Quantcast

Tyranny Comes to America as Obamacare Decision Leaves Constitution With Little Meaning

Ken 2012/06/28 21:11:03

Tyranny
Comes to American as Obamacare Decision


Leaves
Constitution With Little Meaning


June 28, 2012



"Congress
has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only
those specifically enumerated."

--
Thomas Jefferson




"[T]he
powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate
in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited
objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

--
James Madison
, Speech
in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]




Unfortunately,
as of June 28, 2012, the words of our founders are no longer true,
and the powers of the federal government are all but totally
unconstrained! In allowing Congress to mandate that individuals undertake
an affirmative act, and allowing them the power to “tax” those who refuse to comply, the Supreme Court has given the
federal government almost unlimited powers over our lives. What was
unthinkable last week has become reality!




In
their infinite wisdom our founding fathers gave us a Constitution
that bound the states together, and by which the states ceded to the
new federal government which they had formed a number of limited,
enumerated powers, “beyond which it [could not]extend its
jurisdiction.” They even saw fit to adopt the Tenth Amendment as
part of the Bill of Rights, to reinforce their intent that, “
The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.” Today's Supreme Court opinion in
the “Affordable Health Care” case renders the Tenth Amendment
meaningless, as all power now resides in the federal government.




Now
the federal government's “jurisdiction” appears to encompass
education, health care, our daily diets, our finances, our sex lives, and just
about any other aspect of our lives that Washington decides it needs
to control, including the forcing of religious institutions to ignore
the precepts of their faith. It seems that only our First Amendment
rights remain intact, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
under Barack Obama is working on that.




Mark
Lloyd, Obama's “diversity czar” at the FCC has said,
"It
should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or
the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At
the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press
serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other
communications policies. . . [T]he purpose of free speech is warped
to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote
democratic governance."




We
can get an idea of what Mr. Lloyd means by “democratic governance”
by looking at another quote which indicates what the word
“democratic” means to him:




"In
Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a
democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things
that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. . . The
property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in
Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S.
government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another
revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in
his country.”
(Emphasis added)


With
folks like Mark Lloyd, to whom "freedom of speech is all too often an exaggeration," in positions of power at the FCC, how much
longer do you think our First Amendment rights will survive? How many
times have those on the left already attempted to shut down “right wing
radio"? With a Supreme Court that is willing to unleash the
power of the federal government to levels never dreamed of by our
founders, how likely is that same court to rein-in the federal
government when it begins to erode away the Bill of Rights?


We
are at a point in this nation's history where only “radical”
action by the states can restore balance and sanity to our
government. Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett has proposed a
Bill of Federalism consisting of 10
amendments devised to restore the balance between state and federal
power as well as the original meaning of the Constitution, along with
a petition for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention in
order to adopt those amendments. The entire proposal was set forth in
an article in the Wall Street Journal and reprinted in Forbes
magazine, and may be found here:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html




Now is the time that our various state
legislatures must take action if we want to preserve the Constitution
as anything but an historic relic.


Our peculiar security is in
possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank
paper by construction.” Thomas Jefferson,
1803
letter to Senator Wilson Carey Nicholas of Virginia


I
submit that on Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the
United States officially made a “blank paper” of the
Constitution.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Buoyant Leadraft 2012/07/03 00:00:54
    Buoyant Leadraft
    We will all learn to love OBAMACARE.
  • Ken Buoyant... 2012/07/03 05:12:52
    Ken
    Or die trying!
  • Joe61 2012/06/30 12:10:13
    Joe61
    So Barack Obama has won. Hasn't he? He has seen off the challenge to the one programme which could reasonably be considered a major accomplishment of his presidency. His healthcare plan is constitutional after all – after a fashion. Instead of every American being forced to buy a form of commercial product – health insurance – simply by virtue of the fact that he is a living human being residing in the United States, every American will now simply be forced to pay an additional (healthcare) tax.

    There is no question at all that the previous formulation would have to have been struck down by the Supreme Court: what free society can insist that all its citizens be forced to make a government-specified private purchase? You may be required by law to have car insurance – but that's only if you have a car. There isn't any insurance – except the kind that protects other people – which the law demands that you buy. But now there is to be just another form of taxation – which, in fact, means that Obamacare much more closely resembles the British model of government-funded, centrally-run healthcare provision which Obama always said he was determined to avoid.

    But more important, it resembles that catastrophically ill-fated measure introduced by the Conservatives which was the begin...
    So Barack Obama has won. Hasn't he? He has seen off the challenge to the one programme which could reasonably be considered a major accomplishment of his presidency. His healthcare plan is constitutional after all – after a fashion. Instead of every American being forced to buy a form of commercial product – health insurance – simply by virtue of the fact that he is a living human being residing in the United States, every American will now simply be forced to pay an additional (healthcare) tax.

    There is no question at all that the previous formulation would have to have been struck down by the Supreme Court: what free society can insist that all its citizens be forced to make a government-specified private purchase? You may be required by law to have car insurance – but that's only if you have a car. There isn't any insurance – except the kind that protects other people – which the law demands that you buy. But now there is to be just another form of taxation – which, in fact, means that Obamacare much more closely resembles the British model of government-funded, centrally-run healthcare provision which Obama always said he was determined to avoid.

    But more important, it resembles that catastrophically ill-fated measure introduced by the Conservatives which was the beginning of their downfall: the poll tax. A universal levy on every adult man and woman which must be paid on threat of a fine (or worse). Just wait till American taxpayers – who are generally a lot less docile about taxation than the British – get the hang of that. We had riots in the streets. I'm betting the US will match that and then some.
    (more)
  • Ken Joe61 2012/06/30 22:34:52
    Ken
    +2
    You are right, Obama has won "after a fashion." However it may be a hollow victory come November as it makes Obamacare an issue in the election, which it would not have been if it have been struck down. Approximately 10% more Americans are against Obamacare, especially the individual mandate, than favor it. That doesn't bode well for Obama in December.

    In the longer term though, what the supposedly conservative Chief Justice has done is to literally unleash the federal government from any constraints it was supposed to have under our Constitution. The sky's the limit now for federal power, just so long as they can coerce obedience by levying a "tax" on those who fail to comply. It's a sad day for American liberty.
  • Dan (Po... Joe61 2012/07/01 01:58:27 (edited)
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +2
    Yeah, the Supreme Court says it is a tax but does not say what kind of tax. Then Obama says it isn't a tax at all. So what this is, is a tax to make it Constitutional and not a tax to save Obama's ass. Think anyone is buying that? Only moron Obama supporters.
  • Ken Dan (Po... 2012/07/01 20:19:27
    Ken
    +2
    True - Obama's minions are running around all over the place claiming it isn't a tax. Maybe SCOTUS should reconsider! This is what is known as letting have their cake and eat it too.
  • Brian 2012/06/29 02:20:14
    Brian
    +1
    They are all NWO SCUMBAG sell outs!
  • Theresa 2012/06/28 22:40:03
    Theresa
    +2
    It does not matter anymore Unconstitutional acts can be declared Constitutional. States have no sovereignty. The Federal Gov't can break its own laws. This what is called Tyranny and to have Tyranny you need a Tyrant. We have one in the Usurper! Weep fellow citizens the politicians have failed you!
  • Fed Up 2012/06/28 21:56:19
    Fed Up
    +2
    This president is a bald-face liar - period!

  • Ken Fed Up 2012/06/28 21:57:19
    Ken
    +2
    You will get no argument from me on that point!
  • Fed Up Ken 2012/06/29 05:07:01
    Fed Up
    +2
    Amen Brother! Time to "change" course come November!!!
  • Buoyant... Fed Up 2012/07/03 18:16:45
    Buoyant Leadraft
    Romney will not be our President. You know that. It's a pipe dream.
  • Ken Buoyant... 2012/07/03 20:00:34
    Ken
    Actually we're in for a nightmare if he isn't!
  • Buoyant... Fed Up 2012/07/03 18:15:43
    Buoyant Leadraft
    you know the largest tax increase claim by republicans has been debunked right? It's was Ronald Reagan. Nice try though.
  • Ken Buoyant... 2012/07/03 20:02:24
    Ken
    Ronald Reagan worked with a Democratic congress, with liberal Tip O"Neill as speaker, for his eight years. Reagan was sufficiently "bipartisan" that he saved Social Security and Medicare for another three decades by increasing the FICA deductions. If he hadn't SS and Medicare would have gone broke long ago.
  • Buoyant... Ken 2012/07/03 21:12:18
    Buoyant Leadraft
    You need only look at the brick wall that is the republican party when it comes to being "bipartisan". All they have done is obstruct. Tanking the economy...
  • Ken Buoyant... 2012/07/04 00:59:08
    Ken
    B.S.-- Obama and the Dims tanked the economy all by their lonsomes when they passed an $800 billion "stimulus" bill that didn't work, ran up four consecutive budget deficits in excess of $1.2 trillion, regulated gas and coal to put companies out of business and passed a fraudulently-named "Affordable Health Care Act" that will cost twice what their estimate was, and that we'll be paying for ten years for six years of supposed "benefits.".

    Talk about obstructing, the Republicans have been in control of the house for two years and have passed two budgets and sent them to the senate - Obstructionist par excellence Harry Reid hasn't bothered to bring them to a vote. Bi-partisanship?? Every single member of the House of Representatives, under control of the Republicans, voted against b the budgets Obama submitted, they were so bad. Now that's bipartisanship.
  • Buoyant... Ken 2012/07/04 01:56:21 (edited)
    Buoyant Leadraft
    Republicans idea of balancing the budget is cut every social safety net for the poor and middle class going back to the new deal and increase military spending not reduce it. Republicans will never reduce military spending because they fear it makes them look weak. How can you take them seriously? They are to busy worrying about gay marriage, contraception and abortion rights and overturning DOMA or passing no sharia laws to compromise on anything serious like the economy, that they want to fail in the first place so it seems like republicans might have a fighting chance in Nov. Republicans DON'T COMPROMISE They WHINE.

    I have a feeling you will see a budget both sides won't like after the election is over.

    Now if you run for office ken, you might be a republican i could vote for.
    Mittens? I dunno...
  • Aurora 2012/06/28 21:34:53
    Aurora
    +3
    Taxation without representation.
  • say what? 2012/06/28 21:28:13
    say what?
    +2
    This will not end well.
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/28 21:12:10
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +3
    Agreed. Why have a Constitution when the government can tax you for any reason or no reason, and in any amount?

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 08:14:51

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals