This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Supreme Court And Natural Law
Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada
The Supreme Court And Natural Law
I won a bet today.
A few weeks ago I wagered with a coworker that the United States Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare. He reasoned that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force an individual to purchase a product from a private company. My reasoning was much simpler. Because the Supreme Court is a functioning arm of the state, it will do nothing to stunt Leviathan’s growth. The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995—from the tail end of the New Deal through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—should have been proof enough. He naively believed in the impartialness of politically-appointed judges. For the first time he saw that those nine individuals are nothing more than politicians with an allegiance to state supremacy.
It was a tough but valuable lesson to learn.
As far as unintended effects are concerned, the economic justification for increased government regulation of the health care industry has been argued countless times up to this point. Proponents of intervention are convinced that more bureaucracies, red tape, and central planning are the answer. They have no knowledge of the pricing system and how it functions as the most efficient means through which consumers and producers can interact to come to an agreeable deal. They don’t realize that the undersupply of doctors and care providers is a direct consequence of previous government intervention and occupational licensing. Many actually believe that Obamacare wasn’t written by the insurance industry and isn’t a fascist-like appeasement of another deep pocketed lobbying campaign.
Common sense economics tells us that Obamacare will only lead to further inefficiencies and rationing as decisions of care continue to be made by third parties. Once fully enacted, doctor offices will likely start resembling that of the waiting area of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.
All that aside, the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Affordable Care Act should serve as an eye opener to those who still believe the state exists as a protector of property and defender of the rule of law.
In the present day, the vast number of edicts coming from Washington can hardly be characterized as laws. “But wait,” you may ask, “when legislation is passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ultimately approved by the Supreme Court, isn’t it now considered the law of the land?” While it is certainly true that whatever scheme envisioned by the political class can be enforced by the state’s monopoly on violence, such rules of governance are more often than not laws in the traditional sense.
Historically, what was known as private or natural law rested upon the rational deduction of a set of ethically-based norms. These norms focused on acts considered morally wrong such as assault, murder, rape, and violations of property in general. Such aggressions were seen by classical liberal thinkers as detrimental to social cooperation. According to 20th century legal scholar Edwin Patterson, the concept of natural law evolved from
Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law . . . and most natural law philosophers.
Or as Murray Rothbard wrote in his book The Ethics of Liberty:
The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State.
Positive law is the kind enacted by the state that bestows special privileges to specific individuals. Whereas natural law is essentially negative in that it disallows for the violent treatment of others, state-sanctioned positive law is the granting of reward that is necessarily provided by confiscatory taxation or government coercion.
What the state, which is institutionalized predation and force, embodies is antithetical to natural law and the very belief that violence is morally repugnant. To characterize the Supreme Court as some great upholder of the rule of law in spite of it being a pillar in the state apparatus is insulting to any decent person that has a basic understanding of justice.
In lieu of the upholding of the Affordable Care Act, it’s now worth asking what the U.S. government can’t do to Americans. As of right now, a sitting president can call for the indefinite detainment and execution of both citizens and non citizens alike with no due process. The band of thieves known as Congress can force the public to purchase a good or service and order its goons to read private communications without prior consent or knowledge. The dollar is constantly inflated to the benefit of major financial institutions, thus destroying the purchasing power of the money Americans are forced into using. The American people are no longer afforded their rights to their property, privacy, or own lives. Those discretions are currently in the hands of the various marionettes of Washington. Whether it is occupied by outright fascists or closet socialists, the state has no regard for liberty in its incremental quest for omnipotence.
As Ludwig von Mises spent his life expounding:
A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
In the world of centralized or constitutional government, rules are always made to be broken. The irony in today’s Supreme Court decision is that it was never given the authority to strike down federal laws under the Constitution. The power of “judicial review” was established by precedent in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and was not explicitly granted in the language of the Constitution. As Lew Rockwell puts it, judicial review is a
Usurped power not present in the constitution. The anti-federalists had anticipated it, however, seeing it as just another of the viciously increased federal powers to be enabled by the new constitution as versus the far more libertarian Articles, which had been overthrown in the federalist coup at Philadelphia.
Many legal scholars argue that judicial review is an implied power. If that were so, their logic can be applied to each and every blatantly unconstitutional law enforced by the federal government. And as history has shown, this is precisely what has occurred as the Constitution’s purposefully vague language has been the cornerstone for growing Washington’s dominance over every aspect of civil society.
The upholding of Obamacare is just more evidence of the totalitarian jackboot that continues to be pressed down upon on America’s collective throat. Instead of Congress or the President, it was the Supreme Court’s turn to pave the way toward serfdom. In a truly free society, all forms of violence would be condemnable and worthy of legal recourse. Men with badges and guns would receive no special treatment such as they do today. Thieves would be thieves. Murders would be murders. Counterfeiters would be counterfeiters. And mobsters would be mobsters. Titles such as “President,” “Congressman,” “police officer,” or “central banker” would mean nothing under a functioning system of proper law.
To those who may object to natural or proper law, it may be asked “would you not defend your life or the lives of your loved ones against potential aggressors?” For those who answer in the affirmative, they have rationally assumed their property is theirs to protect and their life and the lives of the innocent can be defended from coercion. The only other option would be for a society where no property, including one’s own body, is to be justifiably owned. The widespread practice of the latter tends to be enforced through brutal totalitarianism. The former is the foundation for peace, justice, and prosperity.
»
- 41857 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It is the U.S. Congress that is allowing the Supreme Court to politicize the law, the TBTF banks to engage in fraud and receive taxpayer bailouts, Bernanke and the Fed to issue and control the money supply and destroy millions through inflation and deflation, the Obama Administration to wage undeclared wars and engage in political assassinations and refuse U.S. border protection. We could have gotten by the entire year without the U.S. Congress. They have done nothing to rein in any of these people.
And if they don’t rein them in soon, the country will be lost.
One single man this week, John Roberts, knocked down the lawsuit brought by 26 states against Obamacare. If the Obama Administration had used the rational that Obamacare was going to be a tax, it would never have reached the Supreme Court.
This was a lawless decision, without law, a political version of: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
As Frederic Bastiat relates in “The Law,” when law is diverted from its true purpose by violating property rather than protecting it, then “Law has assumed the character of a plunderer… The law has come to be an instrument of injustice.”
The perversion of law in America, as in other dictatorial societies, has become a system.
Here is a brief synopsis from Americanoverkill of the Justices that upheld Obama’s forced health coverage mandate:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. She was recently caught denigrating the U.S. Constitution, in favor of the South African Constitution (Fox News). She advocates for using foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law in judicial opinions (in other words, she believes in a Global-type “rule of law” consistent with the UN). She’s also been criticized, and called a Eugenicist, for her comments that insinuate abortion as a method for getting rid of “undesirables”.
Elena Kagan was appointed by Barack Obama in 2010. Kagan, who was never really a Judge before her appointment to the Supreme Court by Obama, has said that her “Judicial hero” is Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak of Israel, where they do not even have a constitution (they would have to include Palestinian rights if they did). Kagan said during her Congressional confirmation hearing, “As you know, I don’t think it’s a secret I am Jewish,” Kagan said. “The State of Israel has meant a lot to me and my family. And — and I admire Justice Barak for what he’s done for the State of Israel and ensuring an independent judiciary.” (Ginsberg and Breyer also are Jewish.) Clearly, Kagan puts emotion ahead of logic and is obviously still doing this in determining OUR laws. The American, as well as Israeli, Jewish communities praised her confirmation as a Supreme: From Israeli paper Haaretz: “A superb day for the Jewish people”.
Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Barack Obama in 2009. Sotomayor’s “wise latina” remark is controversial because it rings of racism: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Sotomayor was also one of the 5 Justices that just struck down most of the Arizona Immigration law. She clearly supports open borders...
Stephen Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994. Breyer is known for his advocacy for Gun Control, stating the “founding father’s intent was gun control”. Breyer is an ultra liberal and, like Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Roberts (Kagan had to excuse herself from the Arizona Immigration controversy), he voted to strike down the Immigration laws that Arizona passed....
John Roberts was appointed by George W. Bush in 2005. He is a swing Supreme; he goes right or left on issues. He has voted to uphold Obama Care mandates and voted to strike down the Arizona immigration laws, which are advocated by the more liberal elements of society, to the detriment of U.S. citizens. Roberts is known for his support of Military Tribunals and much of the draconian “police-state-like” legislation that has passed during both the Bush and Obama administrations
http://www.americanoverkill.com/2012/06/28/obama-care-mandates-upheld-by-supreme-court/
Sotomayor was also one of the 5 Justices that just struck down most of the Arizona Immigration law. She clearly supports open borders...
Or, she and the other Justices clearly support the Constitution - which reserves to the Federal government the right/responsibility to govern immigration issues. Re. regulating immigration, Arizona was taking to itself a process reserved for the Federal Government in the Constitution.
The federal government under Barack Obama and even George Bush refused to police the border, to stop illegal immigrants from coming into Arizona and endangering the property and lives of U.S. residents.
The Arizona law was meant to support federal law that stipulates that to be legally in the United States you need to be a U.S. citizen or have permission to be here. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a U.S. citizen or a uniformed official of a state cannot help support federal law.
What the court said, masking it with their legal mumble jumble, essentially was that the U.S. government is not enforcing the law and we prohibit you from enforcing the law.
After a while, when the Arizona people decide to become vigilantes and enforce their own law, catching lawbreakers and bringing them to justice, I suppose you will say No, these lawbreakers should be allowed to kill U.S. citizens and destroy residents’ property because it is so written in the Constitution.
The point that needs to be made after the events of this week is that, other than Sotomayor, the head of La Raza could not have been a more predictable and dependable vote. We’re talking about a judicial bias in the extreme.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a U.S. citizen or a uniformed official of a state cannot help support federal law.
Yes there is, and the recent Supreme Court decision reinforced that. The Constitution reserves to the Federal Government the responsibility for immigration issues. The Constitution does not say that, if the Federal Government does nothing about illegal immigration, that responsibility then passes to the States and/or citizens. No. Immigration issues are the responsibility of the Federal Government alone and stay the responsibility of the Federal Government - regardless of how they discharge that responsibility. If the Federal Government chooses to do nothing about illigal immigration, our only constitutional recourse is to vote out the offenders and vote in someone who will do as we wish.
As we all know, citizens have always obeyed their constitutions in all things, right? Not.
“Going well beyond simple political disagreement over President Barack Obama’s election year mandate to waive immigration law for a large segment of illegals, Charles Krauthammer calls out Obama on what he terms as ‘…out-and-out lawlessness.’
“Mr. Krauthammer is absolutely right.”
National-security expert and former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy also said Obama is lawless in both his amnesty and immigration enforcement positions telling Newsmax.TV "Congress Must Stop Obama’s Lawlessness." Here are excerpts:
"Congress must immediately cut off funds to the Obama administration and then “start having hearings about whether they are fit for office.
“The Framers . . . gave Congress very considerable tools with which to rein in the executive branch, the main one of which is to start cutting money off,” McCarthy, who co-chairs the Center for Law & Counter-Terrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told Newsmax...
President Barack Obama’s decision...to grant amnesty to certain children of illegal immigrants fits squarely into this category (lawless policies) – smacking of dictatorialism and violating the rule of law, McCarthy said…
“Because the President, in our system, does not have the power to pronounce positive law – and here, the President is not merely saying he won’t enforce the immigration law, he’s actually proposing to give positive benefits of status to this class of illegal aliens – which he is utterly incapable of doing under our Constitutional system,” he said…
The Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law may also complicate things for the White House, McCarthy said. “Anything that the court does in the area of immigration could complicate the administration’s policy priorities in that area,” he said.
“But when Obama says that he’s got discretion not to enforce the law, that’s a different matter than saying that a state does not have the capacity to enforce the law if the federal law doesn’t want to enforce the law.
“I have to say that I think that immigration, as a matter of law, is something that went off the rail over a century ago when we indulged a bedrock premise that the Framers would have found to be ridiculous, which is that immigration enforcement is primarily the job of the federal government.
“What the Constitution says is that it’s Congress’ job to set the terms for naturalization,” McCarthy continued. “But when our country was first founded as a constitutional government, it was assumed that the states were going to be the primary vehicle for exercise of the police power and that it was the states that would have the obligation and the power to police people within their borders who shouldn’t have been within their borders.
“And over time, I think the federal government, through the courts, has usurped that power from the states. And the problem with that is, if the states are sovereign, a primary ingredient of sovereignty is self-defense – and that means being able to police the inside of your borders and force out people who don’t belong inside your borders. Once you say that they no longer have that power, they no longer have a basic ingredient of sovereignty and then you’re really at the mercy of the federal government.
“Obama has taken it one step further. The law up until Obama was that, basically, the states had been pre-empted by the statutes of Congress. I think that was bad enough. But now in the Arizona case, we have a state that is trying to comply with the statutes of Congress and is being told to stand down because it’s not in concert with the administration’s policy, which is a very different thing from Congressional statutes.
“Indeed, the Obama administration immigration policy is antithetical to the laws of Congress, which actually would have an ingredient of enforcement against people who are in the country illegally.”
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/16/iconic-political-columnist-charles-krauthammer-obama-is-lawless/
Nice.
+ a quadrillion.
Say, isn't Krauthammer a...never mind, just kidding ;-)
If the federal government is not policing the borders and dealing with foreign invaders, then it has broken he social contract, so Arizona can do whatever the fuck it feels it needs to do I protect it's own borders.
As liberals like to say the constitution is not a suicide pack and this is a perfect example. If the fed won't follow the rules then they lose their authority.
Exactly right.
This is the intersection of law and just law...as in justifiable law. Hitler had a ton of laws, so did Mao, Pol Pot (go down the list) that fact didn't make any of them proper or just...as the quantity of them means nothing, its the quality of the law.
They were merely volumes & volumes of insane, destructive laws.
What nothing on ass hole Scalia or dufus Thomas. There are clear grounds for both of them to be impeached.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/impeach-clarence-thomas_b_832096.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/1776imp/petition.html
"The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995"
Ah, yes, a halcyon period. BTW, after 9/11 a wartime emergency was declared and the "constitution" was suspended. So was the Magna Carta and "natural law". Carry on.
Remember--even though something is a law, it only becomes effective when people choose to enforce it!
That's where the thirty thousand plus drones over U.S. skies comes into play..........We are seriously almost fucked.
The Supreme Court and Republicans wasting its time. Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court should have referred the case back to the state of Florida where the conflict of interest would have been apparent.
Orly Taitz getting her dumb butt kicked by the Supreme Court three times. Rupert Murdoch is Australian. He don't know jack shit about the Certificate of Birth in the United States, yet here's Orly showing up three times. Rush doesn't have any children, and I've heard Rush likes the little boys. So that's one gigantic waste of the Supremes time.
Health Care Law was created in accordance with the Constitution, right from the start. Republicans don't want single payer. Fine. Barack Obama has a way around it. So the Supreme Court might be telling Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, the dry drunk former president to sit down and shut up.
No doubt about it, CJ Roberts has openly joined the forces of evil.
Like I've said before, I now understand why the French Revolution occurred, and I understand completely why during revolutions almost all the gov. workers are taken out and executed.
Eventually people see the evil that exists and those who, knowingly or not, supported that evil.
Jefferson, of course, explained it well:
Jefferson understood Shays' Rebellion to be a common and important component of republican government. Without it, the people could not be effectively represented and the communal "lethargy" would eventually destroy the nation. On the flip side, however, Jefferson also notes that the people are rarely if ever well informed on all issues.
There's no doubt in my mind those type days are coming to Europe & the US.
Those who doubt are either ignorant of, or willfully deny, what the history of man has repeatedly rhymed.
AMDG
No doubt about it, CJ Roberts has openly joined the forces of evil.
Seriously?? Answer me this (rhetorically): Is it constitutional for the Administration and the Congress to create programs? Is it constitutional for Congress to tax Americans differently, depending on what programs they participate in? The answer to both questions is yes (consider farming subsidies and the mortgage deduction). So Roberts allows the the creation of a program, and allows individuals to be taxed differently depending upon whether they participate in the program. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Evil to admit that??
Otherwise, nice post. I enjoyed your contribution.
BTW, I think the Affordable Care Act is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. But, to paraphrase Roberts, there is nothing unconstitutional about the government behaving stupidly.
Richie, your thoughts show you are blind to what is going on & that which is evil.
"A few weeks ago I wagered with a coworker that the United States Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare. He reasoned that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force an individual to purchase a product from a private company."
he won the bet. the supreme court said precisely what he predicted they would.
So, my question is: "what are the going to do to all the Christian Scientists?"
You mean all 10 of them?
zh readers (and contributors) need to take a class in political philosophy.
all this bullshit was flushed down the toilet the second john rawls put a pen to paper.
Nah, it was actually Hobbes and "Leviathan" that started this mess.
Along with "The Prince", Machiavelli
The Talmud.
Why don't you stop teasing and show me your tits?
I Hereby Secede!!
http://lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r7.1.1.html
http://youtu.be/Fc7C-x6yXV0
KTHXBYE
If only Millions of us could do this together.
This is what the Ron paul, libertarians need to do, just openly withdraw our consent. Even if just 8% of all Americans did this.
It's not going to do you a damned bit of good unless you have the political will (force) to back it up.
For some of us I believe it will empower and free the soul.
See above.
The Obama Care law only seeks use the IRS to squeeze money fron low income people . People with money that have assets to protect already have insurance . Wage slaves with no assets for go insurance for better food , housing and Ipads. The argument that they are wiped out by medical cost is moot when the tax targeted people are already wiped out = wage slaves with little or no assets .
No. ACA (the taxpayer) covers 100% of the cost for incomes of 30K/yr and below, then sliding scale to insomes of 80K/yr (both figures are incomes for family of four).
Tyler ... ZeroHedge is better than this. Reprinting this guy's drivel is beneath ZH.
Agree it is nonsense, however Tylers bring everything to the table for us to sort out. OK by me.
I won the same bet, whoopee, too easy to predict. So much for the three arms of government, all of the arms have grown out of the same monster.
"The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995—from the tail end of the New Deal through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—should have been proof enough."
The above passage, which was taken from the article is not correct. A number of federal acts have been shot down by the Supreme Court during the period cited by the author, i.e. 1937 through 1995. By way of several examples:
1) Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). The Immigration and Nationality Act, which deprived one of citizenship, without the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for the offense of leaving or remaining outside the country, in time of war or national emergency, to evade military service held invalid.
2) United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968). Provision of Lindberg Kidnapping Act which provided for the imposition of the death penalty only if recommended by the jury held unconstitutional inasmuch as it penalized the assertion of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
These are just 2 random examples, there are many more federal laws that were struck down in part or altogether between 1937 and 1995.
I would guess that the author is referring to the passage of federal legislation under the Commerce Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Anytime that Congress decides to add new impositions on the citizenry in the form of laws, they need to be able to point out where it is in the Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such a law if they're called out on it. Since the New Deal government expansion bonanza, which was ushered in with the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 1937, the Supremes have rubber stamped every federal law that was justified under the Commerce Clause. That is until 1995, when the Supremes finally found that Congress had pushed its authority to issue laws under the Commerce Clause too far in United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549, 1995. Many people thought that at long last we were entering a new era where the Supreme Court was going to roll back the authority they had doled out to Congress to create mischief under the Commerce Clause. But it wasn't to be, this one case proved to be an anomaly, and the Court reverted to its old ways of blessing federal legislation justified under the Commerce Clause.
But the SCOTUS drew very important line here, ruling that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to compel a citizen to do something. If you're in commerce, they got you, but if you're not, you're out. That seemed to me to be a big part of this decision, and an issue not previously ruled on by the Court. I think alot of people missed that important restriction on federal power that this decision will now stand for. In fact, that may have been one of Roberts' goals. The fact that the Feds can tax you is nothing new.
"If you're in commerce, they got you, but if you're not, you're out. "
and therein lies the pinhole of light admist the vast sea of darkness
Next, they pass a law making it illegal to quit your job or to produce less than your pre-fantasy average output, plus 'public need' based increases. No eating red meat, no smoking, no swearing, and absolutely no sex without a permit from the department of hef.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drOdRwD1JF0
Landotfree Hits nail on head!
Who are these non-taxpayers?
They are classified by the federal courts as:
"non-resident aliens of the United States" or
"Citizens of the several states" or
"state Citizens"
Here's your summer reading ZHers:
http://state-citizen.org
Work hard and you too could be free by Fall.
Guess who's healthcare YOU"RE paying for...
http://intobolivian.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/fat-guy-on-scooter.jpg
I have a shovel, and I know how to use it. My health clinic is now open. I can cure this guy in about, 3 days, maybe one if anyone with a shovel wants to help.
What a pig! Sadly, There are a ton of people that are a ton!
The tinhat conspiracy theorists are really taking over zero hedge.
Do these people all on unemployment? I notice most of the volume during working hours, with more reasoned posts on eves/weekends.
If your dopey friend didn't realize that SCOTUS was a completely politicized almost extra-legislative branch of government after Bush v. Gore, than he rally isn't a very clever fellow. Or perhaps he thought the US was like Canada. Because in Canada once someone becomes a judge they are REQUIRED to sever all ties to politics. They may not even give $1 to a political party. Heck many judges don't even vote. Judicial Impartiality is taken a bit more seriously in Canada.
This decision WAS correct. The single mandate was consitutional. The majority of legal scholars thought so when the GOP came up with it 20 years ago....and the majority thought so when Obama came up with it again 2 years ago:
Republicans used to Embrace the individual mandate.....matter of fact, it was
the Republicans that came up with the idea and legislated for it in the 90s!
They called it the Heritage Plan, courtesy of Milton Freeman (R), Nov. 12, 1991.
They even proposed a tax penalty for any citizen not having insurance. Quoting
Newt Gingrich,
" The real foundation, the most important part
of this, is individual rights and responsibilities, and expectation of
behavior....We believe that there should be must carry. That is, everybody
should either have health insurance or if you're an absolute libertarian, we
would allow you to post a bond. But we would not allow people to be free riders,
failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room with no
means of payment
But lets hold Chief Justice Roberts respobsible for failing the GOP and following precedent and jurisprudence. Heck lets not hold the 2 GOP presidents responsible for the largest expansion of Medicare: Reagan and Bush 43. That's right...BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES enacted programs they couldn't pay for:
Ronald Reagan socialized medicine when he signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
This law MANDATES that all emergency rooms in all hospitals that take federal money serve anyone who comes to that emergency room, regardless of his or her ability to pay. And it offers no funding to achieve this mandate, which raises the cost of health care for everyone who can pay.
George W. Bush added Medicare Part D, which literally wasn’t paid for and overpays for drugs as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.
Let me caveat the about by saying i am NOT pro democrat or GOP. I am PRO getting rid of the spin that one party is somehow more blameworthy than the other for the predicament that the USA finds itself in.
John Locke was a brilliant man, whose work formed the basis for common law. But John Locke wrote them over 500 years ago. Now people (me) enjoy flushing the toliet, flipping a light switch on, water coming out of taps, soap, going to the supermarket to buy food....in fact i enjoy many elements of modern life. I don't want my food to be rotten, my water to be polluted, and my soap to cause chemical burns. Regulation is necessary. Regulation is not perfect but it is the best we have for now. Now if one want to live free from regulation/obligation and from state encroachment might i suggest Somali.
If one doesn't like the new Health-care law, then elect some congresspeople to REPEAL the law. As that is not the proper function of the Supreme Court. However, even if the law is repealed the problems remain: 50 million uninsured, health-care costs 2x higher than the next highest G-20 state, and prior to 2008 (housing bust) health-care costs were the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA.
Btw, the only person i would consider voting for, would be one that supported legislation to completely invalidate Citizens United (billionaire sugar daddies buying less regulation and tax advantages for their businesses), restrict corporate lobbying (highest ROI in the world) and restrict the amount of money individuals and corporation can "donate" to a politican. The big one of course would be to restrict the amount the can be SPENT on any single election. Obama and Romney are going to spend $1 Billion this year delineating the 1% difference between them. A billion dollars...what a fucking waste.
I am not sure the USA will survive. It is certainly on a collision course with social and economic instability. I am also sure that it is not the fault of yesterdays SCOTUS decision on Health-care. If anything they helped speed up the destruction by handing the 2000 election to Bush and by their decision in Citizens United.
Politics and crony capitalism are destroying the US. However, one may hate the system, one may think there is an Utopia without the system, but before you go romantizing that Utopia, think about 350 million people without the ability to flush their toliets. Where does that waste go?
Very well said. Idiots have voted this down.
"Where does that waste go?"
in the garden, lizzy, in the garden
"Flushing the water closet is handy, but it wreaks ecological havoc, deprives agricultural soils of essential nutrients and makes food production dependent on fossil fuels."
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/09/recycling-animal-and-human-dung-is-the-key-to-sustainable-farming.html
The Power To Tax Is the Power To Destroy by Peter Schiff | LewRockwell.com
The Supreme Court decision is devastating for the economy and individual liberty. Apart from creating an all powerful federal government, changing substantially what it means to be an American, the law will send health care costs soaring, further undermining our economy. It will destroy jobs, impoverish millions, and lead to much higher inflation and lower living standards.
It will give Romney a club to use against Obama during the election. Obama will have a lot of explaining to do as he strongly stated during the debate to pass the bill that the individual mandate is not a tax. The Supreme Court just said it was.
In his majority opinion Justice Roberts specifically said the government does not have the authority, under the Commerce Clause, to compel Americans to buy a product. He then said it has unlimited power to tax people who do not buy products the government wants them to buy. This is a distinction without a difference. Based on this ruling, here are examples of what the government can now do:
Tax you for going to church. Tax you for not going to church. Tax you for protesting. Tax you for not protesting. Tax you for expressing a controversial opinion. Tax you for joining or not joining a particular organization. Tax you for writing something controversial. Tax you for speaking or writing critically of government. Basically, there is nothing the government can't do, so long as it does it as a tax
http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff169.html
Complete nonsense. Any tax that borders on freedoms protected under the Bill of Rights would be struck down, nor would it even be likely to pass.
Struck down by whom? John Roberts?
Yours is a blind alley, heading toward letting the Supreme Court be the final judge of what the people want; it is for the people to decide what they want through their representatives and the Congress’ budget power. One or two votes in the Supreme Court for too long have been the final deciding voice in this country. NO MORE!
After the events of this past week, there’s now no recourse for the people, nobody who stands to protect their freedoms, their Constitution.
All of these arguments boil down to the fact that the Supreme Court this week made law and said you can’t do anything about it, that they – Elena, Ruth, Sonia, Steve and John – will decide for you.
Well, it isn’t going to work that way. People are going to begin to rise up and say, Congress pays the bill, Congress can override this decision in five minutes and finish this judicial hypocrisy. And, then, when the Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional, Congress can meet and within 5 minutes change it back.
And if this Congress won’t do it, the people can assemble a new Congress.
Yes, i will wait for the people to get off their ample asses, off their automated scooters, take the triple burger out of their mouth, all of which Congress is funding, and rise up.
In this Utopia, which of the above group is assembling a "new congress".
The old Congress is the RESULT of "we the people", who are too busy doubling down on burgers to take an interest in the affairs of the country. So when the government told them to go shopping after 9/11, instead of take notice of the TWO off balance sheets $2T WARS, they did. Because math and Congress is hard.
Give me a break with this crap. It is not SCOTUS, it is NOT Congress, it is "we the people" reflected in each of those institutions.
What people want.....ask 50 people what they want and 49 of those answers will be a)to be rich and b) to be thin. Those are the aspirations of "we the people".
Spoken like a true 911 truth denier. Blame the citizens for the criminal, Luciferian cabal that the state has become.
Right on, Lizzie, with one exception. You are describing the response of the people to soft tyranny. I’m predicting a people-response to hard tyranny. And this left turn right into a combination police state/welfare state brings all of us – and I’m including you and me – into a battlefield we’ve never seen before.
The ramifications are going to come rapidly and the sleepers will open their eyes…and act. Will you sleep through it when they say you can’t have an operation for your child or your mother? Will you say I’m going to sit down and have a burger?
Lizzie, you can’t predict what is going to happen using the criteria of the past.
The liberals have cried Tora! Tora! Tora!
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -- Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor
"Yours is a blind alley, heading toward letting the Supreme Court be the final judge of what the people want; it is for the people to decide what they want through their representatives and the Congress’ budget power. One or two votes in the Supreme Court for too long have been the final deciding voice in this country. NO MORE!"
Hey, moron? The Supreme Court DIDN'T decide what the people want. ACA was passed by CONGRESS. Read the Constituton; that's how this country works. You wackos couldn't deal with it, so you ginned up a bogus case for the Court...which told you to sit down and shut up. End of story.
What Congress did was unconstitutional. And they did it against the will of the people. And the stuff that Congress wrote wouldn’t have even reached the Supreme Court if they’d called it a tax. John Roberts rewrote what Congress passed in order that he could rule it law. Check with me next year when everything is different.
I would never suggest this myself, of course, but some people have told me that when personal attacks are necessary the argument is weak.
I hate, or rather I question, all this philosophical reasoning in a vacuum as if human beings had ideal choices.
They don't. We are in essence here in that old but legitimate debate between Plato's and Aristotle's values : idealism and realism based on relative notions, heirarchy system, of what is reasonable for man and for the collective community we call society. Absolute ideals and relative values; that is a debate that defines value systems.
History has proven that Aristotle was closer to human experience than Plato. This is my take, its not written in concrete. But the scientific method and empiricism corroborates that line of thought.
Trade offs in society between the individual and society will always exist. Its not a question of having perfect systems, as human nature cannot live with it; it will always bend it anyway. The question is to create checks and balances and define certain Rubicons in society that are arbitrary, as collectively these limits are beyond our capabilities to stay one, a united community. Obviously these limits change as technology and needs of man change, but they adhere to simple rules both within and without like the golden rule of man : reciprocity amongst men and nations, and the silver rule : do what you say if you exercise public office or else explain why you failed and step down and/or change tacks, on a recurrent basis. This is a permanent requirement until each man's last breath in office. And finally, the bronze rule : a state of law, with separation of powers ensuring law's primacy. With these three guiding principles the Olympics can begin. The whole debate about natural law is idealising it to a point where it becomes impracticable. That is a Rubicon we don't want to cross! IMHO.
Your co-worker must be pretty dumb (to think that the Supreme Hubris Court is anything other than a rubber-stamp for FedCorp.)
Either that or he's about 5 1/2 years old - in which case, your employer is probably in violation of Child Labor Laws
Maxim in law "those who rest on their rights have none"
You can bring a judgment to the judical system by invoking your rights when oppressed by rules of government.
Does the rule damage you?
Does the rule limit your ability to act creativley?
Does the rule prevent you from providing service to others?
etc etc
Reason and conscice are enshrined in the history of law, invoke them also.
Invoke maxims of equity where appropriate.
If a judical system ignores all reason and rights that a jury would otherwise find compelling and rules against you regardless, it was not without benefit as it brings the judgment to that system.
I was dumb.
I assumed Obamacare was a protection racket (you pay us and you won't get sick)
Obviously since SCOTUS say otherwise, I need to look at it again.
Something has to be done. Rather or not obamacare was a step in the right direction I don't really know. You can't have gazillions with no insurance--that's just one more step towards 3rd world country. I'm sure there are better solutions but it looks like this is going to stick.
There are other problems as well.......such as a $250,000 bill for a hangnail.
BTW don't most jobs require you to be sober? Taken a good look at John Boehner lately? Ruining the country one drink at a time. What a POS.
We'll probably be fighting it out with Russia over Iran before long and this subject will not be worth discussing lol.
Have faith my friends. Have faith. God is not mocked. I have no doubt that events are unfolding in such a way that God's justice will be visited on those who do evil. Take heart because Jesus will return and when he does nothing on this Earth will be able to resist him. Evil will always try because it believes that it can accumulate enough power but in the end everyone who practices evil will be crushed.
“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Fire up another doob, bud.
Jesse’s Café Americain’s Weekend Reading – You Are Called to a Great Undertaking – begins with a quote…
“Evil has no substance of its own, but is only the defect, excess, perversion, or corruption of that which has substance.”
J. H. Newman
It begins (also by Newman)…
“We are slow to master the great truth that even now Christ is, as it were, walking among us, and by His hand, or eye, or voice, bidding us to follow Him. We do not understand that His call is a thing that takes place now. We think it took place in the Apostles' days, but we do not believe in it; we do not look for it in our own case.
"There is an inward world, which none see but those who belong to it…
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/06/weekend-reading-you-are-called.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JessesCafeAmericain+%28Jesse%27s+Caf%C3%A9+Am%C3%A9ricain%29
Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iyLU9-VqVxY
Anyone who didn't know that Obama care (whatever you may think of it) falls squarely within the power of Congress to pass does not understand the basics of how our Constitution works. As for judicial review, this article seems to imply it shouldn't exist, which makes no sense, since Marbury quite sensibly interpreted the Constitution to hold that power implicit in the Court's role. What else would it do if it could not interpret and uphold or strike down laws that fall within their purview.
Has anyone even read the Roberts opinion? It is worth the time to read the first 5 pages. It is interesting in that he provides a very reader friendly (like 5th grade level) discussion of the Court's role, the bases for review, and makes a very pointed observation - if you don't like the law, and many do not for some very good reasons, your remedy is political, not judicial. In that sense, this opinion is very much a testament to the doctrine of judicial restraint, which is a conservative, not liberal, policy.
The syllabus (summary) of the decision is only 6 pages long
And really points to the means of big government to gain power Force and deception It says the writers of Obamacare were guilty of dragooning And I wanted like george stefanopolus to look it upSTEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
dra·goon (dr-gn, dr-)
n.A member of a European military unit trained and armed to fight mounted or on foot. tr.v. dra·gooned, dra·goon·ing, dra·goons
1. To subjugate or persecute by the imposition of troops. 2. To compel by violent measures or threats; coerce http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Chapter 176 of United States Code Title 28, entitled Federal Debt Collection Procedure states:
(14)“State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
(15)“United States” means—
(A)a Federal corporation;
(B)an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C)an instrumentality of the United States.
As far as a federal court is concerned about the collection of federal debt (tax is included within the defintion of debt here also) most of us are not in the United States, we are in one of the several states.
The whole notion of the federal government constraining and limiting itself through a "Supreme" court of Star Chamber apparatchiks is laughable.
This belief in government institutions is like a religion with people ... in this iteration, complete with costumes, high priests, acolytes, rituals, moldy tomes, heated theological debates and heavy doses of magical thinking and emotional investment. It's all mental masturbation and window dressing for legalized fraud at gunpoint.
And John Roberts can keep practicing his mental masturbation on the rest of the conservatives
When 1 person can make the decisions for 300+ million something is wrong.
Roberts - sophistically burning while Rome burns.
Hehe..apologies..."sophistically fiddling while Rome burns"
Got to call doctor (fill out 50 pages of Federal forms) then ask him to double my dosage.
The "Affordable" Corporate Welfare for O's BEST Golf Buddies ACT -
FACISM - A syndicate of nihilistic corporate entities use the apparatus of government to continuously provide them with monopoly profits and political power. Example: Citizens are REQUIRED to purchase their inferior product and are 'aided' with governmental subsidies. (Their tax $$$ pay the subsidies. Simultaneouly the tax 'burden' of the corporate PLUTOCRACY is minimized) Also, a legal precedent is set where non-complicance is a penalty of....etc. (devilishly clever)
The SYNDICATE of nihilistic SOCIOPATHS is always prepared to hire professional psychopaths to enter the political class of SOCK-PUPPETS to maintain their monopoly profits and plitical power. (Ref: The Arms of Krupp)
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
Give me literacy or give me death
It seems Obama's only choice at re-election will be some type of election theft or if Romney is paid off by his masters to allow Obama to win. I never come across anyone that likes this guy anymore.
It seems it will be very dangerous if Obama is re-elected. He won't have to worry about re-election so he will do even worse things to the People of the U.S.
Most Americans don't seem to care about the many issues James Miller brings up in this article. I've been questioning people everywhere I go lately to see what their ideas are on this stuff, and most Americans don't seem to care, except when something like the Obama-care is passed and they might get a new tax. Otherwise, most seem ok with the fact of being spied on, targets of the Corporate-State, pat-downs, etc. Sure, some of us care, but there is still far more of "them" than "us".
The New World Order of the Supreme Morons of the Suicide Vampire Squid and the Great Communist Wal Mart of the Japanese China Sindrum Beat is not apportioned to; freedom, independence and the labor of every person that ever stood in defense against the fascist bastard's that have no mercy for the risen host, the Lord of the Harvest, defining the rate of return required to sustain (the capital market) freedom independence and life. The resonating tone of contempt upon this generation has called for judgment to fall upon the so called land of the free and independent, which defines all the nations and tongues that accepted the mark of contempt against life and have aborted security for the sake of the short term BTFD Cup of fornication founded upon the mark of debt and the seal of FED ZERO. May the judgment of all the nations fall upon the prophetic Whore(s) now standing in contempt and as the sealed beast of the black hole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChcIrQz8-E&feature=fvwrel
...and may it come upon this generation as quickely as 2012 to 2015's margin call for desolation.
The Robert’s Supreme Court has no credibility. They are all Traitors to our Democracy and Constitution and have set themselves up as the Fathers to a new corporate/government Fascist Nation.
Look how stupid puppet Robert’s is, like Alberto Gonzales, he can’t carry on an intelligent logical discussion let alone make a intelligent critical decision. Bring the Traitors to Justice!
The Mafia was the originators of the insurance racket and health insurance should be nationalized? for the general good health of the nation
Simple and honest, take the racket out of insurance and everyone’s premium drops and benefits increase. Eliminate the criminal’s juice and health care mathematically becomes very affordable for everyone.
It's the feeding of the corporate parasite that makes health care expensive and of course, kills it’s host, not cure the host
Kill the criminal corporate parasite not the host! Cut off their juice!
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), federal law declared uncal--contrary to author's assertion that no such ruling occurred from 1937 to 1995.. And this is just off the top of my head. I agree with much of what the author says, but he's a bit sloppy from what I can see.
Also, would not the Great Society have ended in 1968 when lyndon left the white house?
PS. Most of the libera justices on the supreme court were appointed by republican presidents--statism is a powerful drug. Starting with Earl Warren appointed by eisenhower. Liberal justices do not tend to get conservative, but it looks like roberts was a misfire from bush. Wonder if his secretary would have been a better conservative after all?