This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Constitution Is What They Make It
“You are free to not eat broccoli, but if you don’t the government will impose a penalty on you. This penalty is really just a tax and since the government has the power to tax for all sorts of reasons, they can tax you if you don’t eat broccoli.”
This is the logic of Justice Roberts argument in the Obamacare case that was handed down today.
This should not surprise us because the Constitution is whatever the Justices wish it to be. Now they have handed the government another mandate to regulate our behavior. As we know they can and do regulate our behavior already. For example, if you smoke, they will tax your habit heavily. It is not a giant leap to force you to do something they want you to do by penalizing you for not doing it. According to today’s ruling, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing this.
The technical details of the ruling are interesting but very disappointing. Roberts’ justification of the Obamacare Act relied on the taxing power of the federal government as well as the general welfare clause. Roberts shot down the government’s reliance on the Commerce Clause to mandate our behavior. He wrote, "The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular [interstate] transactions." Some clever commenters are saying, “Aha, that sneaky old Roberts. He always wanted to limit the wide powers of the Commerce Clause and this is how he did it.”
This limitation of the Commerce Clause may or may not be significant. Only future cases will answer this question. Based on the history of the Court, I have my doubts that this will impose any new restrictions on the government’s broad powers to regulate the economy.
The argument that a penalty was really a tax was, to say the least, a novel approach since the Administration thought it was a penalty and not a “tax” (the statute clearly points this out). Thus Justice Scalia’s famous query during argument that the government could force us to eat broccoli under the government’s theory of the Commerce Clause was cleverly turned aside by appearing to support the logic of Scalia’s broccoli argument yet upholding the law under the taxing authority.
The tax argument by Roberts is a good example of finding means to justify and end.
None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.
Roberts' final words on the subject:
But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
Roberts' logic is tenuous: none of the examples of taxation he cites impose a “tax” on something someone doesn’t do. If I wish to buy expensive heavily taxed imported goods, that’s my choice. Under his logic they could “tax” me for not buying domestic goods because it serves the goal of fostering “the growth of domestic industry.” Roberts just makes it up to fit his intended outcome.
The Court’s dissenters make quick work of Justice Roberts' invention (turning a penalty into a tax). Justice Kennedy's dissent on behalf of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito:
Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty … is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.
It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.
This use of the taxing power was hailed by most legal scholars this morning as a proper conclusion by Roberts. Most whom I heard couldn’t understand why anyone would think it would not pass constitutional muster. Most legal scholars see nothing wrong with expanding federal power to implement social policies they believe are beneficial. This is the “living constitution” theory which has guided legal scholarship for many years, most specifically since FDR’s New Deal. But it is an old argument going back to the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans.
What Justice Roberts has done may be another “switch in time to save nine.”* Perhaps it is a bit hyperbolic to so suggest this, but clearly he wanted to uphold Obamacare and take the Court out of the political and policy spotlight by this legal sleight of hand. Left-wing commentators are saying how crafty the Justice is to uphold this worthy social policy on the one hand, and yet hew to his supposedly conservative roots with his Commerce Clause arguments on the other. Most of these people could care less about the Constitution: to them the end justifies the means in every extension of federal power.
This is the problem with progressives who think the government has the right to regulate the economy in any way Congress deems it, and the Court is full of progressives. Justice Ginsberg in her opinion said, "The Chief Justice's crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress' efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it."
The Constitution has been gutted by the Supreme Court, and their butchers work continues. The Founders’ fear of a powerful central government has been betrayed by the Court. Our original constitutional limitations on federal power have been ground down by redefining the Constitution to suit government goals. A Court can now find constitutional power for almost anything the government wishes to do.
With but a few exceptions we now closely resemble the Nanny states of Europe. And those countries have powerful central governments with few limitations on their power. Now with government-run health care, it would be difficult to distinguish the U.S. from, say, France. After 225 years, we are “them”. Thank you, Justice Roberts for doing your part.
*It is ironic that the justice who switched his vote in the famous “switch” case ( West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish) was also a Roberts, Owen Roberts.
»
- advertisements -
You're a fuckin' dumbass.
When I was a kid, my doctor came to my house when I was sick. Mom handed him cash, or a check, and the transaction was complete. There weren't any insurance forms to file and no bills came in the mail.
Medical care was affordable once, before the insurance companies, lawyers and government elbowed their way into it, their grubby little dick-beaters grabbing every d0llar they can... and when they can't, they make up charges.
Obama could have beat the drum to make health care affordable again by getting .gov, the lawyers and the insurance companies out of it. But instead, he helped create idiots like you who now view it as have/have not. Winners and 'free riders' (you even have to use the .gov/MSM language to form your fucked argument because there prolly isn't an original thought in your zombie head).
GFY - I hope you lose your fucking job and your health care. Then we'll see how long you whistle your fucking tune then, jerk-off.
I'm self employed and pay for my own coverage, so fuck you right back you idiot. Strain yourself trying to justify your position if it's all you have, and it is. Talk about sheep.
But then you sitll think Obama is a Muslim, and his Christian pastor Wright was a terrorist. There's no making sense to any of you.
You want the ACA to be a bad thing, so you start there and work like hell to build a case supporting it, and remain dead wrong, as always. Hopelessly, flat, fucking stupid!
You people are truly moronic.
Woot Bob wins the new prize. Idiot of the month. Anytime the government can now tax you for something you do not buy is unconstitutional. Go read the constution. I do not care what the Supreme Court rules and I expected this outcome. 75% of the people in this country did not want this and I hope it gets repealed to be honest. This decision was not the will of the people.
Anytime you take money involuntarily from one man to give to another it is robbery nothing more. I do not care how you spin it.
bob, take a deep breath. Relax. OK, now, listen to this. Nearly 30 years ago I worked in one of the Big 8 accounting firms, Ernst & Whinney, in their Houston practice. I did a lot of healthcare audits. Speaking with one of the accounting department personnel I learned that 26% of the hospital's expenses were due to trying to remain in compliance with govt regulations requiring reports of services performed, etc. That was the mid-80's. Do you think the govt has become more or less intrusive since then? The burden is simply too big. We are at (or beyond, I think, and simply living on a debt-infused high) a tipping point. More govt involvement in healthcare is not going to make this nation healthier.
When in the course of human events...
Spoken like a eurotrash peasant.
So tell me, which Central or Southern European fiefdom do you claim as your ancestral home? Dollars to navy beans your people cut your deal with the Roman Legions a few millenia ago and have been compliant but selfish little drones ever since.
the obama team defended it as a tax, not a mandate. please read the case
The ability to accept heresay as a statistic correlation is called fatal stupidity. As lower life expectancy has to do with diet, genetics and lifestyle, any correlation with this tyrannical rag is merely coincidence. Your fatal stupidity is typical of those that wear their collars with pride.
Bob do you look in a mirror while writing? you really should..
As I understand it from what I have read, yes that is correct. A simple majority in the Senate would be all that is required to overturn a tax.
With this decision, perhaps finally the assertion that government, when acting as its own judge and arbiter, will choose to voluntarily limit its own power, can be revealed for all the silly Hopium that it is.
I also find it ironically hilarious that Obama, the greatest Teleprompter of the United States, needed the twisted, stupefying logic of the Dubya-appointed "conservative" John Roberts to get his "landmark" sick-care legislation upheld.
The government can make you eat broccoli, and if you don't, it's time to pay the penalty. The government can make you buy Treasuries with your retirement money, and if you don't, it's time to pay the penalty. The government can make you buy Soylent Green, and if you don't, it's time to pay the penalty.
Still, this particular SCOTUS can hold its head high; for the worst decision in SC history is still Dred Scott vs. Sandford. It took civil war and a constitutional amendment to change that ruling.
Isn't this the same SCOTUS that gave us "Corporations are people"
I got completely sauced on Smutty nose IPA yesterday.
I cant take much more of this.
What the hell are we going to do!?!?!?!
i suggest dogfishhead 90 minute IPA
Used to have a pit bull named fishhead... Cool dog but a huge pain in the ass at the same time. Great with people but not male dogs or cats, he even climbed up a tree and caught a cat once.
Cargo cult Bitchez! cool free stuff just keeps falling from the sky and I want some of it!
I can't decide - John Frum or John Galt. Which way should I go?
Why would anyone be surprised?
Is this not the way of fascism? The Supreme court has rarely stood up for the rights of Americans. It is a lever for the State, the Constitution is its' fulcrum and that power continues to be used to transition liberty to tyranny.
This is not the first time nor will it be the last and yet, we hope that the denizens in control of out past, present and futures will somehow redeem the dream. We yearn for the light to fall upon us in the gathering darkness, to spare us the malicious actions of those that would put us under foot.
This is what all victims feel. Powerless. Hopeless. Betrayed.
The question is: will we continue to be victims? Will we continue to lend support, to lift up our conquerors and legitimate their rule?
All the raiments of legitimacy come from the closet of The People: taxation, voting, respect for the law. Without these, there is no power great enough to subdue the passions of democracy- THIS IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED THE WAY IT IS, to allow a small minority to manitain control, either by the actions of the executive or the rulings of the court.
The problem lies not in the trashing of the Consitution, that is merely a sympton of the tyranny that is the fruit of the tree of government. We must cut down this tree and pledge to never plant it again.
"THIS IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED THE WAY IT IS, to allow a small minority to manitain control, either by the actions of the executive or the rulings of the court."
Wrong. The controveresy surrounding Marbury v. Madison wouldn't have been necessary had the system been designed with juducial oversight over the legislature in mind.
You haven't even read the arguments during the Constitutional convention or YOU WOULD REALIZE THIS. Wrong? Marbury v Madison is not part of the context. There is a reason for every branch, for which powers they were given and to what purpose. The Merchantilists that created this document were MONARCHISTS. They just wanted the same constitutional freedoms guaranteed every Englishman of property. They wanted Washington to be our new king. He declined.
The Founders were well aware of the problems of democracy and the passions of the crowd. In the entire document, as it was originally constructed, the ONLY democratic institution is the House of Representatives. Every other institution is designed to control democratic passion.
In failing to study our REAL history, we're make assumptions about the thoughts and intents of out founders. These assumptions are wrong. The Constitution is a document that attempted to correct the excesses of the British monarchy while maintaing control of society by the merchantilist class. That is why so few people were allowed to vote for it, you had to own a certain amount of property and wealth to vote.
The split in power between the House and Senate, the feature that makes the USA a Constitutional Republic rather than a straight democracy, was designed to limit "mob rule," and undue influence from individual states as well as the monied elite. That's what the electoral college was all about as well in terms of presidential elections.
Arguments from the Monarchists have little to do with this arraingment as they lost the day to the influence of the merchant class who were influenced by the philosphies of the French enlightment thinkers, Locke and the Masons.
Basically the intent behind this construct was to split the baby, making agreement by the majority of the population as well as by appointed senators necessary for legislation. This gave small states more power in the Senate and populous states more power in the House - a feature which was supposed to act as a check and balance as compared with a system that only had one of these structures.
All this has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court's authority to review and nullify acts of the Executive and Legislative branches - which was not discussed in the Constitution at all, but was invented through Marbury.
IMHO this potential judicial check on both Executive and Legislative abuse is nice in theory, but the ability of both of these branches to appoint partisan hacks to the bench has reduced this potential oversight to political rubber-stamping of Federal over-reaching.
One, if you control "mob rule" or democratic passions (sounds more orderly. no?) you benefit the monied elite, who were the men of property. While it is nice to see you have some understanding here, you neglect to realize that the Articles of Confederation- our first government with a history and set of mechanisms of its' own, including a "supreme court" did set a precedent of the court ruling on legislation as being in accordance with the Articles.
Americans rarely pay attention to this time frame, but not only were the arguments resolved in these sessions, they became the reasonings for much that appears in the Constitution. I recommend "The First American Republic, 1774-1789" by Chorolton.
Judicial activism began with Marbury v. Madison. John Marshal found himself between a rock and a hard place when the Federalists lost power and were replaced by the Jeffersonian Republicans, not to be confused with the current crop who call themselves Republicans. Mr. Marbury had been given a judgeship by the Adams Administration but the letter of appointment had not been delivered before the new administration had taken office. It is believed that Mr. Madison found several midnight appointments in Mr. Adam’s desk and promptly destroyed them before they could be delivered. The Federalists wanted those appointments to go to their cronies. The Jeffersonians wanted to save those appointments for their cronies. Marshal was afraid that if he decided for the Federalists that the Republicans would impeach him. Then again if he decided for the Republicans any friends he had in the Senate would be lost and he might very well be impeached anyway. So given the option of two undesirable doors, he opted for option three. He chose not to choose. Both factions wanted the judgeships but both factions also desperately wanted the other side not to get those positions. So, he gave both factions half a loaf. He conjured up the term “unconstitutional” and decided that the law creating these positions was unconstitutional and therefore null and void. In the process, he carved out for the court an incredible power, the power to declare the acts of congress and later the president null and void by deeming them unconstitutional.
I posted this on another thread. For the purposes of review consider this: Our system had three common sources: English, Colonial, and Indian. It is based on one of the most robust and simple geometric forms in the world, the tetrahedron. A tetrahedron appears to the casual observer as a three sided pyramid. If you think about it, our system is based on the number three. Everyone knows the Constitution divided the government into three branches. The system of checks and balances were designed to rein in the power of the various branches by making them dependent on one another to exercise power. At various points in history the executive branch has usurped more power than it was allotted. An overzealous executive was reined in by the impeachment of Andrew Johnson bringing the system back into equilibrium. What is not commonly understood is the concept of federalism. This idea was borrowed from the Iroquois Confederation. This system too exhibits the facets of the tetrahedron. Sovereignty was to be divided into three equal facets. Everyone is familiar with the first facet, federal sovereignty. This was the purview of the Federalists. Individuals like Washington, Marshal and Hamilton did what they could to flesh out federal sovereignty. It must be understood that the federal government was the child of the states not the other way around. So, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the second facet, state sovereignty, was well understood. State sovereignty only came into question after Appomattox. The third facet is probably the single most misunderstood facet of the federal system, popular sovereignty. The sovereignty of the individual is spoken to in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments speak to the social contract theory. A contract exists between the citizen and his government. The right to life, liberty and property are natural rights, rights that are ours simply from the virtue of being human. We are absolutely free. All power emanates from the people. The people under the social contract willingly cede some of their sovereignty, some of their natural rights, to state and federal governments in return for order and security. This cession of personal sovereignty is predicated on the assumption that national order will be maintained by rule of law. Inherent in that assumption is the notion that government will be a protector of the citizenry not prey upon it. Everything from the Palmer raids, to the Red Scare, to the War on Terror has been used to eradicate the concept of popular sovereignty and natural rights from the public psychic. The system is out of balance. The individual has become something to be feared. The fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth Amendments have been stricken from the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments receive almost no mention. We are now told by Homeland Security that the greatest threat to our social order will come from our own citizenry. Walk around today and talk about popular sovereignty and you may very well be snuffed out.
Nature abhors an imbalance. Balance will be restored. The rights of the individual will be restored either by the ballot or the bullet. We are in 1850.
Well said cloud. There are time when having discussion with friends or in a social gathering you are looked at like a crazy fool. I now try to avoid them as you never know who might be listening in. when I consider it ell they have portfolios on anyone coming here and posting. Well all save MDB!
I have come to understand that the base of the tetrahedron, the fourth side if you will is the fourth estate. In the 18th century the fourth side of the pyramid was occupied by the pamphleteer’s such as Thomas Pain. Today, the fourth side of the tetrahedron is the free flow of information as exhibited by a free press and most specifically the blog sphere where ideas are floated on their merit as opposed to those ideas in the printed press which are floated on the credentials of their authors. The importance of the fourth side or the fourth estate cannot be underestimated. The free flow of information is vital to maintaining the balance among the three visible sides of the pyramid as exhibited by the three branches of government and the three levels of federalism. Inhibit the flow of information and one side will in time overwhelm the other two. This would be analogous to collapsing one leg of a tripod. The whole system becomes unstable and collapses. Out of self-preservation, we must resist the efforts to stop the flow of information by any means necessary. We must speak up or quieter more sinister forces will prevail.
Very true cloud and thanks for jogging my memory. I do my best to speak of the evil. Contracting with HUD is tough. The other day my boss was even receptive. In the arena I run in one must be careful. Politics is a killer.
Well said. +100. I wish more people understood our history as well.
Lysander Spooner - No Treason
Nuff said........
LOL the Oromney ad up top!
"Elections have consequences. obamacare survived, it falls on November 6th". ROFLMAO
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hypocrite.
I vote republican, and here's hoping you lose. I'll not contribute to, nor help O win. But neither will I contribute one thin dime to you, asshat.
you vote?
Since I turned 18 in 1979.
Got a problem with that?
YOU? Care to put up your record?
Reagan twice (80 and 84).
Bush Sr. twice (88 and 92).
Dole (96). Worked on his campaign, knew he would not win. Old Codger Disease.
Bush Jr. twice (00 and 04).
McCain (08). Old Codger Disease strikes again. ;-)
Yeah, I know. Futile. ;-(
Better than the alternatives. Really glad "War Hero" kerry and "Green Meany" algore did not win!
Will not be voting this time round. Two losers.
Sittin this one out.
(when you see red arrows on my posts, it's because I like to start the ball rolling!!!) ;-)
> Two losers.
Lol ... two and you makes three!
great, you vote for the Red wing of the PARTY. newsflash, both wings of the PARTY are just banker whores set up to keep you believing that you have some say in government. you don't. so save yourself the trouble on voting day and stay home.
Agree on thing1and thing2.
Disagree on vote.
The lack of voting enables the elite to maintain power. If we don't attempt to make our voices heard, we truly deserve the outcome and lose the ability to be considered anything but part of the problem.
Vote for Ron Paul.
Vote for john39.
Vote.
not voting is also a statement on the system, clearly indicating a complete lack of legitimacy. How do you win in a rigged casino? as long as you keep playing in their arena, you perpetuate the fraud.
Nice try, but people don't get it. The idea that our nation is "Blessed by God (or the Invisible Hand) most High With the Most Perfect System on Earth" precludes most from even considering that non-participation is a viable option. You should go live with the Anabaptists; I've thought about it myself.
yeah, but its the truth... the whole point of the red v. blue game is to keep people sucked into a rigged system, endlessly fighting over inconsequential issues while the fascists rob the taxpayer blind. Notice, the never fix anything... perhaps if political parties were scrapped, corporate money somehow removed from politics and the average american learn some basic critical thinking skills... and then democracy might actually work. not holding my breath here.
The system is very broken, very corrupt and very dangerous. Most similar moments in history have "political" solutions that do one thing first then voting second.
fact - this matrix extends past the financial system and into the entire legal system.
and the medical system, and the media/entertainment system, and the religion system, and the education system.... need I go on? WTF people.
School to (for profit) Prison Pipeline.
This day saddens me like no other.
Justice Roberts, I label thee a traitor.
May you be treated as such from here forth.
Post gets a fiver from me.
Roberts Rules Supreme
Am I the only one who sees
The forest thru the trees
Roberts’ rules the elected chaotic
Rewriting congress for being myopic
Altruistic is his play
Turn the tables and let them flay
Set them up with defeat
Then lose their mouths to find their feet
The elected lose when they claim this win
2010 Tea Party, was a way to begin
Now the focus is crystal clear
There is one party whose end is near
What other outcome could be more esthetic
Than to enable the voter and not the pathetic
Its all Bushes fault. He appointed Robberts. Bush 41.
Roberts also concluded that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right as opposed to a collective right. That decision alone justifies his appointment.
The US Constitution, on paper, actually makes the US Congress supreme over the judges as well as the President of the USA, the Constitution encourages the Congress to remove any judge who is not in 'good behaviour', in other words, not honouring the US Constitution ... removal of the judges to be done accusation by House and trial by Senate. No crime is necessary, just lack of 'good behaviour' by the judge.
But this assumes the US House and Senate are honourable men and women. So removing of judges is almost never done in American history, just a few occasional idiots who did not serve their masters well.
With the Congress itself corrupted, the mechanisms of the US Constitution are thus dead.
It is said that when John Conyers, head of the US House Judiciary Committee, tricked by Mr 'hope and change' Obama, when Conyers thought about going after the corrupt US judges jailing innocent black people, they arrested Conyers' wife, put her in prison, and told Conyers he would be next in prison - or dead - unless he backed off. So the House Judiciary Committee went back to doing Zero about corrupt American judges.
It seems that the US Constitution died at Gettysburg in 1863, when the US nationalist-imperialist party under Lincoln, destroyed the ability of 'these United States' to secede - a right of secession that we explicitly have in the European Union (on paper, anyway, ha!).
But one of the remarkable things in America, has been getting Americans to submit to that strange cult of law, lawyers and courts. So called 'rule of law' in the USA, is just rule by gangsters hiring and bribing thugs in black robes to sign off on what they do.
In a corrupt country courts can be total sh*t. As someone said on ZH the other day, buying the media and the courts both, rigs the whole game.
Robert's decision is 'they can do whatever they want tax-wise' means he just nullified the supreme court into obsolescence.
They might as well go home now.
Gettysburg is a bit of a reach mister.
You are getting into States Rights and a established way of life that existed back then prior to the Civil War in the USA.
Indeed the entire Civil War could be upheld as a effort by the United States to maintain and preserve the Union. While getting rid of issues that infested the Nation.
Vicksburg was broken so badly in the war at the same time Gettysburg. Vicksburg did not celebrate the 4th with fireworks and such for nearly 85 years after the war.
Gettysburg by itself was a town that happened to be a crossroads and a meeting engagement between Calvary on the Union Side and a Infantry Division on the Confederate Side turned into a brutal 3 days of fighting that left a permanent mark on our Nation forever.
How bad? It took weeks and months to dispose of the dead Livestock, including horses by pyres. It would take years and decades before the ground itself is cleared and possibly never cleared.
As far as the Courts go yesterday's ruling left a great void inside myself. I already pay into regular premiums for health insurance and occasionally require care or other services for which I pay whatever the Insurance does not. Because I know that Health Care is expensive and potentially into the thousands of dollars for a ER checkup on a tummy ache I don't use Health Care like I would for example use Walmart for my Coffee and Doughnuts.
If the Government was to deem Coffee and Doughnuts a bad habit they can tax or penalize me for having the same.
That I will not stand for. I used to smoke and broke that habit when I became aware of the dangers to the health and the damage that was done. And can understand the taxes on the pack of smokes.
But I see nothing in the IRS at the Tax Table in April of every year that tells me I must pay for the Smoking or the Coffee and Doughnuts in the morning.
Until yesterday.
I think the Elections in November will become one of the nastiest fights I have ever seen. This will become all about repealing health care. The Legislative side failed the People and rammed Obamacare through, the Executive wastes great energy that is not infinite to see it through. And even go so far as to imply the Courts have no right to interfere.
"Checks and Balances" is finished. Thus also the Constitution is finished.
Back to the upcoming elections. I deliberately will not vote for Romney and Obama. No sir. Nor my spouse. Nor half the town that I live in. As this day and the upcoming days settle into the true horror of the emerging Government and it's ability to use our own finite finances against us to modify behavior such as Coffee/Doughnuts = bad / how much money it should be paid to have coffee and doughnuts at all.
By the time our Young People grow up, they are going to be onery and miserable because half of the behaviors has been modified by the Government to the point of not enjoying Life Itself.
Indeed, one should pay a penalty each year for being alive now.
I for one say fuck it. I am going to find me some smokes, coffee and doughnuts and damn the IRS in April. They can penalize all they wish. They will find that the income AGI will effectively be Zero.
Does this mean that Armed Agents of IRS will break down my door and haul me off to the Camp to be reprogrammed? Possibly. Why? Because I go to Canada by car to get Coffee and Doughnuts that have been made illegal and subject to a tax or penalty designed to discourage this morning kick one needs to get going.
The People of the USA will now need to unite and eliminate this cancer upon our Government, it's checks and balances, the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights etc If we don't then we are all lost.
Waitress, pour me another cup of Coffee Please.
Sorry your request for human assistance is denied. Swipe your EBT card for further assistance.
Yea right.
"I deliberately will not vote for Romney and Obama" that's naive thinking you have 3 ways to vote Obamba - Romney - Emigration sitting on your ass is not an option
"The People of the USA will now need to unite and eliminate this cancer upon our Government" - I think you already had too much coffee, no unification will happen secession is a more likely, probable, feasible outcome the disintegration of the US of A is pretty much the only thing that can bring back your precious rights back and than maybe a re-assembly under a new Acts of Federation, you have to go back to the drawing board on this 1
I stand by my choice.. Decision not to vote for Obama and Romney. We will find someone to vote even if it is a write in instead of standing in front of those cursed Diebold machines.
Emigrating means to run away from a fight that has been brewing for a long time. We don't run. We fight. If by words or in the Election Booth so be it.
Now I am not so naive as to think that the Elections have been decided (Eroding of Popular Vote vs the power that lies in the Electoral College and Districts etc etc etc) long before we get to the poll.
I point to Obama's big mouth on the hot mike in Korea telling someone to tell Putin (Tell him yourself you big wuss.) that "After the Elections I will be more free to do these things" Not exact quote but points to how the Executive Branch views the elections as a necessary and distasteful process in which they must sit and amuse the unwashed masses. (Myself included)
To Secede from the present Union is far more difficult than replacing the Government's own Elected People with those who will answer to the People with every vote they make. I point to Congress and the Senate who had to spend time in town hall meetings to tell the Pheasants how good Obama care would be.
The various media reported gleefully that loud outspoken individuals who stood up and dared to ask the Senator or Congressman difficult questions were told that they are to sit down and listen to accept what they are being told.
who do they think they are?
We hired them and we should be able to fire them.
The only option left is a Super Majority of the States of which 32 are needed out of 50.
As far as the "Precious Rights" there are none. Only what you are allowed. On one thought I can sit here and type how to make war upon the Government and be taken out by a Drone missile or some other rapid method of eliminating a cancer upon the People that threats.
Or the other extreme, passive castling and sitting on fat ass drinking beer and watching the ballgame all the time. That does not help the People.
If you go back through my posts here you will discover that I am a very simple person. I was taught the money system, the Political System, the Constitution and so forth. By a School who had no issues teaching us what is good and lawful... while carefully leaving out the explosive and controversial issues such as the 1st Amendment (We had no internet to learn the other side per se 40+ years ago.) we only knew what we were told.
The teachers knew what NOT to say in class.
Those days are gone. Now the teachers work to take away the choclate milk, sugar and other things that are deemed unhealthy.
If you cannot win over old fucks like me, you do it by raising the children in the schools away from the old fucks.
Eventually the kids become adults and are left directionless. The best and brightest among them leave town to do great things in the Military (And sometimes are brought back here to be buried...) or otherwise do great things on their own.
In trucking through my eyes, around 1994 when the old bingo system and A Licensing were disposed of and drug/alcohol testing were brought in... hundreds of thousands of good drivers left for good. I myself almost left as well. But I stayed with it.
Before 1994, a 6 pack of beer to ease the pain of the very bad broken concrete was nothing. A thousand miles put away instead of lying in the sleeper taking medicines.
Post 1994, taking mouthwash before driving put detectable amounts of the alcohol in your system and made you illegal to drive.
No one thought that I will spend approximately 4 thousand dollars out of pocket and about the same amount on the dental insurance rebuilding and repairing my teeth from the decades of willful neglect to comply with the law.
I am out of it so I don't need to worry about that anymore.
....
As far as going back to the Drawing Board. I have to spend time to think about this.
Our Founding Fathers have fought, bled and put all their life, worldly goods and productive (Plantations etc) on the line against King George III at the time. A bit of Tax, English (Read foreign) Troops in our Taverns and towns, and other things.
Our Soldiers fight in places far away so that our enemies will not have to fight on our streets.
Now I consider that internal domestic enemies far more dangerous than those that shoot at our Marines and Soldiers for being on their turf.
We are a Power, a decaying and rotting power. I can see it all through. how do we fix this?
1- Stop exporting our work overseas. Find all resources here in the USA and rebuild our Factories and supply so that we may make everything that we use.
2- Import only what we need for what we dont have. For example.. Rubber from Port Moresby for our Tires.
2a- I think I am way out dated because tires now can be made with a bit of steel and some compounds from Abbott Labs or something. I am getting ready to buy a set of tires this year for at least one vehicle and probably will end up buying South Korean tires instead of American ones because it is easier to find the size I seek.
3- Stop telling our students that Drugs are bad and stop taking away basic things such as Chocolate milk. Stop telling the Students with internal allegiances to the school instead of the Pledge to the Flag. (Country)
4- When I look at my local tax receipt, I find that the 150 dollars I paid, 110 went into education. WTF? There is more. 6 dollars went to Fire, 4 dollars to police, 5 dollars to the streets (And about 2 million in bonds to rebuild them) 5 dollars to water (And about 3 million more dollars borrowed maturing about 2017 to replace our 100 year old mains)
Seriously, WTF? our local govt is in debt. And everything is focused on our goddamn schools. They are beautiful. But walled gardens in which our young are... programmed.
And all of it paid with borrowed money against a unknown future.
5- I live in a state where there is no mandatory Emissions. I grew up in a state in which there was. In that old home I recall hundreds of dollars spent and testing each year to ensure the car was compliant.
Hell in Trucking engines were configured to meet regulations at 25 mph in the towns and in the testing. Now that they have been whistled out, we are looking at Level 4 engines to comply with California (Whioh does everything they can to get rid of trucks that keep them solvent.)
These engines are crap. WTF> I want 660 horses to the wheels not piles of emissions and fluid to feed it all and a pitiful 300 to the wheels.
Pay pay pay. bleah.
And continually our government tells us that we are in debt6 (YEs we are...) and we need to provide even more, always more.
While the Government itself becomes the employer of last resort and paying wages in which the private sector (Itself viewed as a cancer...) cannot compete.
So we are at war here. Not a hot shooting war, but a war nevertheless.
A war for our Freedoms and a war for our way of life.
And what is that?
Until you can find out what that is, you have no freedom or way of life, you are allowed to do what the Government allows you to do.
The government of the People, for the People has become a Government seeking Compliant Drones for it's own sake.
"Emigrating means to run away from a fight that has been brewing for a long time. We don't run. We fight."
America is a nation of immigrants. Americans' ancestors emigrated from somewhere else (even the Indians thousands of years earlier). Historically we do run when it becomes necessary. We don't fight when it's hopeless unless we're suicidally stupid. This is the natual way. This is what humans do. Animals that don't do this go extinct.