Monday Brief
What Constitutional Limits Are Left?
The Foundation
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson
Government
Meet the newest "tax.""[A]t the risk of being a broken record [on ObamaCare], we remain focused on the wrong issue because conservatives and Republicans do not want any part of the right issue. Congress would not be able to tax anyone a penny if the subject matter on which lawmakers sought to spend the money raised was not within Congress's constitutional authority to address. Health care and health insurance are precisely such issues. So why does Congress get to raise taxes for and spend money on them? Because the country -- very much including Republican leaders and many conservatives -- has bought on to the wayward progressive premise that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend on anything it wants to spend on as long as there is some fig-leaf that ties the spending to the betterment of society. That, and not an inflated understanding of the Commerce Clause, has always been the problem. Republicans are afraid to touch this because, if you follow the logic, you'd have to conclude that Congress has no constitutional authority to set up a social security system, a Medicare or Medicaid program, or most of the innumerable Big Government enterprises that Republicans support while, of course, decrying Big Government. Republicans occasionally want to limit what government spends, but they don't want to acknowledge any constitutional limits on what government could spend -- that's what has gotten us to this point." --columnist and former DoJ attorney Andrew McCarthy
Essential Liberty
"In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the principal choice now facing Americans on November 6 will be whether to keep Obamacare or to repeal it. The question is a binary one, and the answer -- expressed almost entirely through their presidential vote -- will go a long way toward determining the future course of this great nation. Yes, the economy is extremely important; and, yes, Obamacare is hurting the economy. But the reason why this election is the most important since the Civil War is not because Mitt Romney would make a far better steward of the economy than President Obama (though he would). Rather, it's because we are about to decide whether to put what will soon be one-fifth of our economy under the control of the federal government; whether to funnel previously unthinkable amounts of power and money to Washington; and whether this nation conceived in liberty will continue to prioritize liberty. It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court's ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he's concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better." --columnist Jeffrey H. Anderson
Political Futures
"Twenty new or higher taxes across-the-board [in ObamaCare] are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors, and bad for families. A tax is a tax is a tax, according to Judge Roberts. But he forgot to say that if you tax something more, you get less of it. Presumably Mitt Romney will make this case in a major way. Hopefully he won't forget that Obamacare is not just a huge tax hike. It's also a major new spending entitlement that's already pegged at $2.5 trillion and will increase the federal debt burden much faster than the GDP expands. In other words, tax, spend, regulate, borrow. The Obama mantra. Romney must go after it -- time and time and time again. Bankrupting the economy is not exactly a job-creator." --economist Larry Kudlow
Opinion in Brief
"[Chief Justice John] Roberts' concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. How to reconcile the two imperatives -- one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds -- interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress. Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf. Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed. That's not how I would have ruled. I think the 'mandate is merely a tax' argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. ... Perhaps that's not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that's how he did rule. Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed -- elect a new president and a new Congress." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Let Your Voice Be Heard
Now that the Supreme Court has validated Barack Obama's unconstitutional power grab, it's time for Patriots around our great nation to rise up and make our voices heard. We at The Patriot Post need your help on the front lines, because the battle will continue.
There are just 2 days left to raise the remaining $152,000 for The Patriot Post's 2012 Independence Day Campaign. As of today, we are about 32 percent behind where we need to be to make budget. Please make a secure online donation today. If you prefer to support us by mail, please send your check with our printable donor form.
Thank you!
Nate Jackson
Managing Editor
The Gipper
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. ... [L]et's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. ... First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. ... All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods -- determine his employment." --Ronald Reagan
Re: The Left
"[Thursday], the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to provide subpoenaed documents to the Congressional Committee investigating the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. ... In an interview with the New York Times last December, the Attorney General claimed the 'more extreme segment' of his numerous critics were really after the president and that he served as a viable substitute. 'This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,' he said, 'both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American.' ... It is worth remembering that less than one month after he began serving as Attorney General Holder also called American 'a nation of cowards' regarding racial matters. All of this calculated odiousness regarding race is designed to obscure reality. ... Every effort to get at the truth has been stonewalled, first by the Attorney General, and now by president Obama himself, who issued an executive order to keep a lid on the worst government scandal since Watergate. Racism? Tell that to the parents of slain border agent Brian Terry. ... Is it racist to want to know who is ultimately responsible for their son's death? How about the Mexican civilians? Since most of them are non-white, why isn't the effort to suppress information regarding their murders -- numbering in the hundreds -- considered racist? ... Quite simply, these are American leftists who prefer protecting the careers of one or more high-level government officials, over bringing some kind of closure -- as in justice -- to hundreds of families whose lives have been shattered by bureaucratic malfeasance at best, and outright criminality at worst. And they're willing to play the race card to do it. Shame on every one of them." --columnist Arnold Ahlert
Reader Comments
"In his essay, 'The Price of Liberty', Mark Alexander notes that his son has just entered the US Air Force Academy. Who in their right mind would join the military these days?"
Mark Alexander Replies: "Who"? Young Patriots devoted to Liberty who know that it is in 'the times which try men's souls' (T. Paine) that our country needs its right-thinking Patriots -- civilian and military -- the most. My son is neither a 'sunshine patriot' nor a 'summer soldier.' His motivation to serve is not for reward or accolade but for love of Liberty and our great country. He is a genuine Patriot who has made the difficult decision to answer the call to duty, and will honor his oath -- which our CinC and his socialist cadres violate daily. Frankly sir, those who retreat now, be damned! Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors!"
"Upon hearing the SCOTUS decision Thursday on health care, I decided to donate $100 to the cause. This is my first step in standing TALL for Freedom! I will not lose faith in God or Country! Keep up the good fight, and keep your powder dry!" --Dan
"I am one of the folks that is retired and have a limited income -- I guess you could call me one of the bottom 1 percenters. I fear that without the publications like The Patriot Post we will lose a very important voice. A voice that shows facts not rhetoric a voice that reminds us of what this country was built on, a voice of reason and common sense. I just donated what I could to help keep this publication going. Good Luck and keep 'em coming." --Charles
"You, like every organization of this kind needs donated money to survive. Each time I question it I come back to one thing. Your message is clear. The ethics and professionalism used in the pursuit of your mission are intelligent and sound. Frankly, its one of the few articulate, researched, and complete pushes for sound government I have seen. I don't have a lot of money to spare and I don't give to just anyone. But if I don't give then I'm a user. If I don't give then I am merely supporting a middle ground that is nothing but indecisive. Drive on. Your message is on track with my heart and mind and if a $100 is all that it costs me to put this sane message out, it's worth every penny." --Andrew
The Last Word
"Deep down, Obama supposes that if he says something entirely opposite from what he once said, or something so preposterous that it cannot possibly be true, or calls the Falkland Islands the Maldives, no journalist would dare to press him on the disconnect -- given the possible harm to the liberal agenda of our first African-American president. But after nearly four years, the game is about up. If the president lectures the Europeans with another 'make no mistake about it,' they will assume there are lots of mistakes about it. If he says 'in point of fact' to Vladimir Putin, then Putin can be sure there are no facts at all. If Obama addresses the American people with 'let me be perfectly clear,' then they assume he most certainly will be anything but transparent and concise. And if Obama compares a current event to one in his own past, then we can be sure that the earlier event never took place. ... What Barack Obama wants to be true, he says to be true; and we lesser folk can sweat the details when it is usually not." --historian Victor Davis Hanson
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
168 Comments
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Time for this Obamination to go! His power grab is unpalletable and I declare my Independence from his authority. He is not my President and has not been. This means that the Office of the President has been usurped and the enemy are at the gates. WE THE PEOPLE have finally come to the crucial tipping point in our country's history, which way will we let it go?
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM
What power grab? Is this no the American way? I know I'm being , well it's t ax is the latest mantra. No it's not. Only those who are making enough to pay for insurance and don't is a tax so FOX news lied. Even Romney, our candidate says it's not a tax. makes me wonder which side of the issue he's on.
The eye of the camel comes to mind as with James 2 chpt.
We lost our freedom with Patriotic Act so why are we com[paining about this, its the act we should be appealing, start at the bottom and work our way up
Fed Up in Philly PA
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM
RE: RK Sprau,
RK you bash FOX and Conservative principles often, but never hear you bash MSNBC, MSN, ABC, etc.
Are you sure your not a closet Liberal?
Even if you are, you attempts will never convince even ONE Conservative to ever switch parties or lean towards your too often inconsistent views.
So if that is your attempt, you been wasting much energy typing over the months.
Sure you wouldn't be happier on the Huffington Post?
MNIce in Mankato, MN
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM
"Eye of the camel"? James never wrote about camels, and I don't recall this allusion in any commonly read literature. Please explain it after you've had a good night's sleep.
Perhaps you are referring to Jesus' statement, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:24, Luke 18:25) He was warning that the comforts of wealth can all too easily distract people from the reality of their spiritual poverty. (I. e., a rich man, like any other, cannot get into the kingdom of God through his own efforts, but "with God all things are possible.') This has nothing to do with government power grabs, except as a warning to those who expect to get rich from them (e.g., health insurance companies and politicians).
Wardeman in Michigan
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM
If you are over 50 years of age, and vote Democratic this fall, you are signing your own death warrant. You've heard it before, but you better believe it, to control costs there will be panels that determine what care you are given. And you better believe that there will be liberals making up the membership of these panels. And who will get the limited funds available for healthcare, every "young" and government dependent person regardless of their contribution to society (think women having their fifth child by the fifth father, druggies, and other young liberal losers).
If you know any conservative from Canada, ask them about their socialized medicine. It's great, as long as you don't get sick. And what do the elderly of Canada hear most often at their doctor's office, "go home and get your affairs in order". Please, study, read, talk, and find out as much as you can about government healthcare, and if you are a senior, you will vote against the Pelosi/Care supporters.
Lisa in MD
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 12:34 PM
This is so true.
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM
I' v3 said this once before this last week. My business partner who is a staunch Conservative do to Romney and corporate raiding during the 80's, his lack of plan to replace, just repeal, he is for the first time in his wife along with 3 others will vote for Obama. It comes down to insurance verses no insurance or being priced out. As I've stated, I pay 1,500 approx out of pocket, can anyone else afford it or pay it. Greed created it now can we undo what greed created?
Just saying in Idaho
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 4:49 PM
What exactly has greed created regarding health insurance, RK? I come from a former socialist country. We had only government health insurance, and doctors were paid a salary. In reality, doctors were paid under the table, if the patient knew what was good for him/her. Health care was rationed. Hospitals were appaling cess pols. Government has no business in health care. If you want the government to take care of you, please move to Cuba. See how well things go there. Your friend, the so called conservative who now wants to vote for Obama, is an idiot. Who told him that the society is the one to take care of his medical needs? I am not responsible for your medical issues, and I am not asking you to be for mine. You and your friend are part of the reason this country is in the mess is in now. You say you are conservative, but how, in what?
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:07 AM
Actually Scotland. I am for certain parts of it but what else is there? Last year I said push grandma off the bridge will pay a role and it will.
this is easy one. for all of those who are on medicare, VA benefits, Medicaid, give it up, by your own like I do. let them run a 80& profit margin. We claim to be for many things but com on, 80%, limits, dropping you for no reason?
I here party line rhetoric, I have yet to hear of one solution.
Brian in Newport News
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM
The solution is quite simple: get government out of health care and every other thing that is extra constitutional. If the free market was allowed to function WITHOUT government meddling, costs would be lower and you could afford health insurance! (The market here has not been allowed to do that for over 100 years now.) Don't you get it?? Government is a necessary evil at best! Ours has become a tyrannical leviathan.
Just saying in Idaho
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM
If that was an attempt to be funny, I think it missed the mark. The little that I can understand from your post tells me that you want a solution. OK, here it is: get the goverment out of healthcare, and everywhere else it doesn't belong. Let the people pay for service, or organize tghemselves in any way they see fit, and can. Dropping people is a prerogative of a business. If the business cannot sustain a profit, it ceasses to be a business. Insurance companies, as hard as it is for you to understand, have to make money to be able to continue to exist. Asking the governemt to regulate the free interaction of people in a free market is what got us here in the first place. The minute you say: there ought to be a law...you cease to be free. It's funny to me that you say you are conservative. What do you want to conserve, the power of government over our lives? And please, don't even try to tell me what we need gov for. I know, it's in the constitution. The problem with people here is that they really never lived in socialism, so they have no idea what it really is. I wish there was a way for you to experience it, but non on our backs.
Just saying in Idaho
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM
That should have been "not on our backs"
MNIce in Mankato, MN
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Perhaps you missed it when Republican members of the House proposed to exercise the legitimate use of the Commerce clause to bar states from prohibiting the purchase of health insurance across state lines. I once saw a health insurance plan that fit my needs and I could actually afford, but the fine print said, "Not available in ... Minnesota ..." When health insurance companies have to compete instead of getting state legislatures to write the rules to have the same effect as otherwise illegal trusts, we should see some improvement in the market. On the other hand, when we are compelled by our formerly Constitutional Republic to serve as unwilling customers, we cannot expect anything but merciless overpricing.
Cassie in Milton, WV
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:51 AM
My God man why is he voting for Obama? I truly believe if Ron Paul doesn't take the convention, then we can put him in office if we VOTE for him in November! The issue is, we have to work together. Our Great Constution doesn't grant a Right to healthcare. We have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. We have unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator that have already been infringed or taken away. Encourage all you know to actually READ our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If it isn't in there, then it is wrong, an abuse of power, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since at least FDR our right have been stomped on, stolen from us, or we have been tricked into giving them away. Don't let your business partner vote for Obama without a fight. Arm yourself with facts and historical references. He's better off staying home then voting for Obama. Read about Ron Paul, look at www.usa-the-republic.com. I'm tempted to tell you to tie him up in the basement on voting day, but that would be infringing on his rights, therefore unconstitutional, so I won't do that.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Will the House have the Sargent at Arms arrest Holder? Not unless the Republican Big Shots (you can't call them leaders) grow spines.
For a good discussion on it see: http://www.redstate.com/bs/2012/06/30/holders-contempt-citation-could-give-new-meaning-to-house-arrest/
Any comments from the editor?
Duncan in CA
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Obama Orders Launched Fast and Furious
http://youtu.be/-PNhYk9NuNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PNhYk9NuNc
 Obama Orders Launched Fast and Furious www.youtube.com Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President... Barack Obama on March 24, 2009, with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder.
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Utube can be wrong. It waS
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM
It can be wrong. It was launched under Bush/Cheney and carried on under Obama. why don't we go back to the Bush/Cheney people and start from there. Let's be fair and balanced. Even Issa last week on Fox News Sunday said, (We have no evidence) He said it 2x. Monday he sends a letter. Either he lied to us then, or he's lying to us now for politics. I report you decide.
wjm in Colorado
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Operation Gun runner was halted under Bush. You can be wrong too. The Blame Bush myth of this operation has been thoroughly vetted, so get a clue, you are beginning to sound as delusional as the marxist statist liars. Romney created more jobs, and any companies he went after at Bain were going out of business anyway, there is no blame for Romney, and if you think so , you are a fool.
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:09 AM
I stand corrected on gunning but as for jobs, I've seen him do his thing. Sorry, with very few exceptions he didn't create jobs. Have him show his record and I'll shut up.
Just saying in Idaho
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM
RK, let me give you this bit of news: businesses don't exist so that people can have a job. They are not in the business of creationg jobs. Only the government creates jobs, and that, together with regulations/laws is all that the gov creates. Of course, those jobs are not needed in a free market, so they have to force them on us, and force us to pay for them. Business' primary function is to make a profit for their owners, by bringing to us, the customers, a product or sevice that we need or want. In this process people are employed. If the product or service is not needed anymore, or less of it is needed, then the people employed to manufacture it or provided it are fewer in numbers, or 0, and so the superfluous ones have to find a different business to be employed in. The primary purpose of a business is to create a profit for the people who start, own, have shares in that business, not as a charity to create a place for you to work and make a living. If everybody understood this, the country would be in much better shape.
Major Stu in Peru, IN
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Operation Gun Runner was shut down in 2007. Operation Fast & Furious was started in 2009 under the Obama administration. Some of the major differences are that the Bush admin cooperated with Mexican authorities to track the weapons with electronics to their destination. When the trackers were discovered, the game was over and the op was shut down. Fast & Furious never had any provision to track the weapons, and there were over a thousand more weapons involved. I decide that someone high in the administration gave the OK and the Obama administration is dragging their feet to prevent the truth from coming out before the election. What have they got to hide?
Just saying in Idaho
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM
You don't report, you lie. Even Holder had to stop balming Bush for this when it proved that it wasn't true. If that were so, Obama and Holder and all the useful idiots would use that with a vengeance. Have you tried Huffington Post?
Floyd in Badger, MN
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Andrew McCarthy is quite correct. I've been arguing those same points for years. Evidently, people would rather hold their hand out for government largesse(aka taxpayers).
Oathkeeper Scott in Texas
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM
You and Mr. McCarthy highlight the fundamental difference between a Republican and a Libertarian... A Conservative and a Constitutionalist. There should be no 'fixing' Social Security or Medicare. Only transitioning to abolishment. Any other path merely delays and confuses the inevitable. Collectivism/Statism are incompatible with Individual Rights and Freedom. Period.
OldCyeKoe in Midland, Michigan
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. These socialist schemes are not constitutional and ought to be abolished outright. The problem, truly is that most Americans have absorbed via osmosis the progressive line that "we are our brothers' keeper" and that big government HAS to step in to take care of "the least of these" (the poor, the disabled, the lazy...). In the past, such tasks were taken up by individuals, private community organizations and the church. Since we as a nation have largely jettisoned God from our personal lives (and most certainly from our public lives) the church has made itself largely irrelevant and impotent. I believe that until sufficient numbers of us as INDIVIDUALS fall on our faces and repent of our personal waywardness and Godlessness, little will change for the better. The Federal Government has NO place in our personal lives, or in our personal welfare.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM
Am I the only one that wants to puke when a Republican Big Shot (you can't call them leaders) says we are going to save social security. I have asked several of the big shots which section of the Constitution authorizes social security, the silence is deafening. I was self employed and had my own retirement account. I put away approx. the same same amount as FICA. I am now getting a return about an order of magnitude greater (for those that went to govmint skools that is ten times) then SS. The sooner we get rid of Joe Stalin's best friend, FDR's scheme the better we will be. The problem is how to make whole all our citizens that had their money stolen (yes stolen) over all these years. What else would you call it when something is taken under duress? Don't pay your FICA and see what happens.
Matt in Green Township, OH
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM
I agree whole heartedly, Howard. Social Security was a Ponzi scheme form the beginnging, and still is a Ponzi scheme. The amount of money Bernie Madoff stole from his clients pales in comparison to the money stolen by Congress from FICA funds.
Brian in Newport News
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Howard, I am 55 now (and still working) and I am willing to give up all claims to social security if they would allow me to opt out entirely at his late date. I expect to be working another 10 or more years and, frankly, am concerned I won't see a dime when I am ready to collect!
MNIce in Mankato, MN
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM
No, you aren't the only one disgusted by such unrealistic claims by supposed Republicans.
You wrote, "The problem is how to make whole all [who] had their money stolen ..." Given the $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities accrued thereby, it doesn't seem possible. Perhaps the best we can do is to take Thomas Sowell's suggestion to partially fund it by selling off the vast acreage the Federal government has acquired over the years. If the environmentalists howl, so be it. The alternative is to have the government become so broke it cannot afford to patrol those lands for environmental despoilers anyway. At least in a sale an environmental protection covenant can be made part of the contract.
Another thing we can do is provide tax incentives for families to take care of their retired relatives. Present incentives don't do anything for lower-income families, but a payroll tax credit would. We have to retrain our society do things the proper way instead of chirping for government handouts.
John, an American in Payson, AZ
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM
This is exactly right. None of the enumerated powers of the federal government listed in the Constitution include welfare, health care, retirement savings, etc.
John Roberts may be a great lawyer at parsing commas, words, and phrases, but he doesn't seem to understand that the Constitution was intended LIMIT the power of the federal government. If he had that understanding, he would have had no choice but to throw the entire law out.
The progressives and the Liberals of all parties DO understand that is the intention of the Constitution, and that is why they are trying to destroy it.
beachmom in South Portland, ME
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM
The SCOTUS has basically ruled that the Congress can tax American citizens for inactivity. When and if Obamacare is repealed, what will need to be done to get rid of that SCOTUS granted power? Will Congress need to pass legislation, will someone need to sue and bring the case all the way to the Supreme Court?
MNIce in Mankato, MN
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Justice Roberts failed to explain how there could be any legitimate tax that could be used to force an activity. Such a tax is a direct tax, but it is not an income tax, no matter how it may be disguised as such, since what is being taxed is not income per se, but the failure to do what Congress demands of individuals. Therefore, once the tax becomes due, we can sue for injunctive relief from the tax on the grounds that it is not and cannot be apportioned as required by the Constitution.
In other words, the Court did the equivalent of applying the Anti-Injunction Act to the case without explicitly saying so.
Barry Payne in Merritt Island
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM
I totally agree the neither Party in power cares about the Constitution. The more money they spend the more contributions they get and more friends they have. It really is amazing that people keep voting for the same two Parties.
ChuckL in NV
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Barry, There is nothing amazing about it. It is the natural progression of deadbeats who prefer to live from the labors of others when they are provided the fruit of these labors by politicians already in office.
These deadbeats sell out their personal rights, and ours for the promise of a better future and have not the intelligence to understand the eventually the government will run out of other peoples' money even though it is already happening. They absolutely refuse to accept that a business owned by stockholders will of necessity move jobs to a country where they will pay lower taxes and therefore increase the company earnings.
Facts are not allowed to interfere with wishful thinking.
Vic Soldat in Norton, Massachusetts
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Then I would suggest that America is doomed to continue its inevitable course toward the "benevolent"tyranny of socialism. As Dennis Prager has suggested, we are the problem. we are not as free as our grandparents were, and our grandchildren will be more enslaved to government than we are. And nary a soul will notice. I pray that I am wrong
2desertrats USN (ret) in AZ
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:44 PM
You are so right Vic. Our country is hooked on entitlements. The more we get the more we want We are spoiled rotten. I fear we may never learn our lessons. Just the way the make believe prez and his followers want it. Our founding fathers must be awfully tired of turning over in their graves.
Harvey Wigdor in Chicago,IL
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM
I would suggest that all of you conservatives who feel that the government get out of healthcare STOP using medicare!!! That would save billions that can be used by those who need it. Since the sixties I would further suggest that all the dollars that you did use from medicare please refund. This can bring trillions back into the government.
Andy Bell in Katy, Texas
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Short sighted comment at best. I'm not eligible for Medicare even though I have to pay for it during my entire working career until I'm 65+. And just like social security, it isn't a check the box option to pay for it. Even when I elect Medicare at retirement, I STILL have to pay for it from my overwhelmingly high social security payments. Given the choice, I would have NOT elected to pay for either and funded my own retirement and medical coverage. But, is that a choice given me? 2nd, the Insurance market formed itself predicated on Medicare being available for retirees so the Government set the table for me. And last, had our leaders not pilfered hundreds of billions from Social Security over the years, Social Security and Medicare would actuarially be sound enough to perpetuate itself for many years. The Government YOU subscribe to is a fraud and cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right reason. Your comment is baseless and demonstrates a serious lack of awareness.
Rod in USA
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Well Said! I think the person who posted the comment lacks the ability to think for himself.
To expand on your "pilfered" comment: Right on point. The politicos fund things that are unconstitutional or "luxuries" often with kickbacks to their friends (Solyndra is just one example). Then they have the nerve to say they need more money and pretend like they did not get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, as if we are ignorant.
Who is John Galt?
Lisa in MD
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I only want back what I am PAYING INTO MEDICARE FROM MY PAYCHECK!! Thank you very much!!.
Mike (Arizona born and raised) in California (Not by choice)
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Harvey, you are from Chicago??? Say it isn't so! There's no need to explain the reason for your position any further.
Simply continue to push for Socialism, and eventually the fight will come to you. Make no mistake about it.
Conservatives should stop using Medicare, but still contribute to it? I would suggest, Harvey, that you give me every penny you've ever earned, and get the hell out of America. No, you don't get a choice, just like with Soc. Sec. and Medicare. How does that sit with you, you Socialist scumbag?
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Tour suggestion works for me. everyone who complains, you opt the heck out of everything. Didn't I say this last year?
Just saying in Idaho
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Is there a provision in your plan to give back the money that were forcefully taken from people all these years? No, of course not. So the Gov can steal your money with impunity, and we should just opt out on principle. Nice try.
ChuckL in NV
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Harry, there is a major wrong with your program. It does not include all of the problem. It does however clearly show the problem. You want others to pay your bills.
I suspect that if you will allow us to keep all of the money that is stolen from us by the government's constitutional violations, we should be very happy to leave this failed program.
G Dub in Lee's Summit, MO
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Mr Wigdor - I see you live in the rectum of America and from your words are apparently a Liberal / Progressive / Marxist as you have errors of fact in each of your sentences. Since I was in my teens, part of my weekly pay / wage / salary / commissions have been extracted from me for FICA. This ORIGINALLY was my money that was to be held in trust until I needed it for Social Security Benefits and / or Medicare. Your brazen president Johnson and his Liberal Congress changed all of that when they ( illegally ) appropriated that money and transferred it to the Treasury's General Fund - to fund The Great Society - yeah, look how well that worked. In return president Johnson placed worthless IOUs in place of MY money. So, Sorry Charlie - you are 1000% wrong. Second: I will not return the monies that I have received since starting my Social Security withdrawals at age 67. IT IS MY MONEY - Idiot.. Third, over the last two weeks my health has take a downturn. I went to my primary care physician for assistance. He accepts my H- - - - - Gold Plus HMO Medicare Advantage insurance. He gave me two referrals. One to his favorite Cardiologist and one to his favorite Hematologist. I called both today. NEITHER will accept me as they have credentials at the finest Heart Hospital in the Kansas City area. The reason: the Hospital does not believe that Medicare Advantage HMO plans will be allowed by the obutthead administration after this November's elections. Hmm, I wonder just how many .45 acp rounds I have reloaded. I just might need to visit my local obutthead Death Panel.
MNIce in Mankato, MN
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM
In other words, the effects of socialist medicine are already happening. I hear Costa Rica has some pretty decent free-market medical care available at a much lower price than the US. You might want to go there before Mr. Obama puts up an Iron Curtain to keep us all locked inside.
WTD in Arizona
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Although it would not "bring trillions back into the government", I would pay my own medical costs if they were at a reasonable, market-value. But that's no longer possible because the governments long term involvement has skewed the medical "market". The charge for an office visit runs from $135 to $253. Useful conversation, but, still just talk. A reasonable charge would be $50. I receive a shot for which the government is billed $2711.35, but the doctor says a realistic cost is $70. The office knowing it won't receive its asking price, inflates it according to the percentage it will receive. Hospital costs could also be reasonable if it weren't necessary to inflate their prices to cover government mandated care including illegals.
Maria in Orlando Florida
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Refund? It is my money they took as again "medicare tax" dude! My money, my benefit - not welfare.
Scotch62 in O-town, FL
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM
No Harvey, those of us who want govt out of healthcare should quit paying FICA taxes, but then agents with guns would show up at our door. I have paid in for over 30 years, never taken a penny from SSC or Medicare. Can I get a refund? Nope! The system has $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. If you owned stock in a company that ran like this wouldn't you want to fire the idiots? No you can't Harvey, because they are now your masters. The chains laid on us so lightly in the 1920's & 30's continue to get heavier and I for one have had enough!
Wayne R. Rollis in Heppner Oregon
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM
At my age if I need medical care for something serious they are not going to pay
RK Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM
LIke the death panels in Arizona. Brewer took someone off the OR Table for what price is a human life? Ask Brewer.
Frederick Pechin, Jr. in Warrenton, Va.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Please provide data on this. We here in the east have not heard anything of death panels with Gov. Brewer.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM
the death panel is a term I took off of Palin which is a misnomer. What Governor Brewer did is to cut back and Medicaid/medicare. One person was on the table ready for aorgan transplant. He was prepped, the organ was there and Brewer said, no. the easiest way is a cut and paste.
http://www.google.com/search?q=brewer+death+panel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Most Conservative sights hate this with a passion as they do with Bib Brother Take over of the State of Mich. (I was born in) there they fire elected officials and let a corporation take over a town, school, whatever.) What are we, are we our own worst nightmare?)
When we take over cities and replace them with a corporation, we are the novel 1984, when we take people literally off the OR table, we are the death panel.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/03/16/schultzs-red-scare-supporting-republican-michigan-gov-equals-linin
I do nor like Schultz but at times FOX news won't tell us. It's a starting point.
Patriots, who's side our you on!? Freedom, death and communism.
Jerry Dyer in Grand JCT cOLORADO
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM
I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT BETWEEN ME AND MY DOCTOR.
Robert in Alabama
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Since those in government have now decided they are all powerfull and not under the control of any Constitution. I offer a second opinion from T.Jefferson and Lysander Spooner.. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson. "She(government) claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent! This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be accounted for only by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, and power, and money, have made her utterly blind to, or utterly reckless of, the inconsistency and enormity of her conduct; or that she has never even understood what was implied in a government's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one. In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is. If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it [*7] may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow"-Lysander Spooner .NO TREASON.
gary in morgantown, Ky
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM
The Commerce Clause is terribly abused. The issue IS limited government and always has been to many Americans. That the media and "representitives" ignore us is another issue entirely.
Richard Regan in Chattanooga, TN
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM
I have the distinct privilege of knowing Mark Alexander's son (in reference to the reader who questioned who would join America's military today). Although only 18 years old, he has more maturity, leadership skills, integrity and wisdom than virtually any man I know. The US Air Force Academy is a brighter place today because he is there. He is a natural born leader and a true Patriot. I cannot wait to see him climb the ranks and one day (perhaps) lead this country back to greatness. "Fly-Fight-Win!"
Wm Condon in Killimgworth, CT
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 11:36 AM
What McCarthy writes certainly is correct, but sadly, it's also correct with regard to most laws that have been passed over the last century - at least.