In 2008 a noted Constitutional scholar made the case against the government compelling people to purchase medical insurance:
Roger Vinson, the Reagan appointed federal judge who ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional, actually cited Obama’s statements in his ruling:
I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’”
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.
The Left is out claiming that Judge Vinson’s decision was an example of judicial activism. Interesting that the Left supports discovering ‘rights’ that “emanate from penumbras” in the 14th Amendment, but call any decision made against them ‘judicial activism.’
Since Marbury v. Madison, the court has had the responsibility of judicial review. If a law is unconstitutional it would be an activist decision for the court to rule it constitutional. In the case of Obamacare, the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to compel citizens to purchase medical insurance. If the commerce clause is going to be used to justify the individual mandate, the Constitution might as well be thrown out, because such a decision would give the federal government unbridled power.
Thankfully, we can turn constitutional expert Barack Obama, who explained all of this just over two years ago.
On Tuesday night’s edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews lambasted Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for statements she made regarding slavery:
In the above video Matthews called Rep. Bachmann a “balloon head” who “knows no American history.” Only, what Bachamnn said is true. What Matthews’ statements demonstrate is that he is in fact a balloon head who knows no American history.
When the Constitution was written, slavery was a highly contentious issue. All but a small minority of the Framers of the Constitution, including those that held slaves at the time, were in favor of abolishing the practice. However, the Framers also understood that an outright abolition of slavery in 1787 would prevent ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, the Framers believed that the states were well on the way to abolishing slavery on their own. As such, the Constitution was written in a way that would allow future generations to eliminate slavery. In fact, the word “slavery” does not appear in the original Constitution, because, as James Madison wrote, it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Furthermore, Article I, Section ix of the Constitution was written with the intention of banning the importation of more slaves. In 1807, Thomas Jefferson did just that, and signed a bill into law which banned the importing of slaves. For more information on this topic, Dr. William Bennett’s America the Last Best Hope; volume I is a great resource.
Mathews specious line of thinking is evinced in his citing of the tree-fifths compromise of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It was a mathematical formula used for the census. Matthews, and many liberals, claim that slaves were counted as three-fifths because early Americans didn’t view slaves as full human beings. This claim is predicated on painful ignorance. Slave states wanted slaves to be counted as full people in the census. Counting slaves as equals would increase the population count in slave states, thus allotting slave states more representation in the House of Representatives. The the-fifths compromise was instituted to limit the representation of slave states. Moreover, a close examination of the compromise reveals that slaves are referred to as “persons,” laying the groundwork for the abolition of slavery.
The Constitution’s case for abolishing slavery was noted by none other than the world’s most famous abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, who said “now, take the Constitution according ti its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
Today’s education system teaches American history in a vacuum, as though the United States was the only place on earth where slavery existed. The abolition of slavery is a modern concept, when the entire course of human history is considered. From Thomas Sowell’s Dismantling America (p.197):
Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery.
Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent — people of every race, color, and creed.
More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed.
Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans.
What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created.
What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well.
Chris Matthews’ haughty dismissal of Rep. Bachmann was based on a complete lack of knowledge of American history. Matthews would be well advised to open a book instead of calling Michele Bachmann a “balloon head.”
Who’s replacing Ted Kennedy as the Senate’s moral conscience? Do you feel like time traveling? It might just be possible. That and a great talk about the constitution and ObamaCare fills this Strictly Right!
On this episode of Strictly Right Andrew and Ari get ready for the veil and modesty festival in Iran, examine the racist policies of the Obama Justice Department, ask whether God is welcome in Canada, discuss the upcoming blockbuster – Ladies Man II – starring John Edwards and much more
The above warning can now be found on… the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and other documents associated with the founding of the United States.
Parents are actually being warned of the evils of the Founding Documents – the bedrock of the United States. Moreover, parents are encouraged to tell their children that their country is inherently racist, bigoted, etc. Do you need any more evidence that the left hates the United States?
Preceding Barack Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency, he promised to “fundamentally transform” the United States. He made this promise because he, and his disciples, view the United States as a fundamentally flawed nation. The left believes that the federal government is too limited by the “horse and buggy” mentality of the Founders, as Franklin Roosevelt put it. The left wants to impose a European style welfare state on the United States. The largest obstacles preventing the final implementation of this leftist distopia are the Constitution and a proper understanding of American history. As such, the left has used the Alinsky tactic of isolating and demonizing their ‘opponent.’ The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution have been ceaselessly pilloried. They are known to a new generation as racist, sexist bigots – not heroic and brilliant patriots that risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to live in freedom. Now the left has moved onto the actual documents that make America great. This warning label is just the next step by the left to delegitimize the checks and balances on the federal government.
Ted Nugent’s new book, Ted, White, and Blue was just released, and in my quest for information on the Nuge I came across this op-ed he wrote for the Washington Times last week. Pure awesomeness.
Water, water, everywhere water. Know it, embrace it, manage it or drown. Same goes for cars, trucks, chain saws, knives, crowbars, blowtorches, teakettles and guns. I will not be denied the pragmatic, functional utility of anything based on the inept, clumsy, irresponsible failure of brain-dead, uncoordinated numskulls.
I will not drown; drink and drive; chain-saw massacre anyone; stumble; slice, burn or shoot myself, nor will I ever hold up a bank. So the best advice would be to think, improvise, adapt and overcome, man up, but by all means, leave me alone. You don’t ban electric guitars just because someone may have a lapse in logic, goodwill and decency and spontaneously break out into country and Western music. The vast majority of sensible people will use electric guitars as God intended and whip out good, sexy rock ‘n’ roll licks.
I need my cars, trucks, chain saws, knives, crowbars, blowtorches, scalding-hot water, guitars and guns, thank you. Amazingly, I have mastered them all, and they are all wonderful ingredients for my American dream of rugged individualism, declared independence and self-sufficiency. They all serve me well, and I am not giving up any of them. Ever.
[...]
So why in God’s good name would any human being wish to force unarmed helplessness on another? That level of cruel indecency and forced victimization is incomprehensible to me and about 100 million Americans who own guns and believe in self-defense. The lunatic-fringe left won’t dare touch the issue of gun control. Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.
Write this down: Gun-free zones are a felon’s playground. Ban gun-free zones now. Join the NRA.
Good people don’t want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don’t want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don’t like carjackers. We like them dead. We don’t like armed robbers. We like them dead.
We have examined all the evidence we could possibly need to know that calling 911 is a joke unless, of course, the cops bring a dustpan and a mop to clean up the dead monster we just shot while protecting our families.
In a commencement address to the Columbia University Law School’s graduating class, Attorney General Eric Holder had some “interesting” commentary, saying that it was young people making changes to the constitution that brought about the end of slavery, gave women the right to vote, and several other examples. To “modernize” the legal system is one thing, but now we have a member of the President’s cabinet admitting fault in the constitution. Despite what they may think, the constitution is not a living, breathing document that needs to be changed and interpreted at every turn; it’s an unchanging, supreme law that should be accepted as is. I know what you’re thinking…what I just said is common sense, right? I thought so too.
