The Supreme Court is at it again. This time, they have the opportunity to strike a major blow to Obamacare in King vs. Burwell. However, members of the court are seemingly more interested in the policy ramifications of their decision than protecting the Constitution.Details
That’s what Yale Law School professor and The New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse accused members of the Supreme Court of being after they agreed to hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. For his part, Princeton professor and fellow NYT columnist Paul Krugman called this a “cruel absurdity,” and suggested the court would “pervert the law to serve political masters.”Details
Last week, in a surprisingly clear opinion, the Supreme Court limited federal power and took the side of the Constitution over an agency’s regulatory program.Details
With the recent decision by the Supreme Court not to even hear the case against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, I have to ask a familiar question to the majority of people who still value the Constitution: are you ready to take the responsibility to defend our governmental charter?
We have the power; we need to get our local leaders to stop the wholesale selling out of our rights.Details
NDAA indefinite detention powers rermain in full effect after the Supreme Court refused to even listen to the Hedges v. Obama case challenging their constitutionality.Details
The Supreme Court has once again chipped away at the 2nd Amendment. In a recent Supreme Court ruling, the court unanimously ruled in favor of broadening federal regulation of firearms under the guise of punishing perpetrators of domestic violence.Details
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.
The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.
Or is it?
In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.
When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it.Details
AzBlueMeanie claims in the article Neoconfederate insurrectionists in Arizona Legislature revive discredited ‘nullification’ theory that:
All elected officials in Arizona take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of __________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”
And yet the Arizona legislature is populated by Neoconfederate insurrectionists who have violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government.
Let’s get this straight now… AzBluemeanie believes that a state elected official who stands up against what he or she perceives to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution has “violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government”. That is a pretty bold statement to make with no evidence to back it up. Nice job!
Let us bring some credentials into the discussion.Details
On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.
Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.
Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. “While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.
How is that for giving away Sovereignty?Details