The Supreme Court and Obamacare
Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It's doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.
The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government's powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to "regulate" commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don't want to limit federal power in any way.
The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state – a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.
But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance, the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce – presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: If the federal government can regulate "anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared."
It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states' rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.
While I'm heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare Part D bill – passed under a Republican President and a Republican House – mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.
Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth, sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: The statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.
Posted by davidbruce on 04/03/12 07:57 AM
So it should come as a shock and disappointment to his followers that Ron Paul's single largest donor-his Sheldon Adelson, as it were-founded a controversial defense contractor, Palantir Technologies.
The company profits from government espionage work for the CIA, the FBI and other agencies, and last year it was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders. (Palantir takes its name from the mystical seeing stones used by characters in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to spy on one another.)
According to recently filed FEC disclosure documents, Ron Paul's Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, has received nearly all of its money from a single source, billionaire Peter Thiel. So far, Thiel has contributed $2.6 million to the Super PAC, providing 76 percent of the its total intake.
Thiel, a self-described libertarian and opponent of democracy [sic] who made his fortune as the founder of PayPal, launched Palantir in 2004 to profit from what the Wall Street Journal described as 'the government spy-services marketplace.' The CIA's venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, was brought in to back up Thiel as one of Palantir's first outside investors. Today, Palantir's valuation is reported to be in the billions.
Reply from The Daily Bell
According to Wikipedia, Ron Paul had raised some US$26 million as of the end of 2011. It's probably closer to US$30 million by now. That puts this so-called Super Pac into perspective. It's apparently far less than 10% of the total.
These organized attacks on libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul in feedbacks across the 'Net and in various articles are surprising only for their vehemence and mis-statements.
We are not much for the political process as this point, but he must be doing something right ...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/03/12 09:06 AM
'So it should come as a shock and disappointment to his followers that Ron Paul's single largest donor-his Sheldon Adelson'
Well, prove it.
'What Motivates Sheldon Adelson? (... ) With Gingrich looking increasingly unviable, does that mean he'll throw his largess behind another candidate? 'If Ron Paul is chosen I certainly wouldn't do that.' What about front-runner Mitt Romney? 'I don't want to say. Newspapers said I had two meetings with Romney and Gingrich [on Feb. 3], which is untrue. Most of what is being said about me in this current brouhaha is just not true. I know Romney; I like him. I know Santorum; I like him. … The likelihood is that I'm going to be supportive of whoever the candidate is. I just haven't decided that yet and will wait to see what happens.'
If your core issue is alleged socialism, why remove Ron Paul from consideration? The answer is, of course, Paul opposes a pre-emptive war against Iran. There will be more money spent in this campaign to foment a new war in the Middle East than we have ever witnessed. When you combine Citizens United and the Greater Israel Lobby, you have one hell of a propaganda machine.'
Click to view link
'Sheldon Adelson reportedly betting $10 million more on Newt Gingrich'
Click to view link
'Billionaire Sheldon Adelson gives additional $5.5 million to pro-Gingrich super-PAC'
Click to view link
Posted by rossbcan on 04/03/12 10:05 AM
The problem with the "rich" is that they are all for freedom and free enterprise on the way up. Once they "make it" they undergo an enviromental shift and thus, perspective and goal shift from "making it" to "keeping it and acquiring more most efficiently - force / fraud" and coercing states to set "advantageous rules".
The same happens to politicians. When out of power, they articulate problems and promise solutions quite seductively. Once "in power", an environmental and thus perspective shift changes their focus from "getting power" to "keeping power and acquiring more". Of course, breaking political (and legally stated) "promises" is claimed to be "neccessary" by those who profit. The "law is what THEY claim" is in serious need of challenge.
Financial and political POWER are just different aspects of the same thing: ability to corece. Since they have common goals, of course they conspire against "we, the people".
Environmental facts and perspective is EVERYTHING:
Click to view link
So, who are you going to to believe? Your own LYING eyes, or, THEM?
Posted by Bobby7 on 04/03/12 01:45 PM
(1) Restore the Death Penalty
(2) All who attack the Constitution of America to be deemed as enemies
(3)Obama is an enemy to the Constitution of the United States of America
(4) Obama deserves a fair trial & then executed!
What's keeping you, Patriots?
Are you waiting for George Washington to return & clean up your mess?
Get a life!
Posted by Bobby7 on 04/03/12 01:50 PM
I told you ONCE & now I'm telling you AGAIN:
Sarah Palin & Jeb Bush for President & vice President!
This is Reagan & Bush II.
If Palin goes a little goofey, she will have an accident, just like Ronnie!
Posted by DwightJohnson on 04/03/12 02:22 PM
rossbcan, you are quite right about how the rich metamorphose over time. The temptation to participate in the consolidation of power among the few is enormous. My answer to the consolidation of power is the redistribution of power back to the people thru cantons.
Click to view link
Posted by Frank on 04/03/12 02:53 PM
I wish people would listen to Ron Paul. Seems like only about 10% have actually listened to and have seriously considered what he has been saying.
Posted by rossbcan on 04/04/12 05:46 AM
10% is double the required leader penetration in society. The "convinced" are the intelligent, whom are are viral social / economic force that is corroding all "decrees of truth" by arbitrary power.
Since power is not totally intelligent (acknowleges fact and reason only when it "suits them"), they will not be convinced to give up their predations by reason.
Thus, the percentage of convinced integrates over time, as the intelligent evangelize their social networks until it goes mainstream and pushes the majority over the tipping point of passive excalating to proportional forceful resistance (if our slavers refuse to blink and "stand down").
DB calls his process the "internet reformation". I call it "denial of reality and crime does not pay" because the harm to victims eventually integrates such that they have zero option but to defend themselves.
Since our slavers are after owning and controlling it all, including "their self-decreed property", us, this is a REAL, quantifyable process, as PROVEN by the grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule":
Click to view link
So, take heart, REALITY is doing the heavy lifting. The determined can nudge, but the tide is carrying everyone to freedom, whether they see the importance, resist, or not. Unfortunately, we appear poised to take a lot of "collateral damage", on both sides, refreshing the tree of liberty.
Posted by obsvr_1 on 04/04/12 02:44 PM
Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination
Abomination -- Given the arrogance of our Chief-of-Condescension, it is more like "an Obama-Nation".
Right on Ron Paul -- More people need to listen to Dr. Paul and demand that their congressional representatives follow that which they take an oath to uphold.
Posted by 9helga on 04/12/12 10:47 AM
as one that believes that the prez is a fraudulent holder of office what group of people are out there fighting to have him removed..i'm a simple man, but even with my small voice i do not know what to do..i speak up and i'm ridiculed... if the sheriff was to form a national posse i would like to join and i think others would... be very aware of this ... if the forces manage to disasrm america then be prepared to crown the prince of darkness, president obama...
Reply from The Daily Bell