Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Health Care Reform and the Constitution
by Kerby Anderson
While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.
He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.
Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.
Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."
And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.
Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."
The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.
He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.
Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.
Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."
And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.
Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."
The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Decide for Yourself
I am not a fan of Glen Beck, but I saw this link to the video from another source. She either has a bad ability to kid or she adores a murderous, criminal, communist, mad man.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
President Obama and the Doctors
Did you see the photo op yesterday? President Obama had his staff hand-pick a number of doctors that agreed with his agenda for socialized medicine. If you ever believed Hollywood directors were not involved with our government, this might have given you pause to start believing (sarcasm). What a hoax.
They actually had someone walking around handing out these white lab coats to the doctors. How many doctors ever leave their office or the hospital wearing a lab coat? If they don't do it then, why would they dress this way in order to meet the President.
I saw a video today that parody's Hollywood's "expertise" in health care. Here's a great laugh:
Monday, September 28, 2009
Mr. Newt Gingrich on Democrats Using Third World Tactics in Politics
I hope Mr. Gingrich doesn't mind, but I had to share this. I also made comments here and there in ( )'s. You can find more great articles here: Human Events.com
This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).
He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power – an assault that is being considered by the Obama Administration right now.
"We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It"
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our government to guard against political power grabs by slowing down the process of making laws.
They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule from destroying freedom.
In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider Before They Commit Us to a New Law
One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the legislative process is through the filibuster.
Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously debate it.
It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of legislation or nomination.
And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to the House to more directly reflect the will of the people. They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully consider a bill before they commit the American people and our resources to it.
A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country
I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional history to make an important point: The Obama Administration clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional, historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.
It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run, bureaucratic health care system which would expand their power and increase the importance of Washington.
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader, has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.
Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third world country.
Senator Byrd: "Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits"
The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by using a process called "reconciliation." Under reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.
Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, "one of the authors of the reconciliation process," which was created in 1985.
Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: "I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits."
Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: "The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters."
For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives Couldn't Muster 60 Votes
For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.
For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.
Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the normal constitutional process so they can ram through a gigantic government run health program immediately.
Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight
We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of Representatives.
This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod, all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of a machine.
However, every American who cherishes freedom and appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of American liberty.
This fight over process may turn out to be even more important than the fight over the substance of the big government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.
When both process and policy are wrong there is something very bad going on.
(Thanks Mr. Gingrich - Here's more from Human Events.com)
Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council
by Newt Gingrich
"Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate."These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.
This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).
He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power – an assault that is being considered by the Obama Administration right now.
"We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It"
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our government to guard against political power grabs by slowing down the process of making laws.
(Slow it down and read it, please!)
They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule from destroying freedom.
In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
(I just loved that quote)
The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider Before They Commit Us to a New Law
One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the legislative process is through the filibuster.
Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously debate it.
It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of legislation or nomination.
And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to the House to more directly reflect the will of the people. They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully consider a bill before they commit the American people and our resources to it.
A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country
I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional history to make an important point: The Obama Administration clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional, historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.
It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run, bureaucratic health care system which would expand their power and increase the importance of Washington.
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader, has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.
(And they call the President's podium the "bully pulpit"?)
Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third world country.
(Where are their heads in this? We as a nation are suffering and all they can think about is their ideology. Socialism run a muck!)
Senator Byrd: "Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits"
The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by using a process called "reconciliation." Under reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.
(Maybe they should call it "decapitation" because they are going to decapitate our economy)
Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, "one of the authors of the reconciliation process," which was created in 1985.
Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: "I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits."
(I have criticized Mr. Byrd in the past but he is quickly winning me over to his brief moment of wisdom)
Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: "The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters."
(Right on)
For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives Couldn't Muster 60 Votes
For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.
For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.
Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the normal constitutional process so they can ram through a gigantic government run health program immediately.
(And they are rushing why? Couldn't be that their time is running out? Or are they afraid the polar caps will melt too quickly, and they want aliens to find that they passed this bill as an "effort to save mankind")
Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight
We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of Representatives.
(Mr. Gingrich is right on here)
This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod, all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of a machine.
However, every American who cherishes freedom and appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of American liberty.
This fight over process may turn out to be even more important than the fight over the substance of the big government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.
When both process and policy are wrong there is something very bad going on.
(Thanks Mr. Gingrich - Here's more from Human Events.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
