And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Archive for the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ Category

Heritage Newsletter offer us experts opinions on the news of the day and how it will affect you.   This was really a big day since the Supreme Court came down with two big rulings: one gave a victory to gay marriage by ruling against the Congressional Bill passed under Clinton called the Defense of marriage Act (DOMA)  which ruled marriage as being between a man and a woman.  I have been against this changing of our marriage laws on the grounds off finances.   This act by the court throws the problem back to the states but then after ruling that the California law *(voted for by the people) against gay marriage as unconstitutional it seems no state and certainly the majority of the voters have no say in this matter.   As stated I have been and am against the legalizing of s  gay marriage  because it  fives rights for financial support that have been the rights of wives and husbands only.   For instance social security support for widows and orphans.  the “orphans” part may be easy top figure out but who is the “widow”?   Are Both  parties in a lesbian marriage widows?   Do homosexual couples need to designate a “widow”?  And this is just the tip of a huge financial ice berg that We the Taxpayers will be responsible for that we were not before today.

The second ruling by the Supreme Court was one I feel is long overdue in being corrected.  States should and do have the right to determine what their voting laws are but until todays ruling 14 states had to get permission from some clerk in Washington before they could so much as change the location of a voting location.  In fact  one district in one of these states could not vote in the 2000 election due to a water pipe breaking and  flooding the polling place.  But since they had to get permission from Washington to move the site they simply had to disenfranchise the voters ion that district!   Now that was an extreme and surely rare happening but it really does point out the nonsense of following a law that was very necessary when passed by 50 years later attitudes and laws and mostly people’s views have changed and no Black can or will be kept from voting.  After all we do now have a Black as President!

And be sure to take note of how our President plans to go around your elected officials in Congress and use the EPA Environmental Protection Agency to force  his climate change agenda and war on coal and oil on us.   People there is no such thing as climate change.  the Earth is not getting hotter.  Obama lied again and again in his speech yesterday at Georgetown University.  Don’t believe me but do your own research and go to the records kept by the government itself  and see that we are experiencing right now the cycle that is normal and active in the 1950’s.  Then the hotter seasons was followed by a cooling off and so-called “cooling of the Earth due to the use of fossil fuels ” that occurred in the 1970’s.  these damned fools lead by Hollywood idiots and our President  are helping a cool group of men led by Al Gore and Barrack Obama to make a pile of money.   But while they are manipulating and  lining their pockets with all the money it will cost to go from fossil fuels to their so-called clean and not at all reliable wind and solar We the People are going to see the cost of energy to us going out of  sight.  And since energy is needed for every aspect of our lives including the food on our tables that means everything in our lives will cost more.  Well, anyhow  please do read the article and go to the references.   Sincerely, BB

Heritage Hotsheet

Experts on the Day’s Hottest News

Contact An Expert
MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:
Phone: (202) 675-1761 | Email: Broadcast Services

Items for Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Divided Supreme Court strikes down key voting rights provision
The Washington Times

John Malcolm

Obama planning to sidestep Congress for next phase in climate change agenda
Fox News

Nicolas Loris

David Kreutzer

Jack Spencer


Snowden flap bares hapless U.S.

Boston Herald

Peter Brookes

James Carafano

Ariel Cohen
INFOGRAPHIC: What You Should Know About Marriage
The Foundry Blog

Ryan Anderson

Jennifer Marshall

Andrew Walker

Sarah Torre


Immigration and the Crisis of Opportunity

National Review Online

Genevieve Wood

Mike Gonzalez

Stuart Butler


Latest Heritage Research
:

ISSUE BRIEF
How to Slash Billions from the Agriculture Appropriations Bill

Gang of Eight Giveaways
National Review

Jessica Zuckerman

Mike Needham

Dan Holler

Obama energy push could loom large in 2014
Politico

Nick Loris

David Kreutzer

Jack Spencer

Snowden mystery deepens, took job to gather NSA evidence
USA Today

Steven Bucci

Peter Brookes

James Carafano

Snowden Case Has Cold War Aftertaste
The New York Times

Ariel Cohen

5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases
The Foundry Blog

Ryan Anderson

Andrew Walker

Jennifer Marshall

 

Latest Heritage Research:

ISSUE BRIEF
Helping Southeast Asia Come to Grips with the Reality of Taiwan

ISSUE BRIEF
Obama’s Trip to Africa: Make It More Than a Photo-Op

ISSUE BRIEF
Schumer–Corker–Hoeven Amendment Fails on Securing the Border and Halting Illegal Immigration

BACKGROUNDER
Ratifying the Disabilities Convention Will Not Help Americans with Disabilities at Home or Abroad

ISSUE BRIEF
Kerry in India: Setting the Tone on Security Issues

Advertisements

I thought I was pretty well up on what is happening in our country because I really try hard to keep up and do a lot of reading, but now way was I even close to knowing what is happening to everyday people just like me and you.  This article from the Heritage Foundation is an eye opener and a blood pressure raiser. Be sure and go to all the referred sites for all the information.  The time for We the People to act is now when we have the momentum with the Tea Party and other groups up and moving.  Time for you to get involved too before it has gone too far for the United States and Americans to turn the tide towards tyranny around and defeat those who would imprison us in a country no American wants to live in.  Sincerely, Brenda Bowers  BB

The Government vs. YOU

06/14/2013

Every day, more Americans get trapped by big government. In addition to groups targeted by the IRS, upstanding citizens going about their normal lives are suddenly targeted by law enforcement authorities and charged as criminals. Just a few examples:

 

 

 

USA-v-YOU

These are only a few of the shocking incidents The Heritage Foundation chronicles in our new project, USA vs. YOU. Experts at Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies reveal the stories of 22 people from all backgrounds, races, and income levels victimized by carelessly written laws.

Get the FREE e-book USA vs. YOU now >>

When criminal laws are created to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake, and compel the “right” behaviors, this troubling trend is known as overcriminalization. Ultimately, it leads to injustice for honest, hard-working Americans at every level of society.

Public interest groups from across the political spectrum recognize how this flood of criminal laws violates our basic liberties. Diverse organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Right on Crime, among others, have joined with Heritage to reaffirm the true purpose of America’s justice system: to ensure public safety and protect the innocent.

When was the last time you saw the ACLU work together with a faith-based group like Justice Fellowship? WithUSA vs. YOU, the problem is grave enough to bring together unlikely allies. And we’re delivering this bipartisan message just as the House of Representatives has launched a task force aimed at correcting this issue.

This morning, Heritage Senior Legal Fellow John Malcolm will testify at the first hearing of the Overcriminalization Task Force—shining a spotlight on the scope and severity of this threat to our liberties. Ending the practice of trapping our citizens with unnecessary laws will be no easy task, with an estimated 4,500 criminal law offenses and 300,000 criminal regulations on the books.

Experience the stories of Americans like you treated unjustly – download the FREE e-book now >>

Over the next six months, Members of Congress from both parties will study this issue in depth, hold hearings, and—with the right encouragement—take steps to enact real reform.

This new effort includes tools for you to raise your voice and make a difference in defending our liberties. So explore the documented stories in USA vs. YOU, follow the links, and take real action today to help turn the tide.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:

  • President Obama has changed his policy on Syria, saying that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons and that the U.S. will provide military support to the rebels.

 

 

 

  • Investigative journalist James O’Keefe has produced some shocking stories of corruption. In a new book, hedetails his undercover work with Project Veritas.

 

  • For decades, inappropriate IRS behaviors have been revealed. Each time, the agency has assured the public that it takes these breaches “very seriously.”

 

I sincerely hope my readers have been watching FOXNEWS and the revelations coming out about our current government.  Not that some of what is happening hasn’t been done before but this President  has made making the United States a police state a major goal of his administration and I am sooo happy the stuff has finally hit the fan.  I especially enjoy the outrage of my sister-in-law who voted for him because “Romney hates poor people!”.  Obama so loves poor people that he wants to gather them all under his benevolent arms and tell them exactly what to wear, eat, speak and especially vote.  And to ensure that they do all these things as he directs he puts his dogs on them when they refuse to listen to papa.   Do read the following article to bring yourself up to date on the agency that will implement and control Obamacare and is now under the gun for doing their part to make sure that Obama was elected in 2012.  BB

 

The IRS and Obamacare, by the Numbers

06/05/2013

Chilling new details emerged yesterday about the IRS targeting scandal, as representatives from six conservative groups testified before Congress about the scrutiny and demands they faced from Obama administration bureaucrats.

Yesterday’s testimony reminded us once again why Washington bureaucrats cannot be trusted, and why Americans should be so concerned about the new powers granted to the IRS as a result of Obamacare.

These powers are so vast, in fact, they’re difficult to put into words. So instead, we decided to give you the numbers:

18New taxes in Obamacare, including 12 that directly violate then-Senator Barack Obama’s “firm pledge” to those making under $250,000 per year that he would not “raise any of your taxes.”

47—New provisions Obamacare charges the IRS with implementing, according to the Government Accountability Office.

$695Tax for not buying “government-approved” health insurance the IRS will be charged with enforcing on all Americans.

1,954—Full-time bureaucrats the IRS wants to devote to Obamacare implementation and enforcement in the upcoming fiscal year.

60,000,000—Medical records the IRS has been charged with improperly seizing, raising concerns about whether the agency can handle the personal health insurance information all Americans will be required to submit to the IRS.

$439,584,000—The IRS’s request for new spending on Obamacare implementation in the upcoming fiscal year; the request did not specify how much of those funds the IRS will spend on the “Cupid shuffle.”

6,100,000,000—Man-hours Americans already devote to tax compliance, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate, a burden that will rise significantly thanks to Obamacare.

$1,000,000,000,000—New revenue raised by Obamacare in its first 10 years alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, sums that will only rise in future decades.

If ever there were an argument as to why Obamacare should be repealed and defunded, these numbers—coupled with the IRS revelations of recent weeks—tell the tale.

>>> SHARE THIS PICTURE: Facebook | Pinterest | Tumblr

IRS on
Steroids

Quick Hits:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article from The American Thinker is a good overview of the IRS scandal in case you need to get the facts straight or understand just what it all means to you.  The Internal Revenue Service is the most powerful department in the government.  No one, but NO ONE dares to go up against the IRS.  This being the case it is a powerful weapon for any congressman or President to use to get back at anyone they don’t like.   This is what has happened with the conservatives in our country who dared to oppose the Democrats and Obama:  The IRS was  notified to “look into the activities” of any groups who applied for tax exempt status with certain words in their names.  Words like “Tea Party,  “Conservative”,  “Constitution”.   The Treasury Department Inspector General  (Treasury oversees the IRS) sat right beside the IRS Director in the Congressional hearing Friday and refuted every lie the IRS Director told!    The Inspector General stated without a doubt that certain groups were “targeted” by the IRS deliberately.    The Inspector General also stated that he told members of the Obama White House of his findings last summer well before the elections and yet Obama is playing deaf and dumb!

Inspectors General are people who have no political affiliation and whose job it is to police the departments in the government.  These people are the public’s watch dogs and are chosen for their high standards and integrity.  Many of them have been denigrated by this administration in the past four years when they have dared to speak up so I expect this one (Mr. George) to be vilified also in the next week or so.

Anyhow,  the following article may be useful to you when trying to argue the points while some bone head or other damned fool.   🙂  BB

May 18, 2013

The IRS Scandal — a Basic Primer

By Jonathon Moseley

Confusion about the IRS scandal is distracting from its importance, so that thinking conservatives should be prepared to debate the issue. Some basics matter. Conservatives may need to share a summary such as this article to help convince moderate friends.

Callers to C-SPAN badly misunderstood these details when Jenny Beth Martin, Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, appeared on C-SPAN television last week. I interviewed Keli Carender of Tea Party Patriots on the radio on May15, who helped clarify some of the pushback and distractions from liberals.

First, don’t let people forget: the IRS scandal is not about conservative accusations. The Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury issued a report finding that the Internal Revenue Service sharply discriminated against conservative organizations. This is confirmed by Treasury’s Inspector General.

Second, a group’s political beliefs and positions ought to be totally irrelevant. Tax exemption must be based on what an organization does, not what it believes or what positions it supports. Whether a group teaches the Constitution or teaches union tactics doesn’t matter, it is educating either way. Therefore, the IRS should not have been looking at the name of the organization, whether liberal or conservative, but on the substance of the organization.

Third, many people don’t realize that nearly all liberal political organizations are tax exempt. There has been a lot of distraction and diversion focused on whether or not the IRS should have scrutinized tea party groups. However, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood (which has been active in partisan election campaigns), Media Matters, etc., are all tax exempt. Organizations on the Left similar to tea party groups have had tax exempt status forever.

Fourth, don’t allow people to wander away from the central point that the scandal is about a double standard — not whether people believe political organizations should be tax exempt. Conservatives seeking tax exempt status were treated very differently from similarly-situated liberal organizations. Sure, some liberal groups were scrutinized. But conservatives were treated differently.

IRS official Lois Lerner fast-walked the tax-exempt application of Barack Obama’s half-brother, the best man at President Obama’s wedding. Abon’go “Roy’ Malik Obama got tax-exempt status in a bureaucratic breakneck speed, in only 30 days, in May 2011, even though it is unclear what if anything the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does or has done since being approved.

When a conservative organization Media Trackers couldn’t get approved after 8 months, it changed its project to the liberal-sounding name “Greenhouse Solutions.” With the new name, the exact same project was approved within 3 weeks.

Liberal groups — even with very political activities — were systematically approved, and quickly, with relatively little burden or scrutiny, as reported by USA Today.

Groups supporting Israel were discriminated against. In August 2010, a pro-Israel group “Z Street” filed a Federal lawsuit when an IRS staff member admitted that all Israel-related groups were singled out by the IRS for extra scrutiny. There will be a hearing this July 2013, after the case was transferred to the Federal district in Washington, D.C.

The IRS demanded that a Pro-Life group promote abortion in order to get tax-exempt status. No liberal group has such a requirement. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not required to promote abstinence, adoption, or Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

It is the law that the IRS must answer within 270 days for 501(c)(3) organizations, yet the IRS delayed conservative organizations for more than 540 days.

Fifth, there are many different types of tea party organizations. Some tea party organizations are Political Action Committees (PAC’s) which are directly involved in election campaigns. Others focus purely on training tea party organizers and members on how to be effective in organizing events and lobbying on legislation. Some purely educate about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc. Others lobby on pending legislation.

So when the public hears about tea party organizations applying for tax exempt status, they often imagine only campaigning for or against a candidate. That is not tax exempt. Some tea party groups qualify. Some don’t.

Sixth, many have questioned whether the IRS wasn’t doing the job it should have done by asking questions of tea party groups seeking tax exempt status. No one objects to the IRS obtaining basic information and asking reasonable questions. The problem is that the IRS bombarded tea party and conservative groups with multiple waves of a huge number of very intrusive questions. And the wave after wave of questions seemed aimed at never getting around to finishing the process or persuading groups to simply give up and abandon their application.

Seventh, many don’t recognize what ‘tax exempt’ means. It means that if someone donates to a tea party group, the donations are not taxed as income. Otherwise, any political organization would have to pay income taxes on donations.

A tax-exempt organization may still have to pay taxes on other income, such as sales of products or services. Some C-SPAN callers imagined that people in such groups don’t pay income taxes. Of course, people running or working in tax-exempt groups pay income taxes on their salary the same as everyone else.

There are four important categories:

1. A 501(c)(4) organization is tax-exempt (they don’t pay income taxes on donations). A 501(c)(4) organization is allowed to lobby for or against legislation, but is not allowed to advocate for or against a candidate. A 501(c)(4) also can do anything a 501(c)(3) can do.

2. A 501(c)(3) organization is both tax-exempt and tax-deductible. That is, contributors can deduct their donations from their income taxes. It is much more difficult to qualify for 501(c)(3) status. A 501(c)(3) cannot lobby for or against legislation (except to an insignificant extent) and may not engage in any partisan’ (campaign) activity. A 501(c)(3) can educate the public on policy, issues, the advantages and disadvantages of various political policies and topics like the Constitution, concepts of our Founding Fathers, etc. or train citizens.

3. A Political Action Committee (PAC or Super-PAC) intervenes directly in partisan campaigns and does not qualify as tax exempt.

4. A 527 organization is a recent development, which also intervenes directly in partisan campaigns and does not qualify as tax exempt.

Eighth, many are not aware of the difference between ‘political’ and ‘partisan.’ Tax exempt organizations are allowed to engage in public discussion and lobbying of ‘political’ issues affecting society. That is very different from ‘partisan’ activity. ‘Partisan’ means influencing a campaign — that is, advocating for or against a candidate in an election (not necessarily just discussing policy or issues).

An example is the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CREW is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, tax deductible foundation. Its head Melanie Sloan earns $230,000 per year. CREW does nothing but slander conservative Republicans and a few Democrats who get out of line with mostly false accusations.

Christine O’Donnell won the Republican primary for United States Senate from Delaware. This was learned at 8:00 PM on September 14, 2010. By about 11:00 AM on September 15, 2010, CREW started attacking Christine O’Donnell and publicly declaring that Christine belongs in jail not in the Senate.

Advocating for or against a candidate is the test of ‘partisan’ (campaign) activity that is prohibited for a tax-exempt organization. CREW ignored Christine until she won the GOP Primary. But within hours CREW started attacking her. CREW explicitly referenced her status as a candidate, and specifically that she does not belong in the Senate. Melanie Sloan explicitly said that the voters should know all this when they go to vote in November 2010.

I noticed this pattern and conceived, developed, planned, and drafted the complaint against CREW to the IRS, which ChristinePAC later filed with the IRS in July 2011. Yet two years later, the IRS has done nothing. Melanie Sloan’s parents are big donors to former Delaware Senator Joe Biden and CREW attacks conservatives. Don’t expect the IRS to hold liberals responsible for anything.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/the_irs_scandal__a_basic_primer.html#ixzz2TgoNNdjy
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Heritage Action Committee is very busy recruiting people who will stand firm for Conservative values.  You may find this article interesting and especially the list of Senators and Representatives who have passed the test and are considered Heritage Sentinels.

I would also highly recommend to any who did not see FOXNEWS Hannity 9:00 pm either Friday or Sunday night go to his site and watch  the show on “Boomtown, America”  Washington DC is in another universe compared to the rest of the country and it is all on the backs of us tax payers in America.   Washington produces NOTHING!  and yet it is the wealthiest city in the United States and produces “millionaires and billionaires” by the gross yearly.   How is this possible?  Why are so many becoming super rich in DC?   We all know the fraud and corruption that rules Washington but even I had no idea it was so bad.  I guess this is why I like knowing there are Congress people who are not corrupted.  Unfortunately however these people have trouble getting things done because they are outnumbered by the corrupted Congress people and are kept from the corrupted leadership from influence postings.  They are however gaining in number and are at our backs.  Remember  that 2014 is just around the corner and another opportunity to add to their numbers.   BB

 

Capitol Building

CONSERVATIVE SENTINELS STAND GUARD FOR FREEDOM

CATEGORY: Driving The DayFeatured     KEYWORDS: Conservative Principles,HouseSenate
 |JANUARY 29, 2013

Sentinel: A person stationed as a guard to prevent a surprise attack.

This week we announced the 29 members of Congress — 6 Senators and 23 Representatives — who achieved Sentinel status by scoring a 90% or higher on our legislative scorecard in the 112th Congress.  These Sentinels are a critical component of conservative successes, representing the “tip of the spear in Washington.”

Heritage Action CEO Michael A. Needham praised the work of these lawmakers:

Americans worried about our country’s future should sleep better at night knowing a dedicated group of lawmakers are fighting for freedom every day in Washington.  We congratulate these Sentinels who stood guard, vigilantly protecting our freedoms during the 112th Congress.  Not only did they advance the conservative cause, but they also held back the incessant tide of tax increases, out-of-control spending, and harmful policies that breed dependency on government.  In Washington, this is no easy task, which makes these Members all the more commendable.

Congressional Sentinels are not alone in their fight for freedom.

Washington’s corrosive, corrupting nature can challenge the principles of many conservative lawmakers, which is why the Heritage Action’s citizen Sentinels do the “hard work of keeping Congress accountable.”

The Washington Post has certainly taken notice of our impact in Washington, as have liberals, conservatives, politicians, and others in the media.  We have no qualms about confronting lawmakers head on, regardless of their party, if they are not upholding conservative principles.

The Post piece suggests that this is one reason why we have been able to “gain a bigger following among conservative activists” than other institutions.  They add that we’ve given “activists a new sense of legitimacy and an institutional base.”  In fact, Ginny Quaglia, a Sentinel from North Carolina said, “If you try to debate an issue and you cite as your source Heritage Action, it gives you instant credibility.”

Conservatives now have the formula for success – unifying conservative forces inside and outside the beltway.  Citizen Sentinels recognize this and our allies in Congress – especially those who have achieved Sentinel status — believe thatHeritage Action “adds institutional heft and sharp elbows to their own cause.”  Thus, we congratulate all of our Sentinels for their commitment and hard work.

Press Release: Heritage Action Announces Congressional Sentinels

See the scorecard: Heritage Action Scorecard

Senate Sentinels (6):

Jim DeMint  (R-SC) 99%
Mike Lee (R-UT) 99%
Rand Paul (R-KY) 96%
Marco Rubio (R-FL) 96%
Ron Johnson (R-WI) 94%
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 91%

 

House Sentinels (23):

Jeff Duncan (R-SC) 97%
Jeff Flake (R-AZ) 97%
Trent Franks (R-AZ) 97%
Tom Graves (R-GA) 97%
Paul Broun  (R-GA) 96%
Jim Jordan (R-OH) 95%
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) 95%
Trey Gowdy (R-SC) 94%
Doug Lamborn  (R-CO) 94%
David Schweikert (R-AZ) 94%
Jeff Miller (R-FL)  93%
Ben Quayle (R-AZ) 93%
Joe Wilson (R-SC) 93%
Joe Walsh (R-IL) 93%
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) 92%
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 92%
Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) 92%
Dennis Ross (R-FL) 92%
Justin Amash (R-MI) 91%
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 91%
John Fleming (R-LA) 90%
Scott Garrett (R-NJ) 90%
Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) 90%

COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY

 @KathMaryRosario

If you read my previous post you se that I feel Chief Justice Roberts did the People a favor with his ruling on Obamacare.  I seem to be very much in the minority in my thinking,  especially up against such brilliant people as Mark Levin who is  all but ready to call Roberts out as a traitor to his country.  But  The Project to Restore America  newsletter this month seems to see things my way.   Check out what they have to say:  (BB)

Obamacare Survives, but Political Playing Field Has Changed
By Michael Barone
Monday, July 02, 2012

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the Obama administration’s health care legislation was a victory for the president, his administration and his party. Their most ambitious legislative achievement has not been nullified, and they are not left in obvious disarray. 

But it is only a partial victory and in some ways not a victory at all, both in the short run electorally and in the long run in terms of the constitutional order. 

Politically Obamacare, as its critics call it, remains highly unpopular. It’s possible that the court decision will boost its support, but unlikely. 

Most voters want this law repealed. Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to repeal it. Barack Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it. It’s not a winning issue for the incumbent. 

Constitutionally, many conservatives are unhappy that Chief Justice Roberts and the four justices generally considered liberal voted to uphold the mandate to buy health insurance as a tax, which Congress is clearly empowered to levy. 

But the fact remains that a majority of five justices, including Roberts, also declared that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not authorize a mandate to buy a commercial product. This will tend to bar further expansion of the size and scope of the federal government. 

Moreover, the Constitution’s limits on congressional power have now become, for the first time in seven decades, a political issue. They’re likely to remain one for years to come. 

This would not have been true had not the constitutional case against the mandate been advanced by Washington lawyer David Rivkin, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and many others. 

They did not quite prevail in the Supreme Court, but they changed not only the legal but also the political debate in a way almost no one anticipated three years ago. 

Unhappy conservatives grumble that Congress can get around the declaration that a mandate is beyond Congress’s enumerated powers by labeling it a tax — or just by relying on five justices declaring it one. 

But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one. 

Roberts’ decision undercuts such arguments, now and in the future. Members of Congress supporting such legislation will be held responsible, this year and for years to come, for increasing taxes. 

And the Constitution’s provision that tax bills must be originated in the House of Representatives means that the party controlling the House can effectively block such measures. That will be an argument for Republican congressional candidates for the indefinite future. 

It should not be forgotten that the Supreme Court did overturn part of the Obamacare legislation, the provision allowing the federal government to cut off states from all Medicaid funding if they refuse to vastly expand Medicaid eligibility as the legislation requires. 

Here, another novel legal argument, advanced by Vanderbilt law professor (and my law school classmate) James Blumstein, found favor with a majority of justices. The idea is that Congress can’t use the leverage of partial federal funding to force the states to increase the size and scope of government. 

This seems like a principle that could work powerfully against big government policies. Medicaid has been vastly expanded over the years in this manner. Now the Court seems to be saying that that game is over

The court’s decision elicited sighs of relief from the White House. The president’s entire administration is not in disarray. 

But the basic assumptions that he brought to office have proven unwarranted. Obama followed the New Deal historians in portraying history as a story of progress from minimal government to big government and in arguing that economic distress would make Americans more supportive of big government policies. 

The unpopularity of Obamacare and the stimulus package have proven the latter assumption wrong. Most Americans are skeptical about the supposedly guaranteed benefits of centralized big government programs. 

And history does not move in one direction toward big government, even if it did from 1929 to 1945. Mercantilism was replaced by free trade in the 19th century, New Deal regulation by deregulation in the 1970s and 1980s. 

The Supreme Court’s decision, while upholding Obamacare, tilts the legal and political playing field away from big government more than anyone anticipated three years ago, and probably for years to come. 


Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. 

COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Once again, thank you for sending us your e-mails. We can’t respond individually, but we read and consider all of them. Send your question, comment, or complaint tojohn@theprojecttorestoreamerica.com orwendy@theprojecttorestoreamerica.com

 Hello! I just read the article below: 

Why I Escaped From New York and Californiaby Wayne Allyn Root, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. I want to be able to post it on facebook! Please add a share button! – Marita 

Bidwell comment: Marita, if you go to www.theprojecttorestoreamerica.com, this article is under the Recent Articles. When you click the link, the article fills the screen. At the top right of the page, the Facebook icon is with the other Share this site icons. I hope this helps…

Also if you liked Wayne Allyn Root’s article, you might like this one as well… http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/25/to-defeat-obama-in-2012-tell-story-chicago-decline/

 (On Stansberry Radio,) I think that Chris Martinsen was more persuasive on peak oil because he built his argument on the fact that oil on this planet is a limited resource. We are not likely to burn up all the oil because it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture a different type of portable energy. You have a good point that enhanced recovery methods will push production out into the future, but the decline will inevitably kick in and apply pressure for innovation. The stakes are high to keep our transportation systems running, I hope innovation wins. Thanks, Mike 

Heffern comment: If you enjoyed the last radio show we recommended (the overwhelming positive feedback assures me that you did) tune in to the interview with a former Managing Partner at Bain Capital, Ed Conrad. This interview is one that I’d put near the top of my list. Porter Stansberry and Aaron Brabham interviewed a close business associate and friend of Mitt Romney’s, Conard talks in great detail about the benefits of rising income inequality, true facts about the economy, and the noble profession of private equity. Conard is a great debater and an extremely smart man.

I’d recommend making this podcast part of your weekly routine. A great thing about the radio show is they have a feedback line where you can leave messages for the hosts directly… They always love to hear listener feedback on any aspect of the show or ideas on who you would want interviewed next… 1-855-SA-RADIO (1-855-727-2346) orfeedback@stansberryradio.com.

It is my belief that Chief Justice Robert did the people of the United States  a great favor.  YES,  he did indeed rewrite the law when he named the mandate a tax and therefore constitutional under the Congress’s right to levy taxes.  But in the arguments before the court in a last ditch effort to get the law passes the White house did argue that the mandate was a tax thus bringing up the subject and giving Roberts his opening.

Some are saying it was a win for Obama.  No way!  It was a win for the people because Roberts gave the Conservatives a  hammer to beat Obama over the head with:  A huge tax on ALL  people and one that will grow and grow.  He told us in his closing argument that he did not and does not judge the goodness  or badness of a law,  but only the constitutionality.   He was telling the people that he was throwing it back out there for them to decide what kind of America we want and if we want the home of the free then we will get our buns out there in November and make darn sure as many others get out to vote too.    If the mandated had been shot down we still would have been stuck with the other many, many monsters in this law!!  but the people would have gone their way believing the  problem has been solved.  We the People owe Chief Justice Roberts a great debt for his ruling and the  statesmanship (or brinkmanship!) for giving us this last chance to save ourselves.  BB


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Advertisements