Political Numbness

Seriously?  This is what the administration wants us to know regarding the President’s outlandish statements on the Supreme Court recently?  President Obama — a Constitutional Law Professor — wants the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and instead wants them to look toward politics when judging law?  Do we understand that correctly Mr. President?  Funny how Democrats want the Supreme Court to look to the law regarding other favored categories, such as Abortion, Title IX, Segregation, and a litnany of other liberal hot button issues. 

No Mr. President, we understood you precisely prior to all of your recent back tracking.  Hypocritical much?

Last Sunday, as it turns out. was Hayden Panettiere day in Washington D.C..  Evidently Ms. Panettiere’s contributions to the city have been such that they wanted to honor her.  What were those contributions, you ask?  Calling attention to Washington D.C.’s “unjust plight“.  You see, Washington D.C. – the very seat of our national government — is not a State of this union, but is instead a federal district.  A district, purposely constructed in such a manner, so as not to stand any State above another and to ensure the federal government would in no way be subservient to any State government.  And despite the careful and considered opinions of our country’s forefathers, Ms. Panettiere believes she understands the issues better than the very individuals who crafted our union in the first place.  According to Ms. Panettiere, among others, believes that Washington D.C. should be a State in its own right, with full voting powers in the United States Congress.  Despite what the Constitution says, of course (hint, see Art 1, section 8).

But just reading the pertinent passage in the Constitution doesn’t give you the detail you might want to understand why the Founding Fathers established the seat of federal government in the fashion they did.  For that you but need read Madison’s Treatise on the matter.  Madison, after all, was the “Father of the Constitution“?  One would think he would have a grasp on such lofty principles.  Yet, even after reading it most still might not understand.  Prior to 1913 the States appointed their Senators, but with the ratification of the 17th Amendment Senators would from that point forward be elected by popular vote.  The original intent of the Founding Fathers was that Senators were the representatives of their States, whereas the Representatives were the people’s representatives.  So as to ensure Congress was not unduly influenced, or at the behest of a State, the Federal government would have it’s own seat.  Congress changed one of the Constitution’s balancing principles, and it’s served as one of the forces that has tipped the balance of power away from the States toward the Federal government.  There was, of course, also the little issue of an insurrection in 1783 that weighed heavily on those crafting our union.

Of course the issue of statehood is not new, and Ms. Panettiere is just the latest celebrity or popular figure  to endorse the measure.  Despite numerous previous attempts at changing the intent of the founding fathers, Individuals like Ms. Panettiere who have no understanding of our Constitution or the intent of its many passages, keep trying.

I realize the Politico article was written specifically about what a Republican Congress intended to do to repeal Obamacare, and how it could go about it.  But I dislike pieces like this because it only tells half the story.  Indeed, there is a very long row to walk before we could get to total repeal, but there are also some extraordinary circumstances on the Republican side that will help along the way.  The little detail that Obamacare is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down in whole, or in part, by the Supreme Court.  And everyone knows the Republicans are playing both sides of the fence on this one.  Or more accurately, some Republicans are.  Neither of which is addressed in the piece.

Many of the top Republican leaders will do the bare minimum to repeal Obamacare in order to appease the Tea Partiers, yet will not take the hard stance of making it into a knock-down, drag-out fight on the floor of the House and Senate.  Instead they’re waiting for the Supreme Court to do the real dirty work for them.  If it’s over-turned outright they get to crow about how they stood firm in the face of a President who hasn’t a clue what our nation stands for.  And if its struck down only in part, they can reassess and work from there.  It’s pragmatic yet cowardly in my view considering the out-pouring of anger that it and unlimited spending and debt have uncovered.

Permeating and perpetuating this cowardice is the Republican party’s desire to be “liked”.  The party as a whole realizes the main stream media will never give us a fair shake in a debate and that often colors not only the actions we take, but the words we choose to describe our actions.  Better off would we all be if we got over it already and stopped playing nice.  Have we learned nothing from the Democrats?  They’re not the least interested in playing nice with us and compromising, so why are we?

In fact the Democrats have shined the light on a lesson we should be learning.  Politics is no longer about right and wrong, or principle.  It’s about numbers and nothing more.  It’s long past time we got in their proverbial faces and simply did what we thought we ought, instead of what we thought we could get away with.  If after two years our Republican leaders haven’t seen into the heart of the Tea Party movement and understood it for what it is, they don’t deserve to be our leaders.  If they also think they can tip-toe around Obamacare and a Presidential agenda that at its core is all about the systematic destruction of an entire way of life, then not only do they not deserve to be called our leaders, they don’t deserve to be in Washington at all. 

We want real conviction.  We want real steel.  You’ve heard us, now act.

Yet another Democrat has walked the plank.  Stupak, however, was instrumental in the final days of the healthcare debate as his group of 12 was whittled down to 6.  And an “agreement” between his group of ostensibly pro-life Democrats and the Administration regarding use of federal funds for abortion coverage ultimately turned the tide.  His group provided the final needed votes that passed healthcare reform. 

Since the vote Stupak has been under intense pressure and his reelection to office was in grave doubt.  On Wednesday he hinted that he would forgo the fight and retire and today he is reporting he will indeed do that.  The pressure he’s been under is specifically related to the “deal” struck with the administration had President Obama sign an executive order that “clarified” the administration’s view on the use of federal funds for abortion.  The problem with that of course is that while executive orders can often have the weight of law, when they run directly afoul of actual laws they have no impact.  In this case there is specific language in the Healthcare reform law detailing how funds are to be used for abortion.  And that language erects a shell-game.  Specifically the law:

Establish a mechanism for permitting the funding of elective abortions by private health plans that receive federal subsidies in the form of premium tax credits. The bill creates a policy of segregating funds that presumptively keeps the premium payment for the overall plan separate from a premium of not less than $1 per month per subscriber that pays for elective abortions. All enrollees in these plans would be required to make both types of premium payments, irrespective of age, sex, or family status.

Directly appropriate $7 billion over five years in operating funds for FQHCs. Because these funds would not need to be included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Labor and HHS, and because the underlying statute includes no limitation on abortion funding, these funds—as well as $1.5 billion in appropriations for the National Health Service Corps and $1.5 billion for FQHC construction and renovation—could be used to pay directly for elective abortions and to expand abortion facilities.

Require OPM to contract with private insurers to offer at least two multi-state health insurance plans in each state. By law, at least one of these plans must exclude abortion coverage, but OPM will have discretion to organize and promote the other multi-state plan so that it includes elective abortion coverage. This multi-state plan would be governed by the same “segregation of funds” device that would oblige every enrollee in these plans to pay not less than $1 per month for abortion coverage. This abortion premium would be executed by check or even a separate monthly payroll deduction for abortion.

Leave to the discretion of HHS whether a mandate for “preventative services” for women under the bill could be interpreted to include elective abortions. Efforts to include language clarifying that this does not include abortion were rebuffed.

Leave unanswered whether its non-preemption provisions include state laws on abortion beyond those specifically enumerated in the bill. State laws on abortion funding and parental notification and consent are specifically protected from preemption. The Senate bill is silent on whether it could be construed to preempt these state laws regarding such topics as late-term abortions.

Stupak and his group knew all this of course, but because of the intense pressure being exerted on them to vote with the majority they needed a veil — however thin — to cover them.  Unfortunately for them the public saw through it and Stupak had little hope of winning reelection in a region barely won by Obama in 2008.

I linked to the story last week, then Illinois Representative Hare made his now infamous statement that he “doesn’t worry about the Constitution”.  I knew that statement was going to grace numerous print and television adds in the upcoming election cycle.  Viola.

Nothing says it better that what he said.  This is exactly the difference between Conservatives and Liberals right here:

I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest…

Liberals care about the Constitution when they want to, and don’t care about it when it stands in their way.  If that is the mentality of the left, then ask yourself what kind of political social compact we really have.  If we, in effect, have no compact and the rule of law means nothing then the country had better be wary because that is very likely to haunt us all over the long-term.

In the immediate term, Liberals should not expect their interests to be preserved if they are not willing to preserve the interests of Conservatives.  Social compact, or compact be damned.  Decide.

From the news all weekend, you’d think they were around every corner.  Did they tell you that one-third of those jobs were temporary census positions and other government positions?  So close to one-third of these positions will be going away within a few more weeks, not that I’m celebrating that outcome.  I just dislike the MSM selectively covering “news” and how it’s covered.  If they chose to cover similar news in similar ways (as they did under the Bush administration for example), then we’d not be having this conversation right now.

The fact remains that for all of the talk of the Obama administration and over one year in office, they have very little to show for it.  Well, outside of an unconstitutional health-care bill and power-grab that was passed using the shadiest tactics I’ve seen in my life-time.

Yes, we know the Democrats don’t worry about the Constitution.  Other than this blatant moron the actions of the Democratic party speak for themselves.

I have no idea what has been going on in Great Britain these past couple of generations, but Great Britain is turning into the ultimate nanny state.  Which is a great shame as far as I’m concerned.  The most egregious example of this nanny state that I have yet seen is the story run in yesterday’s Daily Mail that details how a pet shop owner was arrested, fined, and forced to wear and ankle tracker bracelet for selling a single gold-fish to a 16-year old.

Selling a gold-fish.

Completely unbelievable.

So says Savid Murrin.  I can certainly understand what he’s referring to as we have now drifted very far from the original intent of our Democratic Republic.  If you can change the intention and understanding of a constitution without having to undertake a war to do it, than there is absolutely no limit to what you can do or impose on others.  And it also means there can be no expectation that the written law means anything.  They’re just words and can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

Remember her?  The woman that falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players in 2006 of rape at a party?  Why is it that a woman can accuse a man of rape, and that man can be tried and convicted in public and his life destroyed, but once the accusation is known to be false that woman is not then herself prosecuted for the lie?

This woman deserves to have her life destroyed, every bit as much as she purposely destroyed the lives of those students.  And the race baiting poverty pimps that supported and defended her in the press need to be destroyed along with her.  These self-serving race baiters are the primary reason any vestige of racism still exists in this country.  Period.

The participants never answered the question of whether a Latina judge reaches better conclusions, but at least in some cases, it appears likely that she would reach a different conclusion from a white male jurist hearing the same evidence.

So says a study of racial harassment cases from 1981 to 2003, which indicated that even though the Judges followed the same procedural steps in trying their cases and formulating their opinions they were more likely to find for the plaintive if they were black, or especially if they were a black female, than if they were a white male.

That is an example of judicial activism if I ever saw one.  Activism that breaks along racial lines and is a travesty of justice.  So much for justice being blind.

Apparently Senator Shumer can’t read. Shumer and company are preparing the introduce legislation that:

ban companies with 20 percent or more foreign make-up, as well as government contractors, from being able to fund political advertisements. But the new ban would also extend to any company that received and has not yet paid back Wall Street bailout funds.

Senator Shumer, meet the the Supreme Court.

no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.

This is one of those cases where clear logic wasn’t consulted when drafting the law in the first place.  The government has no right to restrict political speech — by anyone.  Yet despite very clear and direct language from the Supreme Court is going to take a populist approach that is clearly unconstitutional.  Do not these fools take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

Just in case Senator Shumer misplace his pocket constitution, here’s the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So says the Obama administration.

the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Read the article.  The Obama administration isn’t referring to court ordered tracking, but warrantless tracking.  And I’m sorry, but no government — Republican or Democratic run — has any right to invade my privacy.  The government does not have the right to know where I am at, where I travel, or why.

I could not agree more!  I said when McCain/Feingold passed that it was blatantly unconstitutional and I couldn’t believe that people were actually defending it.  I patently reject that Congress has any right to deny me exercising my political speech and today the Supreme Court agreed.  If Congress wants to limit scandal and influence peddling in Congress, then they need look no further than themselves.  They are the principal cause for influence peddling.  After all if you didn’t have Congressmen who took bribes and sold access — err, I mean entertained lobbyists, then there would be no need what so ever for campaign finance reform.