Tag Archives: Supreme Court

America Used To Be A Beacon Of Freedom

Posted on by

The Blaze is reporting today that the German family seeking political asylum in the United States because they want to homeschool their children will take their case to the Supreme Court.

An immigration judge granted the Romeike family asylum in 2010, but the U.S. government appealed. An immigration appeals board sided with the government, and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last week denied the family’s request for a new hearing.

The Home School Legal Defense Association is representing the family and has stated that they will take the case to the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

“The German High Court is on record for saying that religious homeschoolers should be targeted and severely punished, yet our Justice Department sees nothing wrong with that,” Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association founder Michael Farris) said. “The attorney general and Sixth Circuit are ignoring critical evidence and are trying to send back this family who is trying to stay in our country legally. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will go the other way and see what the original immigration judge saw: that this family and other religious homeschoolers in Germany are being persecuted for what they believe is the right way to raise their children.”

These are exactly the kind of people who should be granted asylum in the United States. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the case and grant the Romeike family the freedom they are seeking.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About On A Very Sad Anniversary

Posted on by

This week marks forty years since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. Since that 1973 decision, 55 million babies have been aborted in America. I am not posting this to judge those who have had abortions, I am posting this to show you the beauty and miracle of life. It is posted at YouTube and is about 10 minutes long. It is well worth watching. Enjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Supreme Court Justices Are Important

Posted on by

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the latest episode of the battle between Hobby Lobby and the Obama Administration over the HHS regulations in ObamaCare. Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected an emergency request for an injunction to prevent HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate on Hobby Lobby’s Catholic owners.

The article reports Justice Sotomayor‘s justification for her decision:

“While the applicants allege they will face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between complying with the contraception-coverage requirement and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction,” Sotomayor wrote in a short opinion rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request.

Because Hobby Lobby will not comply with the mandate, they are facing fines of $1.3 million a day beginning on January 1st. HHS cannot collect the money immediately, but Hobby Lobby is required to set the money aside. I can’t imagine a company not being harmed by taking $1.3 a day away from their operating cash.

The article concludes:

Expect Hobby Lobby to keep pursuing the case, and keep an eye out for emergency requests from other appellate circuits.  If one lands on the desk of Antonin Scalia or Sam Alito, the outcome could be quite different — and we may get an expedited Supreme Court argument out of it, even if it would still be preliminary.

The HHS mandate requiring companies to provide free contraception is government overreach at its worst. Why is the HHS insisting on thisl when various forms of contraception are readily available and inexpensive?

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Legal Action On ObamaCare

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller is reporting that on Wednesday a federal appeals court blocked the implementation of the HHS mandate requiring employers to provide health care plans that include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

The article reports:

Missouri business owner Frank O’Brien, who employs 87 people at O’Brien Industrial Holdings, alleged in the lawsuit that led to the injunction that the mandate unconstitutionally infringes on his religious beliefs.

…The order by the three-judge panel on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prohibits HHS from forcing O’Brien to comply with the mandate, until the court issues a substantive ruling on the matter. The injunction order is not a final determination on the merits of O’Brien’s case or the constitutionality of the mandate.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) also reported on this case yesterday:

In October, a federal district court judge granted the Obama Administration’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. The ACLJ immediately filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In an order issued today, the appeals court granted the ACLJ motion requesting an injunction pending an appeal.

The lawsuit, which was filed in March 2012, marked the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until the suit was filed, only religious organizations or institutions brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

…In addition to the O’Brien case, the ACLJ has filed two other direct challenges to the HHS mandate and filed amicus briefs backing other challenges in more than a dozen cases.

I believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to require Americans to buy health insurance, much less tell employers what health insurance has to include. I hope one of these cases makes it to the Supreme Court and this time the Supreme Court makes the correct decision–I think the Supreme Court’s last decision on Obamacare was incorrect.

Government Intrusion Coming To A Yard Sale Near You

Posted on by

Market Watch posted a story yesterday about a Supreme Court case that will come up during this term of the Supreme Court. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons deals with the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

The article explains that because the copyright holder was paid when the article sold the first time, after sales are not covered. However, that idea is being challenged for items made abroad.

The article reports:

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

The article explains the basis for the case:

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

There can be hazards in doing business in a world-wide market.

The article reminds us that if the court rules that the first-sale principle does not apply to products made oversees, many businesses in the United States would be adversely impacted. Many parts of American cars are made overseas. Does that mean that when you sell your used car, you need permission from a Japanese parts company?

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Frankly, I think Supap Kirtsaeng should get an award for entrepreneurial excellence!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Challenges To ObamaCare Continue

Posted on by

Fox News reported yesterday that the Supreme Court may be taking another case regarding ObamaCare.

The article reports:

Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a “tax” before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance. 

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court noted the university’s renewed request and gave the administration 30 days to respond to the request, suggesting that the justices are taking the Liberty request seriously.

ObamaCare is bad law, and I suspect that if the majority party in Washington changes in November it will be repealed and replaced. I hope so.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The House Of Representatives Has Passed A New Stolen Valor Act

Posted on by

On September 14th Stars and Stripes reported that the U. S. House of Representatives passed a new Stolen Valor Act. The first Stolen Valor Act passed by Congress was struck down by the Supreme Court on freedom of speech issues. The House of Representatives voted 410-3 to pass the revised Stolen Valor Act.

The article reports:

The bill states that those who misrepresent their military service with the intent of receiving something of value would be subject to up to one year in prison. Following the lines of the court ruling, it exempts from punishment those who simply wear military medals or decorations that do not belong to them.

The Supreme Court, in its 6-3 decision overturning the 2006 Stolen Valor Act in June, ruled that while lying about receiving military awards might be contemptible, it was protected by the First Amendment. Several justices, however, also noted that it was established that the government could restrict speech if it involved false claims made to obtain money or other benefits.

I understand why the Supreme Court struck down the first law, but I don’t agree with their decision. I am glad to see the House has passed a new law dealing with false claims, but I still think that misrepresenting military honors or military service for any reason should be regarded as a serious crime. To allow anyone to claim military service or military honors they did not earn is to me simply a further disrespecting of those who have served valiantly in our armed forces. I hope this new bill becomes law, but it is not nearly as severe as it needs to be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Funding Of Obamacare

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the changes to the Medicare Advantage program that will occur under Obamacare.

Recently, the Obama Administration launched an $8.35 billion “demonstration project” to delay Obamacare cuts to the Medicare Advantage program until after the 2012 election. Because of this “demonstration project,” many senior citizens will not realize that their medicare has been cut until after the election. The money cut from Medicare is not to make Medicare more solvent–it is to fund the new entitlement programs included in Obamacare. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has asked that the “demonstration project” be cancelled because it does not conform to the principles of budget neutrality–meaning the money to fund the program is not offset by spending cuts and will have to be borrowed. 

The article concludes:

The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey H. Anderson has written extensively about the controversial program here.

“This is a grossly underreported story—one aimed right at what is perhaps Obama’s most vulnerable point: his amazing decision to pay for Obamacare largely by looting from Medicare,” Anderson told the Washington Free Beacon in an email. “What’s more, it ties in the corruption and lawlessness of his administration and hearkens back to the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and Gator Aid.”

It really is a shame that the Supreme Court did not declare all of Obamacare unconstitutional–they could have saved all of us a lot of aggravation! Meanwhile, we need to elect a Congress and a President who will repeal this awful bill and replace it with something consumer friendly and market friendly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lost In The Shuffle

Posted on by

There was a Supreme Court decision issued last Thursday other than the one on Obamacare. The Stolen Valor Act was declared unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act was passed in 2006 and signed by President Bush. It made it illegal to claim to have received any U.S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could have been up to one year.

On Thursday, USA Today reported:

The court found that the statute violates the First Amendment.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the law, as written, “seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.”

Kennedy writes that permitting the government to decree this kind of speech as a criminal offense “would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable.”

He notes, however, that Congress might be able to rewrite the law “to achieve the government’s objective in less burdensome ways.”

I understand why the court ruled this way, but falsely claiming military honors needs to be illegal. This is another slap in the face to the military veterans of all past wars who have earned these honors and medals.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mitt Romney And The Tea Party Surge

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a story today about the impact of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare on Governor Romney’s fundraising. After the Supreme Court released its decision, the Romney campaign raised $4.3 million from 43,000 donations in less than a day. Wow. I guess there are a lot of people who don’t like Obamacare.

The article at Hot Air also cites a Roll Call article about the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare on the Tea Party:

In upholding most of President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Supreme Court handed the tea party a new lease on life.

While activists spouted made-for-TV rancor through megaphones outside the court Thursday, the behind-the-scenes strategists who helped Republicans take the House in 2010 prepared for a flood of donations they said will fuel even greater gains this November. …

The movement, born in 2009 from the opposition to the health care overhaul, has developed a professionalism that few expected, attracting seasoned operatives and winning allies in Congress. Vitriolic protests have taken a back seat to well-executed fundraising campaigns. Groups such as the Tea Party Express have raised tens of millions of dollars on the promise of derailing the health care law.

And, in many ways, Thursday’s ruling is exactly what they had been training for.

The Supreme Court is not political, but I think they just re-energized the November election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Heritage Foundation’s Comments On The Supreme Court’s Decision On Obamacare

Posted on by

Dr. Edwin Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare today:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Greater Boston Tea Party Statement On The Supreme Court’s Ruling On The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Posted on by

Greater Boston Tea Party statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling

on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 We are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will allow the Obama administration to move forward in implementing its radical policy that violates our constitutional right of individual Liberty.  We have opened the door to a government that sees no limit to the amount of freedoms it can take away.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and its accompanying “tax”, represents an egregious affront to liberty, and is opposed by Americans of all political persuasions.  “We will redouble our efforts to educate and inform political activists of threat to individual Liberty this policy represents,” said Greater Boston Tea Party President Christine Morabito. “We were told repeatedly this is not a tax. We expect Congress to act immediately to block seizing funds from American citizens to pay for a political whim.”

People who believe in preserving and protecting constitutional principles will continue the fight to repeal any policy that would tax individuals in order to pay for a product deemed a civil right based on political ideology. The Greater Boston Tea party will continue our efforts to petition Congress to repeal this devastating policy, which undermines our individual Liberty.  We will continue to educate activists as to their constitutional rights and how to defend those rights. If we do not stand up and make our voices heard, it is only a matter of time before our remaining liberties come under direct assault.

Now is the time to act! Leaders in Congress are already calling for a vote to repeal the act in early July. Call Congress and demand a repeal of this law. 202-225-3121 Forward this email to family and friends and tell them to do the same!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

Posted on by

About an hour ago, the Supreme Court released its decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My source for this article is an Ed Morrissey article at Hot Air. The comments on the article are as interesting as the article. Some of the comments:

“You haven’t purchased a GM vehicle, Comrade. Better get moving on that. You don’t want to get taxed, do you?” — BHO

Can new taxes be passed with just a reconciliation vote?  talkingpoints on June 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

In my opinion: with the Medicaid expansion clause, if States decide not to expand Medicaid, HHS cannot take their Medicaid funds away. Hence, if half the country doesn’t choose to participate, the Feds can’t force them to. I believe this will effectively kill the bill.

Keep calm and vote Romney.

At this time, the stock market has fallen about 150 points since the announcement. Most Americans have 401k plans that have just been negatively impacted by this decision.

Ed Morrissey reports:

After months and months of focusing on Anthony Kennedy as the weak link in the conservative chain at the Supreme Court, it turns out that Chief Justice John Roberts was the one the Right needed to fear.  With the more centrist Kennedy dissenting, Roberts signed off on the individual mandate in ObamaCare, not as part of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, or even the ludicrous reference to the “Good and Welfare Clause” from some Democrats, but from the more mundane and substantial power to tax.  The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters.

The only good thing about this decision is that it will energize those Americans who believe in individual rights. This now becomes a major election issue with the debate being between those people who still believe they are entitled to a free lunch and those people who realize that someone always has to pay for a free lunch.

Upholding the law means that all the lawsuits concerning the freedom to practice religion will go forward. Some of these cases will probably also wind up at the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

The future of America will depend on what happens in November. Vote!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Obama Administration’s Attack On Arizona Continues

Posted on by

There are two sources for this story–an Associated Press story from yesterday and Breitbart.com. The story by the Associated Press deals with the fact that the Obama Administration has set up a hot line to deal with any complaints of civil rights violations reported in the enforcement of the Arizona immigration law. This is an invitation to legal chaos and a chance for lawyers (a major contributing block to Democrat campaign coffers) to increase their income dramatically. The article at Breitbart.com reports that after the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the major item in Arizona’s immigration law the Obama Administration decided to retaliate.

The article at Breitbart.com reports:

By the same token, Brewer recognized the threat implicit in the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to suspend cooperation with Arizona state authorities via 287(g) task force agreements. “This continued assault on the state of Arizona in regards to illegal immigration has been totally unfortunate,” Brewer said. “The bottom line is that the feds need to step up and do their job and secure our border so we can work on other issues that are a result of the borders not being secured.”

 Brewer was deeply upset at the new round of federal pressure on Arizona. “At every turn,” she said, “we see the federal government putting their finger down on other places … They rescinded the 287(g) for all law enforcement in the state of Arizona immediately after this ruling came out. They’re taking away the ability for us to work hand in hand with ICE. So now instead of being able to access the [citizenship] database we’re going to have to call in and go through ICE to verify if somebody’s illegally in the state or not. That’s an assault on Arizona. And it was only rescinded in the State of Arizona.”

This is more Chicago thuggery from the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration puts politics and pettiness ahead of protecting American citizens. They need to be shown the door in November!

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Mixed Decision On The Arizona Immigration Law

Posted on by

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story today on the the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold part of Arizona’s immigration law and to strike down other parts.

The article reports:

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona  hailed the immigration verdict as a victory because it  cleared the way for the officials to start enforcing a provision that allows law enforcement officers,  when making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people.
 
The Supreme Court struck down the part of the law that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to apply for jobs or to not carry immigration papers. It also struck down a provision that gave the police authority to arrest immigrants for crimes that may lead to deportation.
 
I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see the logic in what the Court decided to strike down. It should be a state crime illegal immigrants to apply for jobs–they are illegal! Shouldn’t immigrants be arrested for crimes period? (Just like any American citizen would be.)
 
The article also reports:
 

In a blistering 22-page opposition to the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:  ‘to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia wrote. “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State’

He charged that the Obama administration ‘desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers’ and accused federal officials of ‘willful blindness or deliberate inattention’ to the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona.

I agree with Justice Scalia.

 
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

What The Supreme Court Said Yesterday

Posted on by

Investors.com posted an article yesterday explaining the Supreme Court decision regarding the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). I will admit that when I first heard the ruling I did not understand exactly what was involved. I am grateful to Investors.com for their clear concise explanation.

The article explains:

In ruling that workers who choose not to be union members must be able to object immediately to unexpected fee increases or similar levies required of all employees in closed shops, the high court touched a nerve in the conflict between Big Labor and the right-to-work movement.

…The union’s gall in this specific case in underlined by the fact that it was taking money from nonmembers to defeat, in 2005, California’s Proposition 75, which would have prohibited the SEIU from using dues or fees for political contributions without employees’ written consent.

“Thus, the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights,” Justice Samuel Alito noted.

There has been a lot of complaining from the left side of the political spectrum about the Citizen’s United ruling of the Supreme Court. That ruling prohibited the government from restricting spending either by corporations or unions. The left objected to the fact that corporations were now able to get into the election funding game. At least corporations are spending their own profits and are answerable to their stockholders. The use of union dues to fund political campaigns without the consent of those paying the dues is questionable at best. At least now non-union members have some control over the money they are asked to pay the unions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protecting The Property Rights Of Americans

Posted on by

The Blaze is reporting today that Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced legislation to limit the government’s power of eminent domain, the seizure of private property without the owner’s consent. This is the link to the actual legislation introduced.

The law, The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2012, coincides with the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. the City of New London, which allowed the City of New London to arbitrarily take private property from one person and give it to another with the intent of increasing the city’s tax base.

On December 1, 2009, I reported on the outcome of that property seizure (rightwinggranny.com):

So let’s look at where we are now.  The taking of the property was used to lure Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company to New London to build a research center.  Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company arrived, built its New London research center on the seized property, and this week announced that it was closing the plant.  Most of the plants 1,400 employees will be relocated to nearby Groton. 

Now the City of New London won’t even have the tax revenue from the people who once lived in that area of New London.  They will simply have a vacant research center.  Poetic justice at its best.

The Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Kelo–they seriously undermined the property rights of Americans. Please follow the link above to the article at The Blaze to read about recent misuses of eminent domain. Thank goodness for Senators like John Cornyn and Rand Paul who are willing to stand up for individual property rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

As We Await The Supreme Court’s Decision On Obamacare…

Posted on by

CNS News posted a story on Friday about the impact of Obamacare on the cost of health insurance.

Edward Fensholt, senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to 2,500 mostly middle-market employers, told the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions:

“These mandates have increased our clients’ health plan costs 2 to 3 percent on average to this point,” he said. And he said the costs will escalate further when new rules — such as reductions in waiting periods and the automatic enrollment requirement — take effect in 2014.

Note that the new rules take effect long after the coming election.

The article reports:

Bill Streitberger, vice president of human resources for the Red Robin restaurant chain, told the panel that when health care costs increase, his company has less money to invest in opening new restaurants.

For the last three years, he noted, Red Robin’s health care costs per employee have increased more than six percent every year — a much greater pace than the growth of Red Robin’s sales or net income, he said.

There are some basic changes needed in America’s health insurance system–portability, tax breaks for buying health insurance, tort reform, etc. Obamacare never addresses tort reform. Obamacare takes away the free market and places the entire healthcare system under government control. That is a really bad idea, and hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down the entire bill so that the current Congress can try again.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Defense Of Marriage Act Is Headed For The Supreme Court

Posted on by

According to USA Today, on April 2, President Obama said the following:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The President was referring to the Supreme Court taking up the Obamacare case. The article reminds us:

…the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition.

The health care law passed in the Senate on a party-line vote of 60–39.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now headed for the Supreme Court. DOMA was passed in 1996 by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. President Obama has previously stated that his Department of Justice would not support DOMA in the courts.

I wonder if the President will take the same position on the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA as he has with Obamacare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Preemptive Strike On The Supreme Court

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that the Obama Administration has diverted roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The article reports:

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

It is very interesting to me that the money is being provided ‘outside the normal appropriations process.’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obamacare is under discussion at the Supreme Court. It is interesting to me that this donation to the IRS could not wait under the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Maybe I am becoming overly cynical in my old age, but I have the feeling that Obamacare is going to be implemented regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

The article further reports:

The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

We are in serious danger of having our Constitution become a worthless piece of paper.

Meanwhile, this is a YouTube audio I have added for your consideration. It is a portion of the Michael Savage radio program. I would like to dismiss it as over the top, but there is enough plausible information in it to prevent me from doing that. Please listen and draw your own conclusions.

 

I am sincerely worried about the future of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Posted on by

The American (the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute) posted an article yesterday by Marc Theissen about some recent actions by President Obama regarding the Supreme Court.

The article reported some events this week in a Boston, Massachusetts, court:

On Wednesday, oral arguments took place over another law passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, both cases feature the same lawyer — former solicitor general Paul Clement — who delivered the argument against Obamacare before the Supreme Court last week and in defense of DOMA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this week.

Why is Clement, and not the Justice Department, defending this law in federal court? Because the Obama administration announced last year that it had decided that it would no longer defend DOMA in court. Quite the opposite, the Justice Department is actively urging district courts around the country to … you guessed it … overturn this law.

The irony here is that DOMA was passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” In the House the vote was 342-67, and in the Senate the vote was 85-14. That actually is a strong majority.

Last year in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

So the President and the Attorney General have decided only to uphold those laws that they happen to agree with.

Has anyone in this administration read the U. S. Constitution?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A President Who Chose To Ignore A Ruling By The Supreme Court

Posted on by
The American Thinker reminds us today that there has been only one President in American history who ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court. What happened after that was not good.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrat Party, signed the “Indian Removal Act of 1830.”  The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole Indians (known as the “Five Civilized Tribes”) had prospered, and President Jackson had ordered the Army to relocate them. The Supreme Court intervened, and in 1831 SCOTUS ruled on behalf of the Cherokee Nation in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. President Jackson ignored the order.

The article reports what happened next:

…the deaths of thousands of Cherokees followed.  The ruination of their businesses, culture, and theft of their lands was the outcome.  Those lands were ostensibly given to whites, while the Cherokees and the four other tribes were forcibly marched west to uncharted territory and left to die. 

Mr. Jackson was succeeded by another Democrat, Martin VanBuren, who had been Jackson’s Secretary of State.  He followed in his predecessor’s footsteps and made sure that the slaughter and theft of land, businesses, and pride continued long after Mr. Jackson got the ball rolling.  

Part of the problem was that gold had been discovered on the Cherokee land in Georgia. Greed was the obvious motive. This was one of the darkest moments in American history. The Supreme Court was right ot oppose what was happening.

I believe that the Supreme Court will be correct in opposing Obamacare. They will prevent the death of many Americans by refusing to ruin one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fighting The Lies

Posted on by

The statement made by the President in the Rose Garden earlier this week that “he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”” was an amazing statement. President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Didn’t he read the Constitution? Well, the Fifth Circuit Court wants to know…

CBS News reports:

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

 The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

 Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, suggesting it wasn’t clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Laws mean things, and evidently this Judge wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of what the law says.

The article further reports:

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president’s comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws “have troubled a number of people” and that the suggestion “is not a small matter.”

 The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss “judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation.”

 “I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president,” Smith said. “What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?”

Frankly, if I were Judge Smith, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the report. However, there is a point to this. Because many Americans do not understand either the Constitution or the roles of the three branches of government, President Obama may actually succeed in his ‘intimidate the Supreme Court to prevent Obamacare from being overturned’ campaign. This is a dangerous time for America. We need to make sure we understand how our government is supposed to work and protect its ability to work correctly. It’s time for all of us to be aware that the government serves at the will of the people–it is not in place to control us and tell us what to think.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thuggery From The White House

Posted on by

President Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago. Chicago politically is an ugly city, and the President needs to learn some manners now that he is in the White House. His remarks about the Supreme Court yesterday were inappropriate and uncalled for.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story on the President’s remarks. The President stated:

[…] I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

[…] for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly-constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

We need to remember that there are other ways to ensure that people have access to health insurance–a government takeover is not the only option. We also need to remember that overturning a bad law is not judicial activism.

The President also stated that Obamacare was passed by a strong majority. That is a lie. It was passed by a parliamentary trick because they did not have the votes to send it back to the Senate after reconciliation. The election of Scott Brown was a glaring example of how unpopular the legislation was. The popularity of a law has nothing to do with whether or not it is constitutional, but we do live in a representative republic where the laws are expected to reflect the desires of the governed.

The question in Obamacare is whether or not the government can force you to buy something you may not want to buy. If that principle stands, it is the end of our freedom as we know it. In passing Obamacare, Congress overstepped its bounds. It is now up to the Supreme Court to put things back in order.

Enhanced by Zemanta