Mr Elder gives us an excellent outline of the extent to which our country has been highjacked and driven to the precipice of European Socialism and government mandated mediocrity. There was not a health crisis in America. There is now.

America needed Government Reform - not a takeover of the best Heath Care system the world has seen.

We still need government reform- and although I agree with Mr. Elders assessment of the problem I do not think there is anything wrong with the Constitution. What is wrong is that too many Americans, the President, lots of Legislators and a few too many Judges do not understand what is in the Constitution and have proved unable or unwilling to uphold it.

I think we need to change them, not the Constitution.

***

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The

inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston

Churchill

Mr. Elder: "Two-thirds of the states can call for a constitutional convention,..." What you say makes perfect sense ... in theory. The Marxists (Hussein, Legosi, Chuck-You Schumer, "Dead Fish", etc.) would LOVE IT if the states called for a Constitutional Convention. The degenercrats controlling the federal legislature and executive (and soon the high court) would use the convention to drive a final stake through the heart of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and kill it once and for all, something they've been trying for years to do. Let's not give them any help. On the contrary, we must endeavor to keep our swords sharp and bright for the coming storm ...

Mr. Elder is correct, we must follow our constitution to correct this egregious usurpation of our basic rights as Americans. Vote the Statist bastards out of office and amend the Constitution.

Sully's sharp sword is no match for the arms of the Feds. That won't work in this era.

Semper Fi

obama professes to hold Lincoln in high esteem. I wonder why. at the end of the war of secession or as others call it, the "civil war", we had over 600,000 dead Americans and over a million more wounded. Lincoln was still president and the constitution had been trample on. Lincoln could have handled things much differently but took the hard-nosed approach which has essentially divided this country ever since. to obama and company, who cares about the collateral damage, the historical implications, as long as it got done during their tenure?

the "evolution" of the federal government has been overall quite harmful to the notion of "The United States of America". it seems to have long ago ceased serving its intended purpose. we should, as states, peacefully force its dissolution and then recreate the government that existed 200 years ago.

considering how the US has expanded since DC was created, I also think that the seat of federal government should be moved to a midwest state like Nebraska and turn DC into a museum complex.

we all want change. real change. that means bringing back some of the old, incorporating the best of the new, and setting up in a new location.

Obama and his supporters will undoubtedly cry "racism" when critics of Obamacare, amnesty or illegal aliens, etc.. make themselves heard. But Mr. Elder makes clear that common sense and love of country are not, and should not be, dictated by race. This man is a patriot and a great American. Elder for president.

We need a Constitutional amendment. These are powers clearly reserved to the states. "Congress shall make no law requiring the purchase of goods or services by the people or by companies."

We also need an amendment to prohibit deficit spending. "Congress shall be prohibited from borrowing except for the direct costs of a declared war. Existing debt shall be retired by payments of no less than 3% of the federal budget per year until debts are repaid."

Another to limit the non-war federal spending to 12% of GDP, half current levels. "Spending by Congress shall be limited to 12% of gross domestic product. Budgets must be balanced each year, except for the direct costs of a declared war. Balanced budgets are to be achieved within 7 years of adoption of this amendment, in roughly equally sized annual reductions in spending."

We do the Constitutional convention after we throw majority of the bums out (and at this point, the only way that won't happen is if the bums cheat.) But yes we start working toward CC now coz it will take awhile. If we reach the hurdle of a CC, we have to do something much more systemic than just healthcare or they'll just go after the next thing.

Starve the Beast! I say we repeal the 16th Amendment (which allows Fed to tax the people directly), and make a new amendment that puts the States in control of how much Fed will get, making sure Fed only gets enough for their powers defined in the Constitution. (see also 10th amendment.) For example, a set percent states would send, based on their population or annual revenue. You could have a set bump-up for times of war or NATIONAL crisis. (not just coz one state has a flood.)

Elder's analysis is spot on and it sounds logical to allow the states to amend the Constitution in a way that prohibits egregious usurpations like the ones we have seen this weekend. But a Constitution Convention should be approached very carefully.

We also need to keep our eyes on the ball. Obama, Pelosi, etc. are shrewd and calculating. We must not get so carried away with the aftermath of Sunday's votes that we ignore what they are doing next. For example - passing comprehensive immigration reform now could put millions more on the welfare rolls, and guarantee a fresh batch of Dem voters.

Let's keep our eyes and ears open and our heads on straight.

Elder's analysis is spot on and it sounds logical to allow the states to amend the Constitution in a way that prohibits egregious usurpations like the ones we have seen this weekend. But a Constitution Convention should be approached very carefully.

We also need to keep our eyes on the ball. Obama, Pelosi, etc. are shrewd and calculating. We must not get so carried away with the aftermath of Sunday's votes that we ignore what they are doing next. For example - passing comprehensive immigration reform now could put millions more on the welfare rolls, and guarantee a fresh batch of Dem voters.

Let's keep our eyes and ears open and our heads on straight.

Can we trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing regarding the purchase mandates? Seems like even with the precedent set in other cases regarding the Commerce Clause, there would be a decent chance at a 5-4 decision in the States' favor given the unusual nature of a purchase mandate. I would think Alito, Scalia, and Roberts would be on board for sure. Thoughts?

We do not need a new amendment to starighten things out, just follow the one have. Why hasn't BHO been forced to show his birth certificate. Want to see a constitional crisis, when it turns out that BHO is foreign born. Does that mean anything BHO did while pretending to be President is null and void?

Now we know what the Second Amendment is for.

Oh come now Howard, you can do better than that. While I strongly dislike his politics and political philosophies in general, it's been pretty well established that the President is a born citizen. Do you think Hillary Clinton's political machine wouldn't have done some serious digging to found out he wasn't legitimate during the primary in '08? Or the FBI vetting process, etc.

Tax Time! Just got off the phone with my accountant.

The federal governmentis about to steal about 5 months of my yearly earnings for taxes.

The majority applied towards social security; something me and my wife will never see.

I hear the illegals, professional welfare riders, college students of the less industrious and ill-prepared parents, GM, American Banks, and the millions of other liberal parasites cheering every tax year, and the roar in coming years is about to be deafening.

Time yet for organizing, building, recruiting, and mustering the Constitutional Army?

Paul Revere has already mounted his horse.

As http://www.PortablePublishing.com reveals; we do need a new Constitution.

Why? I suppose one might ask the United States Founders these same questions as they argued and debated and eventually fought with each other over this exact same issue. Most people fail to remember or outright refuse to acknowledge that our Founders also had a Constitution while they were under British Rule. Why did they consider it necessary to change their form of government that had worked so well the prior 300 years?

To answer the WHY, we need only recognize that the government/politicians had become too corrupted. The system itself was not corrupt, the people within it were. In recognizing the fact that the SECURITY the system once provided against such corruption was NOW violated, a NeW system had to be created to reduce the likelihood of those same violations from happening again. Thus, we have the Constitution we, in the United States, now have.

The saddest revelation I gained over the past three years is that almost nobody CORRECTLY understands the HONORABLE FLOW OF POWER in the USA.

People say that the USA is a Corporation.

SO W H A T !

The City or Town within which you live is also (most likely) Incorporated.

I think viewing the USA as a Corporation will help the People understand the HONORABLE/JUST FLOW of POWER in the USA.

Nearly all Corporations have TWO EXTREEMLY valuable documents:

1) The Corporate Charter, also called the Founding Charter, or Articles of Incorporation. This Charter identifies the rights, duties, and responsibilities of and who are the ongoing Founders/Controllers/Sovereigns that Control the destiny of that Corporation. For the United States, That Corporate Charter is the Unanimous Declaration of July 4, 1776. It is what you know as the Declaration of Independence.

2) The ByLaws. The ByLaws are the rules that the Founders/Controllers/Sovereigns instituted for running and operating that Corporation. The ByLaws do not government those FOUNDERS/CONTROLLER/SOVEREIGNS but they control the ByLaws. The ByLaws control those that Founders/Controllers/Sovereigns elect or appoint to conduct the day-to-day operations of the Corporation while those Founders/Controllers/Sovereigns go about their day-to-day lives. The ByLaws are what you call The Constitution for the United States. The ByLaws are meant to be altered or abolished as those FOUNDERS/CONTROLLERS/SOVERIEGNS ---Collectively--- considers as necessary for the continued survival of the Corporation and its purpose ---the preservation of the rights of the individual Founders/Controllers.Sovereigns.

What most people fail to recognize is that the Founders/Controllers/Sovereigns are BOTH the governed AND and GOVERNMENT.

As a UNIFIED/COLLECTIVE voice, the people ARE the SOVEREIGN that controls the direction of the government.

As individuals, the people ARE the governed and subject to the Just Laws that the elected or appointed servants enact that are in accordance with the ByLaws (Job-Description) (the Constitution) under which they are legally bound to work within.

So I agree with Larry Elder. We need a new Constitution, a new set of ByLaws under which our government should operate. I will even go as far to say that we are about 100 years late in considering this necessity.

I STRONGLY disagree with opponents who claim that it is the present set of politicians that are responsible for constructing that NEW CONSTITUTION.

When you properly understand the Corporate Charter, we cannot exclude them, unless they are charged, tried, and found guilty of treason. Fortunately, the 500 or 600 of our Federal Politicians only have about 500 or 600 singular votes that get mixed in with the about 150,000,000 other votes that include you, and you, and you, and me. WE are the SOVEREIGNS responsible for APPROVING the final version of what might become our NEXT CONSTITUTION.

Respectfully Submitted,

Daniel Kingery

P.S. http://www.PortablePublishing.com contains the draft of a United States Constitution I am working on since the past few years.

Medicare has never been challenged to determine if it can withstand Constitutional muster. Medicare is the lynch pin that holds Obamacare law together. A tax (medicare) must be applied uniformly without discrimination to the person. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to social security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members (ie Amish). Medicare has never been challenged because it is POPULAR. Being popular does not make this law Constitutional. I suspect other aspects of Medicaid and Social Security falls in this category as well. Politicians avoid this challenge as it could end their career.

The Constitution provides for removing socialists from Congress and the Executive branch in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

A vote for the health care bill is prima facie evidence of rebellion against the Constitution. The question now is the means for enforcing this amendment. Practically speaking, we would have to elect a Constitutionalist majority who would be willing to expel the rebels who survived the election - that is, if we even have an honest election.

mvc593 is on the right track. Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. The constitutionality of Social Security was challenged, but in its decision, FDR's packed court never addressed the plaintiffs' issue. The majority simply asserted that if the program was terminated there would be old people starving in the streets, so they refused to do their duty.

These programs are not only unconstitutional, they are economically impractical and unsustainable. We must persuade the people that there are reasonable, non-Federal, means of accomplishing the overt purposes of these programs while maintaining due regard for the liberty of the people.

Perhaps we should have a long-term open thread for developing constitutional (preferably non-government) means of ensuring that there is provision for the health care needs of the poor and the general needs of the disabled.

Mr. Elder,

With each passing day, we lose more and more of our rights and freedoms. I am trying to keep a positive attitude, however, I am not sure if, by November, we will have much left when this administration is done with all of its "fundamental transformation" of America. I am not sure who gave him this mandate to transform our nation fundamentally - I thought presidents were elected and swore an oath to defend the Constitution. I am baffled that 52% of our population gave Obama this mandate to change our country radically.

No matter how much we protest, rally against, write, call, fax, our elected congressmen are not only not listening to us, they are defiying us with utter contempt and marching in front of cameras, telling us like little children, what is good for us, how we are going to like what they do once we learn what they have in store for us. I, for one, would like to know ahead of time so I can make an intelligent choice.

So, we have a Constitutional convention. We insert a proviso that the government may not force us to buy health insurance. What about broccoli? Or artichokes?

C'mon. If you give the bandits in Congress a shot at any part of the Constitution, you won't recognize whatever comes out.

That's Pandora's box for sure.

Mr. Elder is a person who knows the truth. What we need to do is get a Constitutional believing government and right bills to change case law. Case law is the vehicle that the progressives have used to derail the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. States need to appose the health care bill but we need to vote for the right people. People who do not vote and know they should are the problem. Vote for the right candidates and we can turn this country around.

The power to tax is the power to destroy

----US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

Another brilliant column from the inestimable Larry Elder.

There is a mindset in this country that holds a child-like view of life, economics, government and business. This view asserts that everything is supposed to be perfectly fair at all times, and whenever something is unfair, somebody must be at fault. We can all get everything we want, at no cost to us, and we don't have to worry about who actually pays for any of it.

Some years ago, I got into a discussion with a group of young people over this concept of the government taking care of our needs. I tried to impress upon them why that was a dangerous idea, but they just weren't getting it. Too many years in public school indoctrination, I suppose. So I tried to think of the most idiotic government perk I could devise, in order to show them how absurd this stuff is. I proposed to them that since physical fitness is a proven benefit to good health, it's inherently "unfair" for the wealthy to have the greatest access to health club memberships. The poor therefore have a harder time staying fit, which leads to health problems that the rich can avoid because they can afford fitness. Thus, I argued, it's social justice for the government to provide "free" health club memberships to the poor, so they can enjoy the benefits of good health too. I was certain they would see the lunacy of that idea, and it would make them realize what a dangerous concept we were talking about.

I couldn't have been more wrong. Not only did they fail to see the danger, they actually bought the entire argument -- hook, line and sinker! They fully agreed that it was unfair to the poor, and agreed that the government should provide social justice by giving health club memberships to the poor! I was stunned.

More recently, I was arguing with a confirmed Leftist about Obamacare. She spouted all the Liberal talking points about corporate insurance greed, supposedly overpaid doctors, all the poor supposedly dying in the streets for lack of health care while simultaneously sucking up billions in tax dollars using ER services, etc. I countered with factual information. Gave her the actual profit margin for insurance companies, the actual number of people who don't have insurance, the actual number of uninsured who use ER services, etc. In the end, she shrugged off every fact and insisted that the only way to go was government health care. The facts and reality made no impression on her.

This is the result of 50 years of conditioning in the Leftist indoctrination centers our public schools have become. Today, kids are taught the America is the bad guy in every situation, that Capitalism is evil, that Socialism equals justice, that Democrats are helping people while Republicans are for the corporations, and that the rich don't pay taxes. None of those things are true, but that's the agenda in every public school in America.

We can reverse that tomorrow by simply taking the government out of the education system. Eliminate the teacher's unions, let parents choose where to send their kids, and allow competition to force schools to improve. That way, we'd see dramatic changes very quickly. When the school knows if it teachers radical anti-American, anti-Christian views, you can take your kid elsewhere, they will smarten up -- or they'll soon be unemployed.

Until we take back the schools, we have NO CHANCE of taking back the country permanently. As long as our schools are Leftist propaganda mills, we will just have to keep fighting this fight every generation. And it's getting worse. You want to change the government? Start with that.

Ileana, you are baffled because 52% of the population did not give Obama a mandate. 52% of voters did. When you consider that less than 60% of the population cast a vote, that means just 30% (at most, probably less) of all Americans supported Obama. Oddly, Leftists called that a mandate, yet 50-70% of Americans polled opposed Obamacare in poll after poll for the last 8 months. If 52% of voters is a "mandate" then what is 55% of all Americans? Nobody on the Left wants to talk about that.

Here, here! Your point well written and should be taken very dearly to our hearts!

Thank you for being another voice in support of our CONSTITUTION and for the Republic form of government it is supposed to construct. That is not saying Republican nor Democrat but by RULE of LAW.

Be well fine sir!

I am sick and tired of so called journalists and

pundits discussing social security and medicare as

entitlements. Do you have any idea how much money

I have contributed in taxes to these programs?

The issue at hand is not that the baby boomers expect "entitlements"; the issue is what was done with the

freaking money that was supposed to fund the program.

Do the math. Get your facts straight. Go after the

Washington thugs who spent the money.

I don't think we should go the route of the Constitutional Convention before we have cleaned house in the state governments and the federal government. The infection is too prevasive. We need to unite and concentrate our influence (dosage) as a people. We need to be united(concentrated vaccine of money and time) across state borders to assist each area in ridding itself of this progressive pestilence. If we unite, the power of our limited time and money to fight these state and federal battles will be amplified...as has been already demonstrated on a small scale in some of the state elections. We must get supporters of our Constitution in state and federal offices, as well as in our schools. I, agree, for the most part with Donapoelman and OregonBuzz. I do think the federal income tax should be abolished (16th Amendment) and that Social Security/Medicare should be phased out. They are failed social experiments. If people had total responsibility for themselves, then they would have to step up to the plate. People would not be paying for layers of other people(bureaucracy) so more of their hard earned money would be theirs to pay their medical bills, buy food, pay for education, and save for the future.

We respectfully disagree with your statement of calling the big three entitlements as rights! Most working americans consider Social Security a right because government has forced them to pay into the Social Security fund all their lifes, with the promise we'll get it back if we live long enough to retire. My wife and I intend to claim that promise. Is it our fault that congress can't keep their sticky fingers off of OUR trust fund and spend it all before we can reclaim it?

The bigger the government the smaller the citizen. The constitution is supposed to protect us from this kind of thinking. Individuals, Business, States are worried because of Obama and his reckless Congress.

Petition attached let your legislature know immediately let's Amend the Constitution.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/SIGN-UP-AMEND-OUR-CONSTITUTION-PROTECT-OUR-MONEY-OUR-LIBERTIES-OUR-FREEDOM/102547199783886