Florida Ruling Affirms Federal Power over Health Care.

Victory! Hooray! Jump for Joy!

Those are the emails and blog posts that I’ve been reading from conservatives – exuberant about the ruling from Judge Vinson in Florida today.

As an opponent of the patient protection and affordable care act, I disagree with the happy thoughts – and am wary of the trojan horse that this and other rulings appear to be.

Here’s why – from Judge Vinson himself:


Does Congress really have authority to regulate campaign finance?

[Rob Natelson is the author of the new book, The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant. To learn more about this topic, hear Rob’s podcast on Election Law and the Election Clause.]

The Constitution granted Congress only enumerated powers. Did those powers include measures of “campaign finance reform?”

Congress justifies campaign regulation as flowing from its constitutional power to regulate the “Time, Place and Manner of holding” elections for the House of Representatives and the “Time . . . and Manner of holding Elections” for the Senate. (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1.) The Supreme Court has assumed that when the Founders wrote “Manner of holding Elections” they included campaign rules, but there has been astonishingly little published research on the subject, either by the Court or by other legal writers. When the Court hears campaign finance cases, it focuses mostly on the First Amendment rather than seriously investigating whether the Constitution granted Congress the power in the first place.


10th Amendment Resolution Introduced in Mississippi

Introduced by Mississippi State Representatives Moss, Sullivan and Ward is House Concurrent Resolution 10 (HC0010), “reinforcing the fundamental principle and authority of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…” If passed, the resolution would also make the position of the legislature as follows: That the State of Mississippi hereby…


And the Dumbest Guy in the World Is…

…Ian Millhiser of the hilariously misnamed ThinkProgress, who says, “The Constitution expressly states that Acts of Congress ‘shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding,’ so our founding document specifically denies the states a veto power over federal laws.”

This guy has a law degree, people.  A law degree.  And he thinks he has defeated Thomas Jefferson with this third-grade analysis.

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

In other words, Millhiser deletes the most significant words of the whole clause!  Jefferson (whose name Millhiser cannot bring himself to mention, so let’s just say it for fun a few times — Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefferson) did not deny the Supremacy Clause.  He would not have needed any lectures from law school graduate (and otherwise uncredentialed) Ian Millhiser.  His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereofshall be the supreme law of the land.  Well, that’s the whole matter at issue!  Is the law in question “in pursuance thereof” or not?


More Disappointment: RSC Spending Cuts

Last week the conservative House Republican Study Committee released its Spending Reduction Act of 2011, which would cut federal spending by $2.5 trillion over the next ten years. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) will introduce it in the Senate.

The vast majority of the savings, $2.3 trillion, would come from freezing non-defense discretionary spending at fiscal 2006 levels over the next ten years. The rest would come from cutting the federal civilian workforce, privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repealing the state Medicaid FMAP increase, repealing remaining stimulus funds, and immediately reducing non-security discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels.

Of the $2.3 trillion over 10 years that would be saved by freezing nondefense discretionary spending at fiscal 2006 levels, only $330 billion in savings are actually specified, or about $33 billion annually. That’s only about 5 percent of nondefense discretionary spending, and nondefense discretionary spending only accounts for about 17 percent of total federal spending.


Don’t Listen to Jefferson

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Tom Woods will be a featured speaker at upcoming Nullify Now! tour stops in Cincinnati, New Hampshire, Austin, and Los Angeles..   Get your tickets at http://www.nullifynow.com or by calling 888-71-TICKETS


I don’t know who Paul Zummo is, but I know he wrote this.  It’s the usual arguments against nullification, as if no replies to them existed.

He tries to claim, first, that James Madison, in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, wasn’t calling for nullification; he was just saying the states had the right to get together to protest unconstitutional laws.  Oh?  Why bother to pass solemn resolutions urging that the states had a right that absolutely no one denied?  When Madison tried to weasel out of his position three decades later, people asked the same thing: if that was all you meant, why even bother drafting such an inane resolution in the first place?