Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutional’

WE’LL SUE CONGRESS, SAYS IDAHO GOV

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2010

This is more like it.

This is the kind of thing that gets us pro-Constitution types singing around the campfire. This is the type of thing that’ll get Obamacrats screeching about us gun-and-God-clinging bigots even more than they already have. In a sense, one could think of this as a kind of legislative tea party – a push back at the soft tyrants running the show in Washington.

Yes, the gesture is largely a symbolic one, but it does matter – except to Democrats, of course.

Thirty-seven states are in line to follow what Idaho did yesterday.

John Miller of the Associated Press writes:

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

(Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch”) Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

“A constitutional mass,” as Otter calls it – the overwhelming rejection by the American people of this unprecedented encroachment of the federal government on their liberties – is a very good thing, even if it is symbolic; although I’d like to believe that genuine legal action actually could be taken in some form should ObamaCare become the scourge of the land.

Still, the rejection of ObamaCare from every sector of American life is unquestionable … and fascinating to watch.

It’s as if the Body American is reacting instinctively – intuitively – dispatching antibodies to fight the infection of government-run health care. The irony, however, is that the ones reacting without thinking – the ones who are on ideological auto-pilot – are the Democrats.

They are not hearing the American people.

They don’t care what we think.

They’ve told us we will know all about the bill after its been passed. They have tried to sidestep and rework every rule, and still cannot – and will not – accept that they do not have the votes to get it done.  They are even attempting a measure that would enable the Senate version of the bill to pass the House without a vote ever having to be taken there – something that would have summoned the lynch mobs had Republicans ever dreamed of doing such a thing.

When the rules get in the way, they change them.

When the people get in the way, they stomp on them.

The funny thing is, the Constititutional process is working, and it pisses off Obamacrats. Thus, they effectively urinate on the Constitution and call it Miracle-Gro.

Just as America rejects ObamaCare, Dems reject Americans, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich proved yesterday, when he admitted that he took his cues on how to vote on the bill from his wife and friends – not his constituency.

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in Constitution, Economy, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UNCONSTITUTIONAL? MAYBE, MAYBE …

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009

Senator Lindsey Graham

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”

It does sound funny to say, I admit.

To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.

Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.

For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s  “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”

Spot on.

Today, Graham was even better.

Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.

Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.

In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.

“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.

Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:

“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”

“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.

Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”

One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.

Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:

Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it’s a “crisis,” and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court – unless they’re illiterate in a judicial sense – they’re going to say it’s unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.

And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.

Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.

Gross: Good. Good. Good.

Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?

Gross: This is the first time I’ve mentioned it.

Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill – a congressional bill – that isolated a state?

Gross: Never before in history. They’re giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.

Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy.  (You knew that was coming).

What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).

And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.

Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).

It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement – a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.

There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »