the 6th Circuit Court, a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court to review the case was guaranteed.
In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.”
The Emperor BarackTownhall.com ^ | January 19, 2012 | Michael ReaganPosted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:57:46 AM by KaslinMuch like one of his predecessors, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Barack Obama has all but declared war on the United States Supreme Court.It will be remembered that in 1937 FDR was angry over the high court’s refusal to put a stamp of approval on much of his New Deal agenda, and sought to bend the court to his will by adding new members to the existing court membership.Contemptuously calling the court’s members a collection of “nine old men,” FDR sought to “pack” the high court with up to six additional members more likely to do his bidding. The proposal lost steam and, thankfully, failed.Mr. Obama has not gone quite that far — yet. But he’s getting close. Like most U.S. presidents who chafe under the high court’s authority to rule on the constitutionality of aspects of their agendas, Obama is unhappy with the court’s failure to recognize the divinity of his proposals, if not that of his personhood.Too bad. As we are often reminded, “Into each life some rain must fall.”Thanks to the high court, Mr. Obama has been much in need of an umbrella of late. The president’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was correctly overruled in a case involving religious freedom. The court clearly stated that the First Amendment protects churches in their decisions regarding workers with religious duties, a “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws.
This exception had already been supported by lower courts and many states.Tragically for Mr. Obama and his vastly elevated ego, choirs of angels singing of the glories of his agenda cannot be heard. Despite the frantic efforts of his captive media to tune them in, the president remains a mere mortal, subject to all the slings and arrows that always target any holder of high office.Soon the issue before the court will be Mr. Obama’s health care program, rammed through Congress despite the widespread opinion that it was, and remains, nothing short of an opening to national socialized medicine. A ruling is expected by early July.The question is whether the Constitution’s Commerce Clause can be stretched beyond recognition to reach into everyone’s pocketbook with the Obamacare mandate. We pray that the Supreme Court will put the question to rest with an emphatic rejection.
‘Don’t trust Supremes with Obamacare‘
WND ^ | November 25, 2011 | Bob Unruh
Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:59:32 PM by opentalk
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the president’s signature health-care-takeover legislation, but a rights organization that advocates for restoration of recognition of the 10th Amendment says states and consumers should not count on the court to reverse the law.
George Will: Is there no limit to Congress’s power?
Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:23:25 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
Shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed its constitutionality. Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee, brusquely acknowledged that upholding the mandate means there is no limit to Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. Fortunately, Silberman’s stark assertion may strengthen the counterargument. Silberman forces the Supreme Court’s five conservatives to face the sobering implications of affirming the power asserted with the mandate.
Does Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce empower it to compel individuals, as a condition of living in the United States, to engage in a commercial activity? If any activity, or inactivity, can be said to have economic consequences, can it be regulated — or required — by Congress? Can Congress forbid the inactivity of not purchasing a product (health insurance) from a private provider? Silberman says yes:
Washington, DC –(Ammoland.com)- Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.
Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.
And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.
For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level. Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government’s permission.
After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they’re not criminals before being allowed to carry?
Vermont had it right for over a century. Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.
And the result? Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.
And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes. And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.
Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.
And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.
Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.
Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.
After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.
The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).
In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms. This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.
Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.
Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.
ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act.
Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
About: Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul
What happened to freedom?
By Henry Lamb web posted June 27, 2011
To listen click here
When Constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama, and the assortment legal advisors that surrounds him, decided that the commerce clause authorized the federal government to force private citizens to purchase a product, freedom vanished from America.
With this newly declared authority, the federal government can force its citizens to do anything the government wishes. This omnipotent power is the same power exercised by the governments of Hitler, Stalin, and all other despots who have denied freedom to their citizens.
What happened to freedom? It was erased, little by little, until we no longer have a choice among the types of light bulbs we buy. Government has dictated that its citizens can no longer buy a 40-cent incandescent light bulb; after January 1, formerly free people living in a formerly free-market system will be forced by government to buy a four-dollar light bulb, probably made in China.
(Excerpt) Read more at enterstageright.com …
”What?” you say? You aren’t going to bow down to anybody! Really. We hate to be the one to inform you, but you are too late! You already have bowed down and you have been showing your posterior to the government every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month and every year, for more than a century.
You just don’t know that you are doing it. That is because you don’t know the “blueprint for freedom” and you also don’t know that the government has been savaging that blueprint since the ink was barely dry on the Constitution. Why has government been breaking the rules? To gain more power over the masses until they hold absolute power. That’s what governments do, unless they are held in check by limits and by the people.
When push comes to shove, in their distorted minds, you are dumb and ignorant and you don’t deserve to rule yourself. Smarter people than you know what is best for you, and, by God, they will shove it down your throat no matter how loud you scream……..
Expanded Federal Powers ~ States Have No Rights According to Many State Legislators| The Post & Email
Expanded Federal PowersOver the years since the ratification of the US Constitution, a steady effort has been under way to expand federal powers, not by Amendment process, but by legal interpretations of existing constitutional text.The Supremacy Clause – Commerce Clause – General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, have all been intentionally perverted for the purpose of expanding federal powers.
Although these clauses all exist in constitutional text as delegated powers, the modern interpretation of these federal powers are now the exact opposite of their original intent. Federal law is “supreme” only to the degree that federal law is “constitutional” – within the delegated powers of the federal government to begin with. The Commerce Clause relates only to Commerce, or trade. Not every interstate event. The General Welfare clause was intended to keep the federal government from making laws that did not serve the general welfare of all states and citizens equally. And the Necessary and Proper Clause was intended to limit federal law-making to only those laws necessary and proper in the carrying out of delegated and enumerated powers.In other words, all of these clauses were written into the US Constitution in an overt effort to limit federal powers. Yet, it is these clauses which have been perverted to an opposite meaning today, and used to expand federal power to the point that many state officials no longer know that they have state sovereignty and rights……….
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.
…Allahpundit ^ | 2/8/11 | hot airPosted on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:44:39 PM by Nachum
One of the most pitiful, relentlessly irritating op-eds about O-Care that I’ve read since our long national nightmare began in summer ’09. To understand what makes it so grating, you need to know that the author, Laurence Tribe, is not only a Harvard Law prof who taught Obama but a bona fide titan of constitutional jurisprudence on the left.
He wrote a famous treatise on the subject and was, in his younger days, a perennial candidate for the Supreme Court when Democrats were in the White House. You might also remember him as the guy who sneered, amusingly, in a letter to Obama that Sotomayor isn’t nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and who endorsed Kagan because he thought she’d be better able to keep Anthony Kennedy from “drifting” towards the right.
You need all of that as background for two reasons.
, per his credentials, you’re expecting an argument for the mandate here that’s novel or unusually penetrating, you’re mistaken. His points about the Commerce Clause and Congress’s taxing power are as pedestrian as it gets, stuff you’ve read in a hundred different permutations from liberals over the past 18 months……..
Excerpt Read more at hotair.com ..
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.
Cornerstone of Obama Presidency is CollapsingReal Clear Politics ^ | Febriaru 3. 2011 | Dick MorrisPosted on Friday, February 04, 2011 4:07:11 PM by Citizen X_Area 51How did Obama ever think that his program would pass constitutional muster? How could he imagine that the Interstate Commerce clause could cover something that wasn’t interstate health insurance cannot be sold over state lines and wasn’t commerce failure to buy insurance is not commerce would stand up in court? He was so sure that he would win any constitutional challenge that he arrogantly failed to put a severability clause in the bill so that it would survive even if parts were stricken down.The decision of the Florida District Court may or may not prevail in the Circuit Court. But who can doubt that the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, will strike it down?Excerpt Read more at realclearpolitics.com …
“among the states.”Cole’s plan specifically expands on that idea.His plan states, “All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
“Story continues below His plan continues, “This chapter shall apply to goods that are manufactured within the Commonwealth from basic materials or parts. The authority of the Congress of the United States to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials or parts shall not include the authority to regulate goods manufactured within the Commonwealth from such materials or parts.”Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, said over the years between Congress and the courts the definition of those issues subject to federal control because of “interstate commerce” has expanded to include everything.”From wheat grown on one’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose, to guns manufactured, sold and kept in state boundaries, and everything in between,” he said.
He said the arguments for such expansive controls have focused on two trains of thought. Citing research from leading constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, Boldin said one argument is that the Founding Fathers meant “all gainful economic activities” when they referred to “commerce.”The other argument, offered by several college researchers, was that “commerce” means “any human interaction.”"Both, however, are wrong,” wrote Boldin.”In 2011, state legislative contacts close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect that a number of states will attempt to resist this federal overreach,” he wrote.He said at first glance, Cole’s plan might not seem to be out of the ordinary.
Supporters of Montana‘s Firearms Freedom Act are turning up the heat on the federal government in their fight to push Congress back into the box set up by the “enumerated powers” the U.S. Constitution allocates to Washington.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and MSSA President Gary Marbut of Missoula have filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of their lawsuit that seeks affirmation of the state law.The MFFA “is designed to test the power of Congress to regulate everything without limits under the narrow power given to Congress in the Constitution to ‘regulate commerce … among the states,’” according to a report today from the plaintiffs.Learn what you can do about your nation. Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah‘s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewalThe dispute isn’t complicated: the state law “declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the Commerce Clause,” because those items are not in “interstate commerce.”It’s been so popular that besides the original law in Montana, seven other states also have adopted their own versions of the same plan over the course of one legislation session for the states.
Story continues below
Posted By admin On November 13, 2010 @ 6:29 am In Featured Stories | No Comments
Virginia Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli, who has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama last March, says Obama and the Congress that enacted that law–which mandates that individuals must buy government-approved health insurance plans–are seeking a power over the lives of Americans that even King George III did not claim to possess.
In 2005 the Supreme Court said the federal government’s power to “regulate commerce…among the several states” extends to the tiniest speck of marijuana wherever it may be found, even in the home of a patient who grows it for her own medical use in compliance with state law.
“If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause,” Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”The Obama administration, which was in court this week defending the new federal requirement that every American obtain government-designed health insurance, seems determined to prove Thomas right. But despite seven decades of stretching by a Supreme Court eager to accommodate every congressional whim, the Amazing Elastic Commerce Clause is still not expansive enough to cover the unprecedented command that people purchase a product from a private company in exchange for the privilege of existing.
“Never before has the Commerce Clause…been extended this far,” noted U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson when he declined to dismiss the case he heard this week, in which Virginia is challenging the insurance mandate. Last week, allowing a similar lawsuit by Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed that the Commerce Clause has “never been applied in such a manner before.”
In a decision that reads more like leftist talking points than a judgment based upon any true and sound legal determination based upon the US Constitution, Clinton appointed “Judge” George C. Steeh has ruled that the commerce clause gives the federal government the “right” to compel any and all citizens whom it wishes and to buy any and all demanded products whether they want them or not.
In other words, the Marxist Judge Steeh has ruled that the US Constitution no longer precludes slavery of its citizens. [snip]
by Andrew P. Napolitano
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”
When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.
Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are “inalienable” and come to us from “Our Creator.” Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.