BOEHNER: Congressional Republicans resolved to repeal Obamacare – Washington Times

BOEHNER: Congressional Republicans resolved to repeal Obamacare – Washington Times.

House Republicans pitching repeal to the Senate

By Rep. John Boehner

There’s no doubt that the president’s health care law is hurting our economy. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Obamacare, the president’s law was driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. The court’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety, which House Republicans stand ready to do.

After enacting his massive “stimulus” spending bill in 2009, President Obama spent more than a year trying to push the health care law through Congress over the objections of the American people, who wanted the president to focus instead on policies that would remove obstacles to private-sector job creation. During that time, the president angrily denied that the penalty the health law would impose on Americans who fail to comply with the mandate was a tax, dismissing the charge as politically-driven rhetoric from his critics.

On June 28, the Supreme Court confirmed that the centerpiece of the president’s health care law does not violate the Constitution because … it is a tax. The president and his allies celebrated the ruling. But when you look at the impact the law is having on our economy, there is nothing to celebrate.

A recent report by Bloomberg News noted that the president’s health care law will impose an estimated $813 billion in new taxes on job creators and middle-class families, based on data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey showed that 74 percent of small businesses contend that this law will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. In my home state of Ohio, private-sector job creators are speaking out on the harmful effects of the law. Jamie Richardson, vice president of government and shareholder relations for White Castle, warned in a recent article in the ColumbusDispatchthat the law “will be a cost burden for employers and [will] negatively impact job creation.”

There’s a lot of resolve among my House colleagues, and among the American people, to stop a law that’s hurting our economy, driving up the cost of health care and stunting job growth. Public opinion research consistently shows most Americans not only oppose Obamacare, but support fully repealing it.

At my direction and that of our majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the U.S. House of Representatives on July 11 will vote on legislation that would fully repeal the president’s health care law to stop it from inflicting further harm on our economy. The House passed a similar bill last year, but it died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. By passing our repeal bill in July, we will give the Senate and Mr. Obama a second opportunity to follow the will of the American people.

What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctors they choose, at a lower cost. House Republicans want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctors of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctors feel is best.

House Republicans understand that Obamacare is bad for our economy and we will act, on behalf of the American people, to repeal it in its entirety. We are ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country this harmful law.


Obama, SCOTUS, Taxes and Your Freedoms – Chuck Norris –

Senate Passes Insurance Industry Aid Bill

Obama, SCOTUS, Taxes and Your Freedoms – Chuck Norris –

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold Obamacare‘s individual mandate (indictment) to collect more taxes from you and me. President Barack Obama’s taxation shell game, which flies in the face of the freedoms we celebrate this week, is just one more reason his presidency and Obamacare need to be overturned this November.

Chief Justice John Roberts wasn’t kidding when he offered the commentary about the court’s ruling: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Obamacare is taxation unleashed!

Despite the fact that in 2009, Obama repeatedly denied to ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos that Obamacare’s individual mandate was equated with increased taxes, the Supreme Court defined the legislation as just that — more taxation.

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked by a reporter whether the financial penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate is, in fact, a tax, she retorted: “Call it what you will. … This is a very good thing for the American people.”

Pelosi, who helped Obama ramrod the legislation, and Obama were frolicking like two kids in a candy store when they learned about the hallmark SCOTUS decision. But I doubt that middle-class taxpayers will be so ecstatic when they are footing the bill every year for another socialized medicine program.

On Thursday, CNN even confessed: “In 2014, the penalty (for not having medical insurance) will be no more than $285 per family or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975 or 2 percent of income. And by 2016, the penalty would be up to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.”

Bloomberg reported: “Some of the largest levies and fees in the 2010 law take effect in 2013. In all, the law is projected to raise an estimated $813 billion in revenue over 10 years to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That figure includes penalties under the individual mandate, which the court ruled is constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.”

The fact is that behind closed doors with the Supreme Court justices and out of view of the public, the legal teams from the Obama administration pitched Obamacare as a tax. Obama and his legal eagles lied to the public to get the legislation passed on Capitol Hill and then described it as a tax to pass it before SCOTUS. They knew that the court knows that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in order to carry out its duties, and that was their ticket to manipulate their way to victory.

On March 26, the first day of Obamacare arguments before the Supreme Court, Fox News reported that a top Obama lawyer was chided by the justices for calling the fine for not purchasing insurance both a “penalty” and a “tax.”

Even U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli repeatedly used the phrase “tax penalty” to describe noncompliance with the individual mandate. Then Justice Samuel Alito rebuffed, “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

Verrilli answered Justice Elena Kagan’s question of whether noncompliance with the individual mandate would result in breaking the law by saying that if people “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.” That reference caught the attention of Justice Stephen Breyer, who interjected, “Why do you keep saying tax?”

To require people to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance is a tax. And I vehemently disagree with Pelosi that Obamacare’s new taxes are “a very good thing for the American people” — in or out of a recession — simply because more government regulations and taxation restrict our freedoms and pocketbooks.

The actions of Obama’s federal government are diametrically opposed to those of America’s Framers, who adopted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, wrote roughly 40 years later, in 1816, to Samuel Kercheval:

“We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Does that not describe Obama’s fundamental transformation of America to a T?

Happy birthday, America! We still are celebrating and fighting for your founding principles and freedoms!

Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare –

Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare –

The two top Republicans in Congress vowed on Sunday to push ahead with efforts to repeal President Barack Obama’s healthcare law despite the Supreme Court upholding it, but the White House said it is time to stop fighting and start implementing it.

“This has to be ripped out by its roots,” House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said of the 2010 law on the CBS program “Face the Nation.” Boehner added: “We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety.”

The House, controlled by Republicans, has scheduled a vote on July 11 to repeal the law. The Democratic-led Senate, as it has done in the past, is certain to block any repeal legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the law, Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement and the most sweeping overhaul since the 1960s of the unwieldy U.S. healthcare system. The ruling was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four liberals.

“I think the thing that the American people want is for the divisive debate on healthcare to stop,” White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think that what we need to do is get on with the implementation now, and that’s what we intend to do,” Lew added.

The healthcare law battle promises to figure prominently in the Nov. 6 election in which Obama is challenged by Republican Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor pushed through a state healthcare overhaul with provisions similar to Obama’s plan.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed public support for the law rising to 48 percent after the ruling from 43 percent before the court’s decision.

The U.S. system, unlike other rich countries, is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs. The United States pays more for healthcare than any other country, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans still have no insurance.

The law was meant to bring coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured and slow soaring medical costs. Critics deride the law as “Obamacare” and say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and the business of the states.



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans will insist that the Democrats who control the chamber hold a vote before the election on repealing the law.

“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of ‘Obamacare’ will be job one,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

McConnell said he would use a process called “reconciliation” in the 100-member Senate to permit a simple majority to pass a repeal of the law rather than the customary 60 votes. McConnell had criticized Senate Democrats for using that same process in passing the bill in 2010.

“Yes, that could be done with a simple 51 votes,” he said.

“This is the single worst piece of legislation that’s been passed, certainly in modern times. And it will be an issue, a big issue, in the fall election,” McConnell said.

“We’ve got one last chance here to defeat Obamacare. We can do that in the November election,” added McConnell.

McConnell labeled the law’s “individual mandate” provision – requiring most people to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty – a middle-class tax increase.

Asked whether a similar provision in Romney’s healthcare law in Massachusetts was also a middle-class tax increase, McConnell said, “Well, I think Governor Romney ought to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts.”

The White House and fellow Democrats refuse to label as a tax the law’s penalty on people who decline to obtain health insurance – even though the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” only because it was permissible under the congressional power to levy taxes.

“It’s a penalty. It’s something that only 1 percent of people – who can afford insurance and choose not to get – it will pay,” Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Nancy Pelosi, the top House Democrat, added on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “It is a penalty for free riders.”

Asked what Republicans would do – if they succeed in repealing Obama’s law – to provide coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently with no insurance, McConnell said: “That is not the issue. The question is how can you go step by step to improve the American healthcare system. It is already the finest healthcare system in the world.”

“We’re not going to turn the American healthcare system into a western European system,” he added, referring to government-run systems that provide near universal coverage.

What Just Happened to the Rule of Law? – Tea Party Nation

What Just Happened to the Rule of Law? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Following the Obamacare decision, The Heartland Institute’s Maureen Martin, a Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs, said, “Today’s decision will go down in infamy. It marks the moment when we all lost our freedom because the Supreme Court drew a road map to guide those dedicated to imposing a totalitarian, statist government on the American people.”

A Heartland colleague, Peter Ferrara, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court and a Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy, said “The Supreme Court of the United States just endorsed the most fundamental dishonesty of our politics today. The President intimidated Chief Justice John Roberts like Hugo Chavez intimidates the Venezuelan Supreme Court. The rule of law is now dead. The American people have only one more chance now to save their country.” Heartland is a non-profit, free market think tank.

A lot of Americans may begin to feel like the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany. On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed the Nuremberg laws. They were intended to make life in Germany so unpleasant that it would force them to emigrate. Those who could escaped what would later materialize as the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of all the Jews of Europe. One of them was Albert Einstein who found sanctuary in the United States.

To give you a taste of what it was like, the Reichstag’s Nuremburg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Aryan Germans. Intercourse between Jews and “subjects of German or kindred blood” was forbidden. Jews were forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag. It did not take long for Jewish teachers, lawyers, and physicians to be stripped of their right to work.

What does that have to do with Obamacare? Americans who could rely on the political system to moderate and even reduce taxation now know that the December 28, 2012 Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may tax anything, including behavior. Americans no longer are free to determine what they wish to purchase or not. Either they follow the dictate of the federal government or they will be fined.

Obamacare has now transformed the United States into a police state.

Twenty-seven U.S. States joined together to oppose Obamacare and they and the other twenty-three now know that they are no longer separate and sovereign republics, but must yield to the federal government’s demand that they create “exchanges” where health insurance must be purchased.

Arizona has already discovered that the federal government will not permit its law enforcement authorities to participate in protecting its border with Mexico despite the havoc illegal immigration has wreaked on that State. Other States have encountered the same response.

America’s older generation, covered by Medicare, will discover that panels of bureaucrats will determine the extent of the health care they can receive. They will discover as those in England’s health system that the wait to be admitted to a hospital can result in death.

The younger generation will suffer as well. As Paul T. Conway, the president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to mobilize young adults who are dissatisfied with the status quo to create a better future for themselves, has said:

President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history. It will be paid by young Americans whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths.”

“Young Americans,” said Conway, “know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation—over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals.”

Young, old, and all other Americans will wake now to an America that they have not known, nor ever conceived could exist; a nation in which the rule of law no longer is a guarantee of the Constitution’s limits and separation of powers.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

The Liars Have Triumphed – Tea Party Nation

The Liars Have Triumphed – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare confirmed that lies have triumphed over the Constitution.

It also is a reminder that the Supreme Court is a political entity and a human one. Only the Justices who dissented from the majority decision on Obamacare were willing to take the heat. The majority ruled that the individual mandate under the commerce clause was unconstitutional, but gave Obamacare life as a tax.

It was always a tax, but President Obama repeatedly told Americans that it was not until his administration’s lawyers went before the Supreme Court and admitted and argued that it was a tax. The lawyers on the Court agreed, the majority in effect saying that there is no limit to the ability of Congress to tax Americans.

As reported: On the losing end of a 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that the entire health care reform law should have been struck down.

They wrote: “The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”

Obamacare is a blow to state’s rights as sovereign republics.

A fellow blogger, writing under the pseudonym of J.D. Longstreet, warned that “The lesson here is — don’t play around with socialism. You cannot win. It kills its host country every time.”

Not since the Civil War and the more recent 9/11 has America faced a darker day. That day killed nearly three thousand Americans. Today, the fate of more than three hundred million Americans has been sealed. This is particular true of older Americans who, if the law is not repealed, will learn to their dismay that they cannot have essential medical care if bureaucrats conclude it is too costly. Others will die waiting to be admitted to hospitals to mitigate cancers and other life threatening diseases.

It is a death sentence for them. It is a death sentence for America.

There is the prospect that Mitt Romney may secure election to office and that the Republican Party may secure control of the Senate as well as the House. Without question Obamacare along with the economy becomes the central issue of the months leading up to Election Day.

Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare 820 days ago.

The House will vote on a full repeal of Barack Obama’s health care law during the week of July 9, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday morning. The scheduling of another repeal vote came less than an hour after the Supreme Court upheld the health care mandate.

This is, however, purely symbolic. The bill will not be taken up in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It would be vetoed if sent to Obama.

Too many with whom I have talked believe that the same Americans who elected Obama in 2008 will reelect him in 2012. He lied his way into office then and it is entirely plausible he will do so again.

America will not survive him if he is reelected. He is truly the Manchurian candidate sent to destroy America.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

The big day – Tea Party Nation

The big day – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Today is the big day.  In a couple of hours, the Supreme Court will announce the long awaited Obamacare decision. 

 The Court will take the bench at 10 AM Eastern Time and will have a few matters before it gets to Obamacare.  Since it seems likely that the decision is being written by Chief Justice John Roberts, it looks like it will be the last decision announced.

What will happen?

 No one knows for certain, other than the Justices and a few of their staff, what the decision will be.  I’m going to go out on a limb and make a couple of predictions.

 The most important part of the law is what we call the Individual Mandate.   That is the order that we must all buy Obamacare Insurance.  Kiss it good-bye.  It is gone.

 The five conservative Justices greeted that law with skepticism when it was argued and it seems to have gone down hill from there.   Some of the liberals were not too thrilled with the Individual Mandate either.  Both Breyer and Sotomayor seemed skeptical as well.

 The Individual Mandate will go down.  It will be either 6-3 or 7-2 to strike down the individual mandate.

 With the Individual Mandate gone, what happens to the rest of the bill?  In legal terms that is called severability.  Law makers try to put provisions in bills like this that say if one portion of the law is struck down the rest of the law survives.

  That is true to a point. 

 The Justices have to decide among other things, if the portion of the law that was struck down, in this case, the Individual Mandate, is so crucial to the law itself, the rest of the law cannot survive.

 Obamacare is going to be totally struck down.  The decision will probably be 5-4 though it could be 6-3 with Breyer going with the conservative majority.

 Why would it be struck down?

 It is the law of the Path of Least Resistance.

 If the Supreme Court strikes down the Individual Mandate but leaves the rest of the law intact, they would then have to go through that massive bill, all 2700 pages of it and specify which parts of the bill survive and which parts are struck down as a part of the Individual Mandate.  There are also other parts of the law, such as the Medicaid expansion that could also be struck down.  The more parts of the law that are struck down, the harder it is to justify the remainder of the bill surviving.

 During oral arguments, Justice Breyer hinted at this, indicating he had not read the entire 2700 page bill. 

 If the entire 2700 page bill is struck down, the Justices do not have to go through the bill, line by line, deciding what remains.  Such a decision also wipes out the entire second round of Obamacare litigation that is coming, including the Catholic Church’s lawsuits on religious freedom grounds. 

 Justices and Judges are like anyone else.  Offer them the easy way or offer them the hard way, they will choose the easy way.

 Lawyers say, “Bad cases make bad law.”  Sometimes bad laws make good cases.  This could happen though it is unlikely.

 In a perfect world, the Court would use this as an occasion to overrule Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 case that stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution beyond all recognition and gave the Federal Government the power to do many of the things it is now doing.

 By overruling Wickard, it would set the stage for a massive roll back of the power of the Federal Government.  Regrettably, I don’t think there are five Justices on the Supreme Court who would agree to do that.

 The most pleasant surprise from today would be overruling Wickard.  However, I expect it to be a good day and I will be on the steps of the Supreme Court at 10 ready to spike the football to celebrate the triumph of freedom and liberty over the tyranny of Obama and his Party of Treason.

EDITORIAL: Foreign law rules in U.S. courts – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Foreign law rules in U.S. courts – Washington Times.

Supremes say state laws cannot offend touchy leaders abroad

Can U.S. state laws be overturned because foreign governments don’t like them? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is yes.

In Arizona v. U.S., the case over Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law, the Supreme Court gave one of the most comprehensive arguments yet justifying foreign influence over U.S. jurisprudence. In arguing for complete federal authority over immigration policy, the court decided on Monday that state statutes had to bow to the convenience of the executive in managing foreign policy. “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The court claimed it is “fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states.” States like Arizona should not be permitted to intrude on “*ne of the most important and delicate of all international relationships,” namely “the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country.”

This is twisted logic. It asserts that because foreign leaders might browbeat an American president over a state mandate, that law must be invalidated. Because foreign governments may be concerned about the rights – real or imagined – of their citizens who entered the United States illegally, the “delicate relationship” between the countries overrides any other concerns.

The court also fretted that, “perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” This argument was put forward in an amicus brief by former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, among others. It cited an example in 2004 when Brazil singled out American nationals for “fingerprinting and photographing upon entry into Brazil to respond in equal measure to the U.S. fingerprinting of foreign nationals under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.” This anecdote, however, was about a federal – not a state – practice and as such doesn’t support the court’s conclusion.

Trying to read international customs into U.S. constitutional law is the latest leftist fad. In September 2010, Justice Stephen G. Breyer raised eyebrows when he speculated on “Good Morning America” that the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights may have to be limited because of their potential impact in foreign countries. In this case, he was concerned that Americans engaged in protected symbolic political speech by burning Korans would cause foreign extremists to riot. “[Turn-of-the-century Justice Oliver Wendell] Holmes said [free speech] doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Justice Breyer waxed. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” The answer is: American freedom.

The Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Arizona fights ‘intrusion of obnoxious aliens’ – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Arizona fights ‘intrusion of obnoxious aliens’ – Washington Times.

States need to protect themselves when Washington won’t

The Supreme Court ruled that the state of Arizona checking the citizenship status of people detained or arrested for other offenses is not racial profiling. The court, however, refused to address the core issue: What can states do to protect their borders when the federal government refuses to enforce the law?

The ID check provision of S.B. 1070, the Arizona immigration statute had drawn the most heat in the public debate. The law’s supporters were branded as racists, and liberal politicians exploited the controversy to pander for money and votes. While the justices noted the legal mandate could be applied in a discriminatory way, there was no evidence this had taken place, and that the law on its face was deemed constitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia noted in concurrence that Arizona’s measure, “merely tells state officials that they are authorized to do something that they were, by the [federal] government’s concession, already authorized to do.”

“In passing S.B. 1070, Arizona sought to enforce existing federal law in a way that the Obama administration wouldn’t,” Rep. Ben Quayle, Arizona Republican, told The Washington Times. He said the ruling was “an incomplete victory” but “empowers Arizona to enforce the law and keep its people safe.” The aspects of the rule that were struck down – those which imposed state criminal penalties for immigration violations – were nullified on the basis of the doctrine of federal supremacy, but the court refused to offer options to frustrated states trying to compensate for Washington inaction during a crisis.

Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama’s commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Justice Scalia protested that the states, as sovereign bodies, have a right to various forms of self-defense to prevent, in the words of James Madison, “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other states.” He said this case dealt with “the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.” He stated, “neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports” the notion that Arizona cannot detain and remove people present in the Grand Canyon State illegally.

America is at a crossroads in the desert. The framers of the Constitution didn’t envision a president preventing states from upholding the law. Mr. Obama’s actions eviscerate the Supreme Court’s logic and prove the very point made by backers of S.B. 1070 and similar legislation. When the federal government abrogates its constitutional duty to protect the states, the states must protect themselves. A statute on the books is useless when the occupant of the White House calculates that it’s in his political interest not to enforce it.

The Washington Times

KUHNER: Obama v. Supreme Court – Washington Times

KUHNER: Obama v. Supreme Court – Washington Times.

President would weaken the pillars of our republic to get his way

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner – The Washington Times

President Obama is undermining the rule of law. On Monday, he openly attacked the Supreme Court. He fears that the high court will overturn Obamacare. It is the president’s signature domestic achievement – the jewel in his socialist crown. To repeal parts or all of it would be a humiliating repudiation. Hence, Mr. Obama is resorting to bullying.

“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,” he said.

Moreover, Mr. Obama argued that nullifying Obamacare would amount to “judicial activism,” whereby “unelected” judges trump the will of legislative representatives. His warning was clear and unequivocal: Supreme Court justices must not rule against his administration. The president fired a shot across the high court’s bow.

His remarks were astonishing – and chilling. It is rare for a president to comment on a case before the Supreme Court renders a decision. Presidents often have fulminated about rulings with which they disagreed (usually in private), but hardly ever while the justices are still deliberating. The reason is simple: to prevent undue influence – political lobbying – on the independent judiciary. This goes to the heart of America’s constitutional structure of separation of powers and checks and balances. Yet Mr. Obama is willing to intimidate the high court, warning that a political price will be paid if they overturn Obamacare. He is behaving like a strongman who believes he can bend the Supreme Court to his will.

Mr. Obama’s comments reflect the panic spreading throughout the liberal establishment. Last week’s oral arguments in front of the high court devastated the constitutional basis of Obamacare, especially its individual mandate that compels almost every American to purchase insurance or else pay a penalty. Conservative justices made the obvious point: If the federal government can force a citizen to purchase health care insurance, then it can mandate almost anything – including eating broccoli. It is state coercion masquerading as social justice, a massive expansion of government intrusion at the expense of basic freedoms and a naked – and unlawful – power grab. No one knows how the Supreme Court will rule. Yet, based on the skeptical tone and line of questioning, the health care overhaul looks to be in deep trouble.

This is why the legal left has engaged in a full-scale effort to demonize the court. Liberal commentators are now portraying conservative justices as Republican-appointed hacks, bent on repealing Obamacare simply for political reasons. Their goal is to paint Supreme Court justices in a potential majority as villains in order to galvanize Democrats for the November election season. Instead of dealing with the merits of the case, liberals – led by the president – want to weaken a pivotal institution of our democracy.

Mr. Obama’s comments are false. It would not be “unprecedented” or “extraordinary” if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare. For more than 200 years, the high court has struck down countless laws passed by Congress or state legislatures, many of them with much stronger majorities than the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court’s role is not to devise health care policy or take into account the political ramifications of its decisions. Rather, it has one overriding purpose: to uphold the Constitution. Nowhere does our founding document give the federal government the authority to impose and regulate a nationalized health care system. This is why Obamacare is illegal and unconstitutional. It deserves to be swept into the ash heap of history.

The legislation also signifies a betrayal of American democracy. Contrary to Mr. Obama’s spin, the Affordable Care Act was jammed through Congress. It passed the House by a narrow vote of 219-212, even though the Democrats had an overwhelming majority of 75 seats. In the Senate, it barely crossed the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster and passed without a single Republican vote. The law was deeply unpopular with the electorate. Obama Democrats desperately rushed it through Congress, abusing parliamentary procedures and bribing key members of the Senate. It is today even less popular with voters. No one – including Mr. Obama – bothered to read the 2,700-page monstrosity before putting it into law. The entire enterprise reeked of contempt for democratic values and constitutional government.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has sought to intimidate the Supreme Court. In his 2010 State of the Union Address, he publicly scolded the justices sitting before him for their Citizens United decision, which overturned campaign-finance restrictions. The justices were obviously shocked – the president was using the bully pulpit to berate and smear them. His message was a simple one: Toe the administration line or become a political target. This is the kind of behavior common in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela or Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. It has no place in America.

Mr. Obama has declared war on the Supreme Court. He is a shameless demagogue who will say and do almost anything to retain his grip on power. Obamacare is his greatest legacy. He has achieved what his liberal predecessors – Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – could only dream of: universal government-run health care. It marks the culmination of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, implanting European-style social democracy on American soil. Nothing – not the Constitution, the Supreme Court or public opinion – can be allowed to stand in its way. Mr. Obama is waging a scorched-earth campaign in order to achieve his goals. Future historians will condemn him as an arrogant leader who pursued a cynical strategy, assaulting the very pillars of our republic.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Back to the Future? – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Back to the Future? – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

When a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know that something unusual is going on.

What makes that 1942 case — Wickard v. Filburn — important today is that it stretched the federal government’s power so far that the Obama administration is using it as an argument to claim before today’s Supreme Court that it has the legal authority to impose ObamaCare mandates on individuals.

Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn’t sold, so that it didn’t enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal government had no right to tell him how much wheat he grew on his own farm, and which never left his farm.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. So you might think that Filburn was right.

But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn’s farm never entered the market, just the fact that “it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market” meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market.

The implications of this kind of reasoning reached far beyond farmers and wheat. Once it was established that the federal government could regulate not only interstate commerce itself, but anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the powers of the federal government virtually disappeared.

Over the years, “interstate commerce” became magic words to justify almost any expansion of the federal government’s power, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. That is what the Obama administration is depending on to get today’s Supreme Court to uphold its power to tell people that they have to buy the particular health insurance specified by the federal government.

There was consternation in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. That conclusion might seem like only common sense to most people, but it was a close 5 to 4 decision, and it sparked outrage when the phrase “interstate commerce” failed to work its magic in justifying an expansion of the federal government’s power.

The 1995 case involved a federal law forbidding anyone from carrying a gun near a school. The states all had the right to pass such laws, and most did, but the issue was whether the federal government could pass such a law under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The underlying argument was similar to that in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn: School violence can affect education, which can affect productivity, which can affect interstate commerce.

Since virtually everything affects virtually everything else, however remotely, “interstate commerce” can justify virtually any expansion of government power, by this kind of sophistry.

The principle that the legal authority to regulate X implies the authority to regulate anything that can affect X is a huge and dangerous leap of logic, in a world where all sorts of things have some effect on all sorts of other things.

As an example, take a law that liberals, conservatives and everybody else would agree is valid — namely, that cars have to stop at red lights. Local governments certainly have the right to pass such laws and to punish those who disobey them.

No doubt people who are tired or drowsy are more likely to run through a red light than people who are rested and alert. But does that mean that local governments should have the power to order people when to go to bed and when to get up, because their tiredness can have an effect on the likelihood of their driving through a red light?

The power to regulate indirect effects is not a slippery slope. It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.