SHOCKING, DEVIOUS, AND EVIL Part I

SHOCKING, DEVIOUS, AND EVIL:

HOW THE DEMOCRAT’S PLAN FOR A
COUP D’ÉTAT WILL WORK

Part I

By Gary P.

Let me just say this, the democrat/communist party is openly carrying out a coup d’état right in front of us. I have written on many occasions how many of the provisions of ObamaCare are nothing more than a complete and total usurpation of the Constitution that will forever destroy states’ rights, and severely restrict individual rights in this country.

ObamaCare is completely and totally unconstitutional. This is pointed out, yet again, in the Wall Street Journal op-ed co-written by Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell, and Kenneth Klukowski:

Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional

If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.

President Obama’s health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may becoming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the “general welfare.” Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states’ obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed “cash for cloture” because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

America’s founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

*Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

This piece hits on all cylinders. Never, in our nation’s 233 year history, has the federal government attempted to mandate that a United States citizen purchase a product or service, whether that product or service is welcomed by the citizen, or it is forced on them against their will.

And if you look at any poll out there, 70 to 80 percent of the citizenry do not want the current health care schemes that the most corrupt president in the nation’s history and the most corrupt Congress in history plan to forcibly impose on them.

Now I know, the democrat/communists use the excuse that states require that owners of automobiles are required to maintain liability insurance, under the penalty of law to justify this.

But this argument is fatally flawed in several ways, and shows a willful ignorance of how this nation is fundamentally structured.

The automobile insurance example they use is laughable on its face value. Driving an automobile is a privilege not a right. You must earn a license in order to drive.

Also, driving a car is a matter of choice. There are millions of Americans who live their entire lives having never driven a car. The insurance you are required to maintain as an owner of an automobile is not to protect you, but to protect others from you, should you have an accident.

You may chose to buy insurance to also take care of repairs or medical issues that effect you in an accident, and if you are financing a car, your bank will require this. But every step of way, all of this is based on the fact that you voluntarily chose to drive a car.

Congress intends to force you to buy health insurance simply because you are alive.

First and foremost, the United States is a Representative Republic, and as the very name of our nation implies, we are united STATES. The entire United States Constitution is centered around the fact that the founders, in their wisdom, planned America as a loose confederation of separate sovereign states that are joined together for mutual benefit. While you certainly find the mention of the duties of the federal, or central government, the Constitution places more effort in protecting the rights of the several states, as they are called. In fact, the 10th Amendment was written solely to protect both the American people, AND the several states from an overreaching central government:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment is so important to the concept of America it is the final right included in the Bill of Rights that were ratified by the several states in 1791.

To put it another way, the United States is 50 separate sovereign entities, independent from each other in most matters. This was a genius move by our founders, as it allows maximum local control by the people, the citizens who make up these states, and ultimately make up this great nation.

Now, for practical purposes, the states are united for a common cause, and with good reason. The founders saw the need to pool resources for things like national security. The also saw a need for uniform trade laws between the several states. It was quite common before the nation was founded, and even when the nation was in it’s infancy, to see trade wars between states. Obviously, a uniform system of trading, and a common currency, were of benefit to all parties involved.

Now over the years, especially since the “progressive era” that began with Teddy Roosevelt, and went into overdrive with FDR, we have seen many usurpations of states’ rights “for the greater good.” Now, not all federal law….law that binds all states, and all citizens to a uniform rule or regulation is bad. But each and every one of these laws erode precious rights of our citizenry and must be strongly considered before becoming law. We’ll go into just how much of this has hurt the nation and the negative impact it has on American citizens in future writings, but for now, let’s stay focused on what is going on right here.

The democrat/communist party does not agree with any of the concepts of our Constitution, or the path our founders laid out for us. A path, by the way, that has made America the nation with the most durable civilization, the most stable, mankind has ever known.

The democrat/communists have been openly saying for generations now that our Constitution is “obsolete” or, better yet, that it is a “living document.” I guess they think that sounds better when they ignore it, which is something they do daily, and have since FDR. Not that “progressive” Republicans haven’t done their fair share, as the trend really first took hold under the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Many transgressions there.

The bottom line is this: The democrat/communists simply do not trust the citizenry to “do as they are told.” Americans, by their very nature, and birthright, are an independent people. We don’t need or want anyone to tell us what to do, or how to live our lives. We are a people that feel we should be able to do anything we wish, so long as it doesn’t harm someone else, and we feel that government should not only not be seen, but not be heard!

For the most part, other than providing for a strong national defense, and protecting us, we see little or no need for a federal government. At best, the federal government should be a referee of sorts in case of disputes between the several states, period.

Yes, I know that’s sort of idealized, but it is in line with the vision our founders had.

The rest of governing, of setting rules and regulations are to be left up to each of the several states, which in turn, should be weaker than the local, city governments, in most cases, only creating statewide rules for uniformity and fair practices, or setting minimum standards for things like education, law enforcement, and the like.

We also need state government, along with local government to plan and build major infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and water and sewer systems.

Again, the democrat/communists see government in an entirely different light. They see government as the end all, be all of civil society. All other nations of the world are set up the way the American democrat/communist wish to see America, though what the democrat/communists offer is a more harsh, more severe lifestyle that will rival that of the most brutal dictatorship, and will severely limit, or completely eliminate most of the basic natural rights, God given rights that all of mankind possess. (Though most governments take away)

You see, this is the real problem these evil people have. What most Americans do not realize, and that’s by design as they no longer teach this in government controlled schools, is this: Unlike any other governing document in the world, the United States Constitution assumes the people have unlimited rights, natural rights, rights given to them by their creator. Our Constitution is designed to protect those rights, and the people, from a tyrannical government.

To the democrat/communist, this is a serious impairment to their cause, to their goals. Barack Obama was the first though to just come out and say what all of these corrupt people have been thinking for decades.

Obama has called the Constitution a set of “negative rights” because it limits what the government can do to you and doesn’t say what it must do for you!

Of course, this is the point!

Obama, like pretty much every democrat/communist, especially the Ivy Leaguers, is educated well above the level of his actual intelligence. Like the old saying goes: “Just smart enough to be dangerous!”

BTW, this applies to the Ivy League “progressive” Republicans, as well.

In short, the Constitution seeks to limit government, not people. As a person, you are assumed to have no limits on your rights. Now obviously, to hold civil society together, there are any number of common sense laws that we all must abide by. Some are rules of conduct, like those that restrict driving to only those who have been granted permission, or set building standards. And of course we have laws against stealing, or murder, and so on.

But in the end, the Constitution is all about protecting the citizen from government, and limiting the federal government severely. This is what frustrates the “progressives”; the democrat/communists to no end.

Of course, they can’t just come out and say that they want to do away with the form of government that is the envy of the world! So, slowly but surely, for about 100 years, they have methodically, and deliberately, undermined the Constitution.

We are now at a tipping point in history though. The democrat/communists have become incredibly unpopular as America has finally awaken to the fact that these people are truly the enemy within, and we will see the next several election cycles completely and totally remove most, if not all of those currently in office. And they know it. In fact, many of the most evil, the most corrupt, are already announcing retirements. Dozens will no longer seek office.

As you will read, they are seeking ways to forever prevent this from happening though.

Of course, having the worst of the worst go away is a tactic as well, as they believe if they bail out, and move on to jobs promised to them by democrat/communist leadership, outside of government, the people will vote for whatever democrat/communist decides to run in their place.

Oh, one thing you must know, all of these “retirees” are leaving seats that have been safe and reliable democrat/communist strongholds, and all of them are losing in the polls to Conservatives. This is why they believe by tactically stepping down, they will once again fool the people with a little bait and switch. Somehow I don’t think that will work, but only time will tell.

All in all, the democrat/communist is an over educated, arrogant, elite, who think it knows best for everyone else. These people also have an insatiable lust for power and unlimited greed.

The American republican system of federal government simply does not allow them to exert the control over mankind they lust for. This almost maniacal, psychopathic desire to exert dominance and control over others “for their own good” is the hallmark of the “progressive” movement. And while it is not exclusive to the democrat/communists, there more than a few “progressive” Republicans, this disease is more dangerous when combined with the democrat/communist ideology.

But for all of this to work, America as we know it, must be destroyed, forever.

Continued in Part II

About the Author:

“Gary P. is editor and publisher of A Time For Choosing as well as a contributor to Red State, Digital Journal, The Sarah Palin Web Brigade, The Sarah Palin Information Blog, and other conservative sites. A Time For Choosing is a website based on solid Ronald Reagan/Sarah Palin conservatism. We give no apologies, and accept no substitutes.”

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com