Navigation

Archive | March, 2010

More Commerce Clause Clownery

By on March 29, 2010 in Constitution, Delegated Powers

Several months ago, I wrote a blog post titled, “Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to do Everything.” Whenever politicians are questioned about their totalitarian actions and asked what gives them the power to commence such actions, they have one standard response: the interstate commerce clause. This is the established response of politicians and their apologists, and it replaces what would otherwise be no response. This has become a big joke that’s being questioned by a whole lot of keen folks. Here’s another such event described in a recent article on CNSNews:

The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.

“I think there’s pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.

Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. “You say there’s established law, established precedent,” said the reporter. “On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?”

“On the regulation of interstate commerce,” said Gibbs.

If you have not seen the Judge’s latest sound off, watch it. This is one of his best moments ever. As Napolitano wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Here is more from the Judge on the commerce clause.

Now see this excellent, short commentary from Stephan Kinsella on the commerce clause and its intentions. Also note the Jeffrey Rogers Hummel article he points to – “The Constitution as a Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists.”

3

Why the Left Should Oppose “Obamacare” Too

By on March 27, 2010 in Health Care, The Opposition

Jane Hamsher over at Firedoglake gives the full overview of why this new health care reform law is a slap in the face of the left who wanted something far different.

Real health care reform is the thing we’ve fought for from the start. It is desperately needed. But this bill falls short on many levels, and hurts many people more than it helps.

I wonder if FDL will ever realize that as long as they keep pressing for one-size-fits all national solutions instead of state-by-state solutions, this is JUST what they’ll continue getting. Garbage.

click here to read the full article

3

How Republicans gave us Health Care “Reform”

By on March 27, 2010 in Big Government, Republocrats

I can think of many ways that Republicans directly contributed to what we’ve gotten today – but here’s two of the most prominent, in my opinion:

1. Medicare Part D: Many of the republicans today that are railing on the unconstitutionality of the health care law that’s been signed by Obama are the same people who had NO problem voting in favor of the largest expansion of federally-run health care since the 1960′s. George Bush championed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006.

2. The Patriot Act: Many of the republicans today that are railing on the unconstitutionality of the health care law that’s been signed by Obama are the same people who had NO problem voting in favor of a bill rammed through Congress – without even reading it. So, what’s the natural result? When Democrats came to power, they gave us an even longer bill, that many, if not most, have not even read or understood.

The moral of the story? Both parties are responsible for what we’re getting today. And…if you think violations of the Constitution and your liberty started in January 2009, you’ve been missing quite a bit.

3

Rachel Maddow’s Blog Targets VA Tenthers

By on March 26, 2010 in Media, Tenthers, The Opposition

I guess we should be pleased; Rachel Maddow’s blog reads the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

It’s true, her blog linked to a picture we posted from the January 18th Lobby Day. Of course, it was done in the context of describing us tenthers as “out-there,” but when you’re as unappreciated as the Constitution is these days, any press is good press.

Later, Rachel Maddow’s blog weighed in on the audacity of Virginia’s very own Ken Cuccinelli:

At the head of the line of states planning to sue the federal government over health reform stands Virginia, where Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced Monday that he would file papers as soon as the Presidents “signs it into law.” …Cuccinelli thinks it’s unconstitutional for Americans to be told they have to buy something, an argument he’s been making for a while now.

As Rachel’s blog has brilliantly perceived, such “arguments” are merely partisan grandstanding. I mean, it’s the 21st Century; who has time to actually follow the Constitution anymore?

But then Rachel’s blog noticed something really interesting (read: seditious)

If you call the AG’s office to ask about all this, you first get Cuccinelli’s director of communication, Brian Gottstein… Gottstein is himself a veteran of the tenther and Tea Party circuit. The former Libertarian columnist, who joined Cuccinelli’s staff in February, was still listed last week as the VP for communications for Tertium Quids, whose president appeared at [a] 10th Amendment rally with Cuccinelli…

Unbelieveable. Not only does Virginia’s new Attorney General read the Constitution (including the 10th Amendment) and take it seriously, he hires people and appears at events with organizations that do the same!

This aggression will not stand, man.

Tune in next week as Rachel Maddow’s blog continues its quest to speak truth to power by bravely licking Joe Biden’s bootheel.

5

5 Positives from Obamacare’s Passage

By on March 26, 2010 in Activism, Big Brother

Understandably so, many of those who consider themselves to be conservative or libertarian in philosophy have felt disheartened by the passage of Obamacare. Even though I saw it coming for some time, I share in everyone’s being upset with our leaders and their actions. But I am here to tell you that not all that the passage of Obamacare offers is bad. There is a silver lining  for those of us committed to the cause of limited government and individual liberty.

Of course, on its face Obamacare offers nothing of worth to limited government and individual liberty activists. The legislation tramples upon the liberty of individuals, neglects our constitutional compact, and increases the size and scope of government to alarming levels. However, we must look beyond the codified effects and see what this bill’s passage will offer to our movement.

Sure, some will feel disgusted and hopeless, but that is based on a misguided placement of hope in a single legislative battle. Such is both naive and foolish. We cannot be “Sunshine Patriots.” For, our fight for freedom must be waged in both success and failure.

Here are five positives I see from Obamacare’s passage.

1. We now know exactly who our enemies are. To be frank, most of the crooks in Washington are enemies to liberty, whether or not the voted for the health reform bill. But as far as coalitions go, there are those who may at times be our allies on key issues. For many, Bart Stupak and other “pro-life” Democrats were key allies in the battle to protect the rights of the unborn. Even though his previous comments should have alerted everyone to Stupak’s true convictions, his vote Sunday let any doubters know where he and his commrads stand on the issue of life.

2. This already has and will continue to drive the GOP toward a more conservative direction. When the GOP is power, it does the exact things it is railing against at the moment. Remember when the GOP was passing the prescription drug legislation a few years back? I don’t care about sincerity at this point as much as I care about action. If Lindsey Graham is opposed government run healthcare, it is not because he is philosophically committed to conservative governance. Rather, he opposed the bill because of public pressure and the frustration of being in the minority. That being said, I don’t care why as long as he opposes it when it comes time to act.

3. It has forced us to consider the issue of healthcare reform on a national stage once again. Regrettably, the solution offered by the Obama administration will only make the problem worse, but healthcare reform is something that needs to be discussed. We need to head towards a no-government, market-based solution. Perhaps, this fight back against Obamacare will lead to a proper solution. But even if it does not succeed, it has already led to a discussion of the proper role of government in healthcare. And that is a good thing.

4. This could prove a valuable political tool in the midterm elections. I say this not in hopes for a mere GOP sweep; RINOs would prove no value to the cause of freedom. Rather, I am hoping for true liberty candidates to have a shot at office (or at least be able to shake things up) because of the neglect of freedom carried out by our current representatives–now truly displayed by the healthcare reform debacle.

5. There will be a renewed emphasis on nullification and states’ rights. This may be the most important of all. Our government has been out of control for well over a century. Rights have been trampled and the Constitution has been completely disregarded for far too long. It is a shame that talk of nullification and states’ rights has gone unspoken for all this time, but it is good to see it now. States should resist this legislation, and nullification is the constitutional and proper answer.

Make no mistake the passage of Obamacare is troubling, but there may be good things to come. People thought I was crazy when I said Obama would be good for the conservative movement, though I have never seen it so robust and vocal. The same effect may come about because of this despicable legislation and the public’s reaction to it.

3

Nullification In the News: Get Used to It

By on March 25, 2010 in Media, Nullification, The Opposition

As predicted, Congressional passage of President Obama’s sweeping health insurance “reform” bill has not ended the constitutional debate between federal and state authority. On the contrary, America seems poised to confront those issues directly, and with a force not seen in over a century.

As with the the first time around, those who shill for centralized power do so at the expense of liberty and government by consent. Observe this from the Talking Points Memo blog:

There’s a lot of nonsense out there about constitutional challenges to the Health Care Reform law on various ‘state sovereignty’ grounds. That’s nonsense. The Nullification Crisis and Civil War settled those issues.

Nonsense? First of all, learn history. The Nullification Crisis was a victory for those who opposed the unconstitutional assumption of “powers not delegated” by the federal government. It was also a perfect example of how meaningful checks on central power make a voluntary union stronger, not weaker.

Second of all, the War Between the States didn’t settle anything other than the fact that our union is no longer voluntary. Following such illogic, one wonders if the philosopher kings at TPM would have considered America’s colonial status to be permanently “settled” if Britain had won the Revolutionary War.

Probably. Statists are always grovelling toward the nearest locus of power. But they would be wrong.

Force of arms has never and can never decide questions of natural law. And there is no natural law more fundamental than the right of free people to be governed by their own consent.

Though our founders’ vision has been perverted over the years, the system of dual sovereignty they bequeathed us is clear: Sovereign states and sovereign people have the same power to judge the constitutionality of federal laws as the federal government now claims exclusively for itself.

Through nullification, interposition, and yes, even secession, if necessary.

So take note TPM and others of your ilk: If you want to surrender yourselves up to be ravished by the insatiable welfare/warfare State, go right ahead. Just don’t expect to take us with you.

We know what is at stake, we are more than ready for this battle, and we have not even begun to fight.

2