Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) is at the center of negotiations shaping a bill that he promises will add transparency to the complicated, furtive world of financial derivatives, but he cannot remember how much he paid for his house on 10 waterfront acres in Ireland. No wonder confidence in government’s competence continues to erode.
Democrats BLOCKED Republican Regulations For Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2001, 2003, 2005!
Socialist Sleeper Cell Max Baucus - Click
New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.
1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost two to one in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health care bill.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on ‘EPW’ – Environment and Public Works.
WASHINGTON, DC –
U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) today introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, S. 906, to ensure that American taxpayers are not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. The Wicker bill is companion legislation to H.R. 3, which passed by a vote of 251 – 175 on Wednesday May 4, 2011.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
“The passage of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act with a strong, bipartisan majority of House members is a crucial step forward and one we hope to replicate in the Senate,” Wicker said. “Our goal is to codify in a single federal act a policy that has been endorsed again and again by the Congress and which has overwhelming public support – that of withholding taxpayer funding of abortion.”
Wonkette Muscle Beach Operative “Jim B.” sends us this hot sexy photo he took in Venice Beach over the weekend, where the communist Dennis Kucinich and his Elfin Queen, Liz, were vacationing during the “why does this even exist?” two-week Congressional recess. Look at this super-cool ruff rider, with the shades and popped collar. “I will steal your hottest ladies with my powers,” he is saying, maybe.
HISTRIONICS HARRY
When the United States Senate reconvenes Jan. 5, Senator Harry Reid’s Democrats intend “to change the Senate rules so that they can ram through their agenda when their majority shrinks … from 59 to 53 seats.” Republicans rightly point out that this political maneuver flies in the face of the clear verdict of the 2010 elections. They have also been trying to make the point that it overthrows the distinctive tradition of the U.S. Senate, which has characteristically operated by rules that prevent a simple majority of senators from running roughshod over the views of a minority, or even of individual senators.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, the appeal to tradition doesn’t carry much water in our day. In fact, the argument from tradition has never been conclusive in American politics or, for that matter, in American society at large. America’s founding represented a break with the notion that unthinking deference to tradition must be a decisive factor in determining the right structure and rules for political decision and action. The key American principle is that legitimate government must be based on the consent of the governed, not reflexive deference to tradition.
Of course, that same American principle makes respect for unalienable right (i.e., justice as determined by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”) the defining aim of the just powers of government. In general, this aim constrains the political majority to be fair in their treatment of minorities and individuals. It was of particular importance, however, when the framers of the U.S. Constitution originally debated the structure and characteristics of the Congress of the United States. The states with smaller populations naturally resisted a system of representation that distributed votes strictly according to population. The states with larger populations refused to accept a system that simply gave each state an equal vote regardless of population. One way or the other, the aim was to prevent a government structurally dominated by a simple majority, whether of small states or large populations.
The framers compromised with an approach that gave the larger population states an advantage in the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives, but allowed each state an equal number of votes in the U.S. Senate, regardless of population. In Federalist 62, Madison describes this as “the result, not of theory, but ‘of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.’”
Yet he goes on to make clear that it has “advantageous consequences” that went beyond the political exigencies of the moment:
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improperconsolidationof the states into one simple republic.
As originally conceived, the U.S. Senate wasintendedto represent and safeguard the residual sovereignty of the state governments. Equal representation in the Senate gave “to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”
With this in mind, we can more easily appreciate the reason for the U.S. Senate’s traditional respect for the views of the minority, and of individual senators. As the Senate was originally conceived, when a significant minority of senators opposed a given piece of legislation they represented the common conviction of a significant minority of state governments. Routine disregard for the feelings of such a minority had implications that went beyond the legislative process. It affected the peace and strength of the union, up to and including the possibility of armed conflict among the states.
With the passage of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, the U.S. senators ceased to represent the state governments, which therefore lost their “agency in the formation of the federal government.” Instead of representing the states’ residual sovereignty, senators became somewhat grander versions of the Representatives of the people in the U.S. House, distinguished by the fact that they represented population districts defined by fixed state boundaries, rather than boundaries periodically adjusted inlightof the decennial Census.
One of the goals of the grass-roots political uprising that finds its voice at tea-party gatherings around the nation is to end the domination of arrogant political elites and restore respect for the sovereignty of the people. This has given rise to an effort to remember and effectively revive the 10th Amendment’s explicit recognition of the residual sovereignty of the states and the people. Anyone seriously interested in this effort must consider the fact that the Democrats’ push to establish tyranny by simple majority in the U.S. Senate is an effort to remove the last vestige of what wasintendedto be the key constitutional means for safeguarding that residual sovereignty.
The reasons for resisting this tyrannical scheme go beyond what may appear to be the self-serving objections of the newly strengthened GOP contingent in the U.S. Senate. It has to do with the divide between those (in both parties) who seek to end, beyond hope of redemption, the federal republicintendedby the framers of the U.S. Constitution; and those like myself, who seek to restore the practical basis for its survival. The latter should seek to organize the anger and frustration over Harry Reid’s highhanded procedural maneuvers into a determined effort to galvanize sentiment in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment. Repeal would re-establish the direct connection between respect for the U.S. Senate minority and respect for the residual sovereignty of the state governments and the people. Such a goal goes beyond today’s temporary partisan interests. Instead, it serves the permanent interest of America, now and in generations to come.
For more from Alan Keyes visithttp://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people’s sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America’s wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked withAmerica’s Independent Partyto build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
BELOW ~ Read The News That Was Released Pre-emptively.
CBS/AP) The Senate passed a food safety bill Tuesday, that among other things makes it easier to recall contaminated foods, increases inspections, gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a host of new regulatory powers and funding related to food safety, and makes it easier to trace contaminations.
Supporters of the $1.4 billion bill, which passed with a vote of 73 to 25, said passage is critical in the wake of recent large-scale outbreaks of bacterial contaminants in things like peanut butter, eggs and spinach, reports Bob Fuss with CBS News radio. Additionally, the FDA has rarely inspected many facilities and some not at all.
Three Cheers For Kelli Estrella: Saying “NO” To “Food Austerity Act” S.150 & Paid Off Senators.
Currently, the FDA does not have the power to order food recalls. Instead, it must ask food manufacturers to do so voluntarily. This legislation grants the FDA that power.
The new legislation also includes exemptions for farmers selling less than $500,000 each year that directly market to consumers in a 275 mile areas, reports CBS News.
The small business provision may have been crucial to the bill’s passage, as the legislation’s chief opponents were advocates for buying locally produced food and small farm operators, AP reports.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., got an agreement to advance the legislation by allowing Republicans to offer amendments not relevant to the bill, the AP reports.
Whether the bill will pass during the brief lame-duck congressional session is unclear since the House approved a different version of the legislation in 2009. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the sponsor of the bill, said he has agreement from some members in the House to take up the Senate bill if it is passed.
The House’s 2009 food safety bill, favored by food safety advocates, includes more money for FDA inspectors and would charge fees to companies to help pay for the increased regulation. It would also include stricter penalties for food manufacturers who violate the law.
Senate’s 2010 food austerity bill version sponsored by Dick Durbin http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
Senate sponsors tweaked the original bill eliminating the fees and reducing the amount of money spent on inspectors, for example, to gain votes in their own chamber and to make the bill more palatable in the House.
Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety at the Pew Health Group, said advocates are pleased with the Senate bill and realize there is not enough time to push for some of the stronger House provisions.
“We think the Senate bill is a major step forward for public health,” he said.
Senators rejected several unrelated amendments to the bill, including an amendment to place a moratorium on earmarks, or pet projects in lawmakers’ states and districts, and one to repeal an arcane tax provision that helps pay for President Barack Obama’s new health care law.
WHAT SENATORS GOT PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 – THE ‘FOOD AUSTERITY ACT’
Some of the bill’s provisions
- Gives the FDA authority to recall contaminated foods. It is currently a voluntary system
- Exempts farmers selling less than $500,000 each year that “directly market to consumers in a 275 mile areas.
- Increases inspections at food facilities. Once every three years for high-risk facilities.
- Requires importers to verify food safety.
- Increases traceability and tracking of high risk foods. Creates a pilot program to increase contamination traceability.
- Allows FDA to access records if there is reasonable probability a food is causing sickness or death in humans or animals.
- Allows FDA to create new standards for the safety of fresh produce.
- FDA can collect fees for non-compliance with recalls or reinspections.
- FDA must form new regulations on safe food transport conditions.
- FDA can allow outside laboratories to conduct third party inspections to ease the load for the FDA.
- Increases funding and staff at FDA.
The following is a list of U.S Senators and the Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that these Senators received from Special Interest Groups to either support or oppose S.510 – The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received:
Name of Senator – Party & State – Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510
Daniel Akaka – D HI – Bribe For: $27,690 – Against: $700
Lamar Alexander – R TN – Bribe For: $190,421 – Against: $4,850
John Barrasso – R WY – For: $31,350 – Against: $27,500
Max Baucus – D MT – Bribe for: $123,803 – Against: $55,980
Evan Bayh – D IN – Bribe For: $45,200 – Against: 8,250
Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 – Against: $2,000
Michael Bennet – D CO – Bribe For: $38,509 – Against: $22,050
Robert Bennett – R UT – Bribe For: $105,530 – Against: $10,000
Jeff Bingaman – D NM – Bribe For: $31,498 – Against: $8,450
Christopher Bond – R MO – Bribe For: $49,550 – Against: $5,200
Barbara Boxer – D CA – Bribe For: $120,000 – Against: $13,650
Sherrod Brown – D OH – Bribe For: $57,800 – Against: $6,600
Samuel Brownback – R KS – Bribe For: $20,950 – Against: $13,500
Jim Bunning - R KY - Bribe For: $20,700 – Against: $2,000
Richard Burr – R NC – Bribe For: $328,086 – Against: $32,292
Roland Burris – D IL – Bribe For: $0 – Against: $0
Maria Cantwell – D WA – Bribe For: $93,541 – Against: $2,750
Benjamin Cardin – D MD – Bribe For: $72,200 – Against: $0
Thomas Carper – D DE – Bribe For: $83,150 – Against: $0
Robert Casey – D PA – Bribe For: $80,576 – Against: $4,600
Saxby Chambliss – R GA – Bribe For: $557,694 – Against: $108,041
Thomas Coburn R OK – Bribe For: $64,400 – Against: $14,200
Thad Cochran – R MS – Bribe For: $50,144 – Against: $22,000
Susan Collins – R ME – Bribe For: $157,438 – Against: $7,800
Kent Conrad – D ND – Bribe For: $41,650 – Against: $29,612
Bob Corker – R TN – Bribe For: $298,639 – Against: $8,850
John Cornyn – R TX – Bribe For: $286,648 – Against: $254,730
Michael Crapo – R ID – Bribe For: $64,199 – Against: $14,350
Jim DeMint – R SC – Bribe For: $149,935 – Against: $5,000
Christopher Dodd – D CT – Bribe For: $36,400 – Against: $4,500
Byron Dorgan – D ND – Bribe For: $28,200 – Against: $6,000
Richard Durbin – D IL – Bribe For: $151,050 – Against: $19,000
John Ensign – R NV – Bribe For: $76,297 – Against: $10,500
Michael Enzi – R WY – Bribe For: $87,394 – Against: $21,450
Russell Feingold – D WI – Bribe For: $53,854 – Against: $2,200
Dianne Feinstein – D CA – Bribe For: $168,189 – Against: 25,314
Kirsten Gillibrand – D NY – Bribe For: $98,210 – Against: $10,650
Lindsey Graham – R SC – Bribe For: $101,272 – Against: $5,700
Charles Grassley – R IA - For: $112,150 – Against: $25,500
Judd Gregg – R NH – Bribe For: $26,000 – Against: $0
Kay Hagan – D NC – Bribe For: $36,250 – Against: $3,500
Thomas Harkin – D IA – Bribe For: $138,135 – Against: $40,600
Orrin Hatch – R UT – Bribe For: $102,215 – Against: $11,600
Kay Hutchison – R TX – Bribe For: $127,811 – Against: $103,386
James Inhofe – R OK – Bribe For: $66,744 – Against: $36,430
Daniel Inouye – D HI – Bribe For: $26,350 – Against: $11,200
John Isakson – R GA – Bribe For: $280,995 – Against: $10,100
Mike Johanns – R NE – Bribe For: $159,259 – Against: $59,785
Tim Johnson – D SD – Bribe For: $26,850 – Against: $15,000
Edward Kaufman – D DE – Bribe For: $0 – Against: $0
John Kerry – D MA – Bribe For: $14,406 – Against: $250
Amy Klobuchar – D MN – Bribe For: $149,778 – Against: $16,250
Herbert Kohl – D WI – Bribe For: $300 – Against: $0
Jon Kyl – R AZ – Bribe For: $363,660 – Against: $58,906
Mary Landrieu – D LA – Bribe For: $73,622 – Against: $2,250
Frank Lautenberg - D NJ – Bribe For: $37,883 – against: $3,550
Patrick Leahy – D VT – Bribe For: $13,800 – Against: $2,750
Carl Levin – D MI – Bribe For: $49,900 – Against: $2,000
Joseph Lieberman – I CT – Bribe For: $121,075 – Against: $0
Blanche Lincoln – D AR – Bribe For: $347,526 – Against: $125,297
Richard Lugar – R IN – Bribe For: $153,579 – Against: $21,000
John McCain – R AZ – Bribe For: $118,070 – Against: $21,525
Claire McCaskill – D MO – Bribe For: $48,950 – Against: $7,650
Mitch McConnell – R KY – Bribe For: $439,593 – Against: $42,244
Robert Menéndez – D NJ – Bribe For: $183,850 – Against: $250
Jeff Merkley – D OR – Bribe For: $27,350 – Against; $3,300
Barbara Mikulski – D MD – Bribe For: $52,165 – Against: $1,000
Lisa Murkowski – R AK – Bribe For: $164,713 – Against: $5,800
Patty Murray – D WA – Bribe For: $136,500 – Against: $3,150
Ben Nelson – D NE – Bribe For: $254,906 – Against: $44,950
Bill Nelson – D FL – Bribe For: $205,471 – Against: $35,748
Mark Pryor – D AR – Bribe For: $115,550 – Against: $16,565
John Reed – D RI – Bribe For: $29,350 – Against: $0
Harry Reid – D NV – Bribe For: $133,985 – Against: $10,000
James Risch – R ID – Bribe For: $56,750 – Against; $36,050
Pat Roberts – R KS – Bribe For: $167,294 – Against: $65,186
John Rockefeller – D WV – Bribe For: $21,250 – Against: $1,000
Bernard Sanders – I VT – Bribe For: $7,800 – Against: $4,200
Charles Schumer – D NY – Bribe For: $175,185 – Against: $14,200
Jefferson Sessions – R AL – Bribe For: $65,303 – Against: $16,800
Jeanne Shaheen – D NH – Bribe For: $17,090 – Against: $7,300
Richard Shelby – R AL – Bribe For: $73,616 – Against: $10,000
Olympia Snowe – R ME – Bribe For: $78,136 – Against: $2,000
Arlen Specter – D PA – Bribe For: $209,124 – Against: $9,400
Debbie Ann Stabenow – D MI – Bribe For: $84,941 – Against: $14,482
Jon Tester – D MT – Bribe For: $21,250 – Against: $61,550
John Thune – R SD – Bribe For: $218,900 – Against: $55,625
Mark Udall – D CO – Bribe For: $34,435 – Against: $45,050
Tom Udall – D NM – Bribe For: $27,102 – Against: $51,900
David Vitter – R LA – Bribe For: $188,225 – Against: $8,500
George Voinovich – R OH – Bribe For: $103,850 – Against: $185
Mark Warner – D VA – Bribe For: $116,450 – Against: $8,600
Jim Webb – D VA – Bribe For: $25,300 – Against: $7,700
Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI – Bribe For: $27,025 – Against: $1,500
Roger Wicker – R MS – Bribe For: $147,650 – Against: $16,250
Ron Wyden – D OR – Bribe For: $58,700 – Against: $4,900
Here’s a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
Veterinarians $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0
Here’s a list of Here’s a list of the Special Interest Groups that supposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0
I wonder how the Senators will Vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate?
“In reading through the document, one will see that Sen. Kerry is fraudulently misleading the American Public about many of the key details and issues surrounding the climate change policy debate.”
Pharmaceutical companies are once again interfering with your ability to access information about dietary supplements.
The Senate is debating a bill that will enable the FDA to put vitamin supplement makers in jail for ten years if they cite findings from peer-reviewed published scientific studies on the label of their dietary supplements or their Web site.
The pretext for these draconian proposals is a bill titled the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). The ostensible purpose of the bill is to punish anyone who knowingly contaminates food for sale. Since there are already strong laws to punish anyone who commits this crime, this bill serves little purpose other than enriching pharmaceutical interests.
The sinister scheme behind this bill is to exploit the public’s concern about food safety. Drug companies want to convince your Senators that an overreaching law needs to be enacted to grant the FDA powers to define “food contamination” any way it chooses.
Even today, the FDA can proclaim a dietary supplement as “misbranded” even if the best science in the world is used to describe its biological effects in the body. The concern is that the FDA will use the term “misbranded” in the same way it defines “adulterated” in order to jail dietary supplement makers as if they were selling contaminated food.
The new bill being debated in the Senate increases the penalties the FDA can use to threaten supplement makers to ten years in prison. The big issue here is that the FDA will use this as a hammer to threaten and coerce small companies into signing crippling consent decrees that will deny consumers access to truthful non-misleading information about natural approaches to protect against age-related disease.
Please tell your two Senators to OPPOSE the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). You can do this in a few minutes on our convenient Legislative Action Center on our Web site.
If you’d like to read the legal details about this bill, log on to the Alliance for Natural Health Web site.
Health-conscious consumers have succeeded in preventing Congress from capitulating to the pharmaceutical industry this year. Please continue this string of victories by telling your Senators to OPPOSE this underhanded attempt (S. 3767) to grant the FDA dictatorial new powers.
Due to the short session before Congress adjourns for the election, please alert your two Senators today!
The introduction of a new Senate bill, S.3480, dubbed the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010,” is sparking concerns about a massive power grab over the Internet under the guise of “national security.”
The bill, proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I – CT) claims the entire Internet, the whole global computer network and everything on it, as a “national asset” of the United States, and seeks to give President Obama the power to seize control over broad swaths of it with no oversight during a “National Cyber Emergency,” which would itself be something the president would be able to declare at any time.
But easily the most controversial aspect of the nearly 200 page bill is what is being called a “kill switch,” granting the president the power to shut down the entire Internet across the planet for national security reasons. Sen. Collins (R – ME), a supporter of the bill, claimed it was necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11.”
The bill amounts to a remarkable claim of presidential power, claiming a large portion of the global economy as a specific asset of the United States and further claiming the right to nationalize or destroy it in whole or part on a whim. The news may be disquieting enough for Americans faced with this sort of power grab from their own government, but for foreigners the idea that another nation can commandeer the Internet, cut them off from it, or render it unusable is totally shocking, and not surprisingly, a source of no small consternation.
When reading through the bill, one can’t notice how frankly it claims such enormous powers, or imagine how shocked the entire planet would be if Sen. Lieberman proposed the same measures without adding the prefix “cyber” to every few words. Couching it as a technical matter, with the usual technical ignorance of a Congressman thrown in for good measure, is a way to hide exactly how sweeping the new powers would truly be.
In fact Sen. Lieberman insisted that the very fact that the internet is now “a necessity of modern life” was the justification behind his bill. We can’t, it seems, have billions of people worldwide living a modern life without the president’s imprimatur.
Lieberman has continued to dig a hole for his bill by saying that the President would never, the government should never take over the internet. Its those ‘woulds’ and ’shoulds’ that are bothersome. Who knows what some person with that kind of power and no checks and balances might do.
THE TRACK RECORD SPEAKS LOUD AND CLEAR ON MR. OBAMA!
DEATH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS – THAT LEAVES THE SHAMELESS RICH VS THE SERFDOMS.
THATS WHAT THE BRITISH MONARCHY IS SEEKING WITH THE USA.
MI6 OR TP6
British Monarchy Intelligence Or Tea Party Intelligence?
British Monarchy Will Have To Re-evaluate
Freedom Knows No Boundries
Obama OWNS this disaster! And guess who runs the MMS? You guessed it. Yet another Harvard grad appointed by Obama, Liz Birnbaum (they call her Bimbo). Gee….what a shocker.
Obama awarded B.P. the Safety Award for the very rig that was blown up.
*****
Obama Administration Gave Gulf Oil Rig Safety Award in ’09
Last year, the MMS awarded that same oil rig with an award last year for its “exemplary” safety history.
LaRouche International WebCast 3 Hours 18 Minutes
11 Minutes
Pelosi Held Back CBO Numbers – Willfully Constructed To Deceive And Bleed American Citizens!
The health care bill that Congress passed recently is now being challenged by 18 states to date. The constitutionality of the bill will be a close call, with strong arguments on both sides. As former staff director of the bipartisan Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, I wish here to present – as impartially as possible – both sides of the case, believing along with John Stuart Mill that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
2+ Million - Tea PArty Marches Upon Washington
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reported that its counsel opined that the individual mandate requiring all to purchase health insurance is constitutional under the commerce clause. True or wishful thinking? The nub of the controversy seems this: Will the Supreme Court, citing the commerce clause, permit Congress to regulate inactivity – that is, the absence of commerce – by forcing citizens to buy a certain private-sector service or product?
But to this argument, defenders of the bill will counter that the aim of the commerce clause is not to regulate economic inactivity but to regulate health insurance and health care – an altogether different focus.
In response, opponents of the bill will argue that health insurance is a 10th Amendment states’ right, not a federal government right. States currently regulate health insurance.
As if matters aren’t confused enough, the Supreme Court has taken polar positions on the commerce clause. In Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), it ruled that the commerce clause can be used to regulate home-grown marijuana even if only for personal use. But in U. S. v. Lopez (1995), it ruled that the commerce clause does not authorize federal law banning guns in local school districts.
The constitutionality of the individual mandate will also be tested under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the broad “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” Opponents of the individual mandate will argue that the mandate is not a tax, but a premium to insurance companies or a fine. Defenders of the mandate will counter that this premium or fine amounts to a tax, falling under the jurisdiction of the 16thAmendment. Also cited will be the enumerated power of the “general welfare” clause.
Opponents of the individual mandate will argue that the 16th Amendment, if used to permit the mandate, discriminates against freely choosing citizens who don’t want health insurance. But defenders will counter that the 16th Amendment already discriminates broadly: a graduated income tax is discriminatory. Mortgage deductions or deductions for children are discriminatory. We see a host of other discriminatory taxes whenever we file our yearly taxes.
Defenders of the individual mandate will argue that there are well established precedents for government coercion. Few people these days think that coerced social security payments or withheld Medicare premiums are unconstitutional. Car insurance is often cited, though that analogy fails: such is a mandated liability insurance for driving on roads and possibly getting into an accident – quite different from a mandated health insurance for simply living and breathing on American soil. And car insurance is a 10thAmendment states’ right, not a federal government right.
There is another unknown that could well enter into the matter of the constitutionality of the health care bill. The Supreme Court may elect not to meddle – on such an enormous, radical scale – into the domains of two constitutional branches of government: the presidency and Congress. Marbury v. Madison established the court’s power to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional, but the court in the health care matter might opt for recommending legislative relief.
Defenders of the bill will argue that the Constitution’s supremacy clause states explicitly that federal law shall be the “supreme law of the land.” Opponents will counter that federal law cannot be the supreme law of the land if that law is found unconstitutional, as in Marbury.
If any part of the health care bill is found unconstitutional, the whole bill fails because it contains no severability clause. Consensus holds that it will take two years for the constitutional challenge to progress through the federal district court, then the appellate court, and finally the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it is possible that an injunction from the district or appellate courts could put the entire bill on hold until the injunction is lifted or the case finally resolved.
My own view is that the Supreme Court will rule the health care bill unconstitutional because never in the history of jurisprudence has the court required a citizen to buy a certain private-sector product or service and never has it defined an insurance premium or resulting fine as a tax.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph. D. is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He served as chief of staff to the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and to the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution.
Senator Lindsey Graham
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Lindsey Graham has withdrawn his support for both the Democrat’s pro-amnesty immigration bill and cap and trade legislation just a week after ALIPAC Chairman Gheen gave a speech in which he demanded that Graham come clean on the fact that he is being blackmailed over his homosexuality.
Graham has staunchly pushed Democratic legislation that is completely at odds with the wishes of his South Carolina constituency, including cap and trade and immigration reform, while also displaying open hostility towards the Tea Party movement at several public events.
“When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong,” Gheen told a Tea Party crowd last week. “After today’s national broadcasts, the American public will know what the DC insiders know and that was my goal.”
Gheen’s speech went viral on You Tube and prompted a national debate about how many Congress members, given the fact that they have a record low approval rating of around 10 per cent, are being blackmailed into supporting policies which the vast majority of Americans oppose.
Little over a week after Gheen’s speech, Senator Graham has now vehemently withdrawn his support for both cap and trade legislation, which he was pushing with Democrats Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, as well as an immigration reform bill that would legalize the millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham, the sole Republican working on a bill to legalize illegal immigrants, in effect put the bill on the shelf on Tuesday, saying that a debate now would destroy any prospects for passage and that the issue needs to wait until 2012,” reports the Washington Times.
“The remarks likely signal the end of any serious chance for broad immigration legislation to pass this year, since Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, was the best hope for a partnership with President Obama and Democrats who want to write a bill,” states the article.
Likewise, Graham’s sudden decision to walk away from the climate bill caused Kerry and Lieberman to postpone a planned unveiling of the legislation on Monday.
“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is crafting the bill with Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), announced what he called a temporary postponement and said he remained committed to action this year on a sweeping climate and energy measure,” reports the Hill.
Graham’s public reason for abandoning both bills is his apparent displeasure at the fact that Democrats wanted to ram through the amnesty program first, at the cost of putting cap and trade on the back burner.
However, given the massive attention garnered by Gheen’s charge that Graham was being blackmailed into supporting unpopular legislation so as to keep his homosexuality under wraps, this is a far likelier explanation for Graham’s reversal. Now that Graham’s alleged homosexuality is an open secret, any potential damage to the Senator’s political career by having the rumor confirmed would be much lighter than it would have been before Gheen made the speech.
With Graham unable to be voted out of office until 2014, he has four years for the controversy to subside and the story to disappear. It appears as if Gheen has done Graham a favor by getting the secret out now. If Graham persists with his sudden change of heart and continues to hold back support for policies that are anathema to the desires of his South Carolina electorate, then Gheen’s speech has had a positive impact.
Watch Gheen discuss the issue on The Alex Jones Show below.
Repealing healthcare reform will be Republicans’ “No. 1 priority,” their House leader said Monday.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that repealing the healthcare legislation passed in Congress last month and signed into law by President Barack Obama would be the GOP’s top priority if it wins back control of Congress this fall.
“They got everything else in the entire bureaucracy that they need to control our healthcare system … with the signing of this bill,” Boehner said during an interview on WFLA’s “Bud Hedinger Show.” “That’s why repealing this bill has to be our No. 1 priority.”
Republicans have talked up a strategy of “repeal and replace” in the weeks since health reform became law, promising to act to repeal swaths of the new law, and replace them with reforms for which the GOP had pushed throughout the healthcare debate.
Members of the House GOPhave faced some internal riftsover the extent to which they would repeal the bill if they took control of Congress in the fall.
For instance, some centrist Republican candidates for higher office, like Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.), who are running for Senate in their respective states, have faced some pressure for having to walk a political tightrope between calling for a full or partial repeal of the new law.
Boehner’s remarks would indicate that an agenda of repealing healthcare would top Republicans’ agenda in this fall’s midterm elections, when the GOP hopes to make inroads into Democrats’ majority, if not win back control of the House.
The top House Republican said that voters’ ire over the healthcare debate has fueled his party’s traction in the polls going into the elections.
“I’ve never seen a bill pass the House of Representatives that the American people knew about, that the American people had discussed, debated, and had decided ‘no,’” Boehner said. “This is why the anger that’s out there, frustration that’s out there, and frankly, I think, a lot of this is now turning to resolve — resolving that the American people are going to do something about this.”
Update, 3:46 p.m.: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) shot back at Boehner on Monday afternoon:
“It is stunning that House Republicans will make their number one priority repealing benefits and rights for Americans, raising taxes, and turning our health care system back over to insurance companies. Not only does this legislation improve our health care system, it will also reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over 20 years, create millions of jobs, and provide small business owners with important tax credits. The House Republican leadership should start saying no to the special interests of the health insurance industry, and starting saying yes to American families by working with us to create jobs and get the economy back on track.”
Socialist Steny Hoyer - Hoping To Get Rich If America Buys This Pork/Ponzi Scheme
RUSH: Now, here are some things in the reconciliation package, the reconciliation fixes that will not be part of the bill if they vote Sunday and Obama signs it. This is the deem-and-pass thing. I’ve told you about the increase, almost 1% increase in the Medicare payroll tax on investment income, capital gains. There are even deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, which will mean fewer and less attractive Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors.
And as I mentioned yesterday, take a look at Walgreens in the state of Washington, they are not accepting any new Medicaid patients starting April 16th. I mean that’s the future. There are increases in the employer penalties for not complying with the mandates which will hit all businesses with more than 50 employees. It’s deadly. Now, what’s in the Senate bill? What’s in the Senate? The Senate Democrats’ health bill cuts Medicare by $463 billion. And, by the way, folks, you should know this. Steny Hoyer has sent a memo to all Democrats in the House: “Do not get into a discussion about specifics of the CBO report. Do not get into specifics.” The reason is, if they get into specifics they’re going to have to admit that everything they’re saying is untrue about how much it costs and how much premiums are going down and how much the deficit’s going down because none of that’s true. Hoyer is printing out a memo to staff members to tell their leaders and members of Congress, do not get into a debate with anybody about what’s in the CBO report, just focus on deficit reduction.
In other words, Hoyer sent a memo out to his members saying: “Just lie, just lie, and say this reduces the deficit but get into no specifics. You keep walking, you don’t stop, and you do not get into a detailed discussion of CBO numbers.” They don’t want a detailed discussion of any of the details here. They lose if that happens. They don’t want it, and that’s why people are focusing on these details today. The sum total of Medicare cuts in the Senate bill is $523.5 billion dollars. That’s the total and that’s what will pass. The Senate bill will be separated if they vote on this reconciliation thing Sunday, it will be sent over to the Senate to be certified there, then on to Obama. The reconciliation package will not be part of it. The reconciliation package may never see the light of day. Here are the way the cuts break down: $202.3 billion in cuts to seniors Medicare health plans including massive cuts targeting the extra benefits and reduced cost sharing that seniors receive through Medicare Advantage; $156.6 billion in cuts to inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals. Folks, there’s no expanded care anywhere, especially for you seasoned citizens. There are massive cuts. And this $523 billion is being taken away from Medicare and is being spent elsewhere. They’re taking it away from senior citizens, spending it elsewhere in the new entitlement. This is in the Senate bill, not this reconciliation stuff, what has been passed last Christmas Eve in the Senate.
Thirty-nine point seven billion in cuts to home health reimbursements; $22.1 billion in additional cuts to hospitals by slashing reimbursements designed to assist hospitals that serve low-income patients; $20.7 billion in cuts to the Medicare improvement fund; $13.3 billion in yet-to-be-determined Medicare cuts from the hands of an unelected federal board. Look, I’m going to stop with the numbers because they get blurred after a while. We’re talking about a couple of different things, reconciliation and the Senate bill when we start talking about these numbers. The bottom line is there are no expanded services, there are no smaller premiums. Nothing that they’re saying about this — Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama — none of it is true.
Are you unable to comprehend just how ObamaCare managed to squeak through the Senate, that august body of deep thinkers and sober reflectors?
A clue may in the offing in the youtube.com video which shows Democrat Max Baucus apparently snockered to the gills while extolling the virtues of commie health care on the floor of the Senate:
What a pity that the good Senator will have no recollection whatsoever of this impassioned plea. Unless, that is, we send him about one million e-mails with said youtube dilly attached.
The Baucus fiasco brings up a pet peeve of mine. Namely, why is it that every time a politician gets in trouble these days, he immediately pleads alcoholism and or drug addiction, enters a rehabilitation center, prays to God and family for forgiveness, and demands to be coddled like a helpless baby for years to come?
Although Baucus has not played the alcoholic card yet, he surely will, soon enough. He may even use his addiction to booze as an excuse when ObamaCare explodes into chaos, which should be sometime before the State of the Union.
Baucus’ case brings up a pressing question for the times: Where are all the honorable miscreants, the tough guys who quit drinking and using only when forced to as a result of slipping into in a substance-induced coma or blackout.
I am speaking of the salt of the earth types who think that “12-steps” is a field sobriety test administered by Smokey to see if one can walk twelve full steps, on his or her own, in a straight trajectory without losing consciousness.
I refer to those rugged individualists whose sole purpose in entering a rehabilitation center would be to transact underground, tax-free, business with addicts confined there.
By contrast, politicians like Max Baucus use rehabilitation centers as quasi-religious sanctuaries to buy enough time for their aberrant behaviors to be replaced as “Breaking News” items with more current offenses.
May we suggest a new Step 1 for the Senator? Resign your senate seat immediately. Do it for the children!
