Apr 14
I, Obama, in order to form a more perfect union for my donors
Dave Kopel summarizes the main Constitutional arguments against Obamacare quite nicely. I’ll summarize his summary:
- violates commerce clause of Constitution because it is an individual mandate.
- violates privacy rights by forcing disclosure of private information to a 3rd party
- violates the takings clause by forcing spending without due process
I would add that it violates the 5th amendment (equal protection) by not being applicable to all classes of people. For instance, only those 18 to 65 must purchase, others are covered by government programs.
If this isn’t struck down as unconstitutional then I don’t know why we have federal courts and a Constitution, because they obviously don’t care what it reads.
April 14th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
If these Marxists aren’t dethroned in November you can plan on sporadic violence.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
I see that coming as well.
April 15th, 2010 at 5:27 am
Isn’t the Constitution a marvelous document? It gives everyone with a policy peeve a chance to vent and sound authoritative with even just a glancing acquaintance with its history and its checks and balances. The venting shunts the disputes into peaceful channels which avoids substantive threats of violence. Those who even mention violence as a remedy don’t seem to understand how our country faces differences. After we went to war once to settle deep Constitutional differences, cooler heads realized that no matter the intensity of the feelings about a policy,” To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” (Thanks to WS Churchill, 1954)
April 15th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Who said we were advocating violence? We just see it coming.
I see violence coming if we lose, and even more likely if we win. Your side likes to jaw jaw when they win win, and bomb/shoot when they don’t.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Your klatsch out there mentions violence frequently, as if they had a monopoly on it, and there’s only a thin line between mentioning it and inviting it. Part of the thin veneer of civilization. Unfortunately, the violent ignore the probable responses by the attacked which leads to a cycle of escalating violence. Those with the most to protect should be the ones most averse to violence.
Win or lose whatever you see as the burning issue, it is in your extreme interest to keep the debate peaceful.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:51 am
So onlookers seeing the civil war coming couldn’t say “hey, there is a Civil War” coming?
the risk of violence should be part of the calculation of government. Right now it is – they tax and take just enough to keep the slaves docile. But as they take more money, then time, then opportunity, and even quality medical care – they will cross the limit for some.
My hope is for Texas to accept me when it secedes. I believe this nation ruined beyond repair. Your generation didn’t make the tools of corruption, but it certainly did put them to extensive use.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:39 am
There will be a second American civil war, history leaves little doubt. No empire lasts forever and they usually end in bloody power struggles. Whether its in 10 years or 100, someone like Obama or Bush will decide that even unconstitutional powers are not enough and cross the line from asshat to dictator.
I think Obama is trying to push us to revolution so he can declare martial law and take over completely. Evidenced by his desire for a standing, national-scale civilian armed force via ACORN to counter the military.
On the subject of “encouraging” violence, I would say that the vast majority of people who feel as I do are doing their best to prevent it. After being slandered, verbally attacked, slapped in the face with legislation, called racists and having our incomes and our personal liberties stolen more and more every day, we start a *Tea Party.* We protest the wrongs peacefully, but we will be heard.
We are trying to stop the death spiral.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Commenter Carl has a proclivity to not want things but then do the very thing that will encourage them. He claims to want, for instance, civil rights, but then joins the ACLU a group which hastens their demise. Same with violence. “I don’t want it”, but I’ll go ahead and encourage theft and disenfranchisement of productive people.
There is what you say, and what you do.
He doesn’t do this on purpose. Like so many liberals, he is liberal by reflex and because his peers told him to hate Richard Nixon, even though the Vietnam war was Kennedy and LBJ’s fault.
April 15th, 2010 at 9:40 am
So it was peaceful for Eisenhower to back Diem?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I’m not sure if Commenter Carl is being sarcastic about the Constitution being a marvelous document. I suspect he doesn’t. Based on his comments, only those with proper understanding can exercise their rights. I have my Constitution here on my desk, perhaps he can point me to section that says my neighbor has to pass a civics or history test in order to protest the government.
Our “klatsch” doesn’t mention violence with any greater frequency than yours. Moreover, the radicals of the sixties that are in power in this administration not only mentioned violence, they participated.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:16 am
The US policy toward South Vietnam was complicated by the ideas of the time on the aims of the Soviet Union. The domino theory and all that. Eisenhower hated war, but his SECSTATE was a hardliner. Like Bush 41 and his SECDEF. We had various responses after WW II to Russian “moves”: the Berlin blockade,the Greek civil war, Korean War, Cuban missiles, the Viet Minh against French re-colonialization in Cochin China, Chinese Coms defeating Chiang (another dictator of ours), Hungarian revolt, temporary partition of Vietnam and Korea, all before Ike left office. Diem was just another corrupt head of government that reneged on the post 1954 partition deal, neither better nor worse than a lot of the others we supported. “They were dictators but they were our dictators.” With McCarthy and Hoover stirring the anti-Communism pot at home, no politician dared say anything soft about anything foreign. US military “protection” of the pretend country of South Vietnam turned a Vietnamese civil war into a worldwide fight against Communism. US military power seemed under-challenged by a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas who had beaten the “incompetent” French. Fast-forward to our final withdrawal under fire in 1975 from the last rooftop we owned. Whose fault was it? That’s why we have so many historians, and like economists, if you laid them all end-to-end, they still would not reach a conclusion.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Whose fault? Ultimately Richard Nixon for Watergate. Directly, the Democrats that sold out the victory we’d achieved for personal and party political gain.
I don’t dislike Democrats because their policies ruined America, I dislike them because the did it for their own gain, not a misguided sense of what is right.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Speaking of which, tea party at 5:30!
April 15th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I had enough at the last one. We were testing a new STI pistol instead (-:
April 15th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I think I was misinformed. It read like a Eagar rally instead of a tea party.