Obamacare Ruling Will Renew Call For Socialist Single Payer

June 23, 2012 4 Comments

The Obamacare ruling is expected next week. We won’t know when it is actually going to be handed down, all the speculation on it is absurd. It’s likely that at least the individual mandate will be struck down, if not the entire law. Any ruling that all or part of Obamacare is unconstitutional will be a victory for the Tea Party and the Constitution. It will also be politically disastrous for the President. The big question though is what effect this will have on the Presidential race. There are some on the left who believe a ruling of unconstitutional will open the door for single payer socialist medicine. We must make sure this never happens.

Single payer socialist medicine would not per se be unconstitutional so long as it is based on the taxing power of the Constitution. The Congress could tax individuals or businesses and use the money to fund a massive, nationalized health care system. They already do this with Medicare, though the benefits are only for those 65 and older as opposed to all Americans. This system stands in stark contrast to Obamacare, which relies on the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health insurance. A single payer, socialist system would be easier for the left to get by the Constitution and let’s face it single payer is what they’ve been after all along.

Single payer though is a disaster wherever it is implemented. We forever hear the left telling us about the great health care system in Canada. In Canada you’ll find waiting lists a mile long. If you need surgery or therapeutic treatment you’ll wait an average of 18.3 weeks. Ontario leads the way, their citizens only wait 15 weeks, while Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Soctia have nearly six month waiting lists. Need to see a specialist in Canada? You’ll wait two months on average. You’ll wait a month to see a cancer doctor and God help you if you’ll need to see more than one during your battle against cancer because it’s a month for each doctor. Need a CT scan in Canada? You’ll wait nearly 5 weeks. Need a MRI? You’ll wait over 10 weeks.

Meanwhile in Great Britain they’re knocking off the elderly at the rate of 130,000 per year. They attempt to make excuses for this number (it isn’t denied) but we all know they’re killing these people because they’re a cost burden. Life becomes cheap when taxpayers are on the hook and there’s a deficit. Politicians don’t have to worry about dead people voting in the next election, they do have to worry about angry taxpayers who don’t like deficits.

The reason why socialist medicine is such a mess is because it functions outside of the market. It’s very easy to go see a GP in a socialist country because they are the lowest common denominator. All voters need to see a GP every year so the government props these doctors up and makes them easily accessible. Fewer voters need to see specialists or need special treatment so it pays at the ballot box to fund these people at lower levels than the market would otherwise demand. We have the opposite situation here in the US, we have specialists galore because Americans demand them. It’s why we have the best healthcare in the world and Canada and Great Britain do not.

In the next few weeks the far left will call for socialist single payer healthcare. Odds are the American public isn’t going to be much interested in another massive left-wing healthcare program. But we must be prepared to combat socialist healthcare when they call for it. The numbers from Canada and Britain are chilling. The lack of competition breeds waste. The political solutions to health problems is costly for sick people and the elderly. Do the American people, particularly the 85% with health insurance, really want four month waiting lists for treatment? Do we really want to wait a month or two for basic diagnostic tests that we can get tomorrow or the next day now? Do we really want a system that has incentive to knock off the elderly when they become “too costly”? That’s what socialist single payer will give us. God help us if Obama should ever manage to pass it.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Lack Of Vision Opens Door For Romney

June 15, 2012 2 Comments

President Obama’s “major” economic speech offered no new ideas and no plan for his second term. He seems to believe that he can blame Bush for the economy and therefore not be held responsible for not fixing it and/or making it worse during his 3 and a half years in office. Obama blames all his problems on Washington gridlock, as though he’s somehow not part of the gridlock. The result of Obama’s finger pointing and no second term plan is that in the Real Clear Politics average, he’s only up on Romney by 0.8%. Obama has 45.7% to Romney’s 44.9%. Romney has a very clear opening to exploit.

The shift in polls isn’t so much toward Romney as it is away from Obama. There is a group of independent voters who may have at one time leaned towards Obama but now aren’t so sure. They’re willing to give Romney a shot. It’s now up to Romney to convince them that he is capable and has a plan for the future. He must lay out his plan in a clear and concise manner and he must contrast his plan to the last four years under Obama. In two months he’ll have a very high profile opportunity to address the nation at the Republican Convention. Obviously we all know the debates will be important.

Romney must provide a simple economic plan based on the free market that focuses on lower taxes and fewer regulations. He must make the case that Obama’s upcoming taxmageddon, which will hit on January 1st and won’t be repealed if Obama is re-elected, will hurt the economy. Middle class taxes will rise, perhaps as much as $1700 for a family earning around $50,000. Capital gains taxes would rise 66%, taxes on dividends would nearly triple and the death tax would rise by 50%. Romney needs to drive this point home, Obama hasn’t even attempted to negotiate a deal with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. Romney needs to make the case that under his administration he would keep the Bush tax cuts, that they’re good for the middle class and the country and he needs to make the case that they should be permanent so we don’t have tax uncertainty.

Romney also needs to come up with a heathcare plan. Repealing Obamacare, if it’s still law come the end of the month much less next January, isn’t enough of a plan to win the White House. Romney must propose free market reforms such as allowing the purchase of insurance over state lines and allowing small businesses to pool their risk. Romney has talked about this over the past week or so but he needs to but forth a comprehensive plan that’s simple to understand. Most importantly, he needs to promise that his bill won’t be 2,000 pages and it won’t be Romneycare.

The American people are turning from Obama. They haven’t yet turned to Romney. It’s up to him to seal the deal and prove to the American public that he’s someone worth voting for. He absolutely cannot rely on people coming out to the polls just to vote against Obama. The American people generally want someone they can vote for, in the very least we prefer this than going to the polls to vote against someone. Romney’s opening is there, the question is whether or not he can take advantage of it. This is still a 60-40 race favoring Obama. But with a few good proposals and a terrific convention speech, Romney can shrink it to 50-50 by the end of the summer. No opponent can hope for a better position heading into the fall against an incumbent. We’ll have to wait and see whether Romney can seize this moment

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Food Nazi Alert II: Now They’re After Popcorn and Milk!

June 13, 2012 5 Comments

Just a couple weeks ago New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on the sale of pop if it is larger than 16oz. We here at Steven Birn Speaks roundly criticized Nanny Bloomberg’s proposal. The health board that will ultimately decide, in favor, of the over 16oz pop ban isn’t limiting its intrusion onto New Yorkers lives to sugary drinks. They’ve already fallen for the slippery slope argument, they’re proposing limits on the size of movie theater popcorn, milkshakes and milk heavy coffee drinks. Once they’ve banned large popcorn and limited your milkshake intake, one wonders what they’ll be after next.

The food nazi’s, really food socialists (nazi’s are socialists afterall), aren’t simply trying to combat the made up epidemic of obesity. They’re exactly the same as the global warming alarmists. They’re manufacturing a crisis and demanding massive control over our lives to combat a non-problem. The idea that people are suddenly fat today is ridiculous. People have been fat throughout human history, including people in our parents and grandparents generation. The average young American today for example is one inch and ten pounds heavier than the average world war two soldier. Heavier yes, but also taller which explains the added weight.

We do not have a crisis of fat people. It’s completely made up and trumpeted by a media that will repeat anything that will gain power for the government. They focus on morbidly obese people who weigh 500 pounds or more and because the media focuses so much on these people others think it’s become normal when it has not. They’ve done the same thing with homosexuals. Nearly a third of young women think 25% or more of the population is homosexual when in reality around 2% are. It’s all because the media hypes homosexuals. The media is doing the same thing with the morbidly obese, they focus so much attention on them that people think that 500 pound fat cat ladies are everywhere when they aren’t.

The other thing to question is what we’re calling obese today. They’ve created the statistical levels so that nearly half of us fall into the obese category, even those who most of us would look at and assume are only a couple pounds overweight. If you’re 10 pounds over the health nazi’s “ideal” weight they’ll call you obese. These people then run to the media with their statistics and suddenly we’re all nervous and want someone (government) to “do something” about it.

Nanny Bloomberg and his board of health nuts has plans to “do something.” This includes limiting your access to the foods of your choice including pop, popcorn, milkshakes and creamy coffee drinks. These folks are just getting started to, in a couple weeks they’ll be banning double cheeseburgers, footlong hot dogs and large new york pizza slices. After that they’ll ban everything larger than a small french fry and bags of chips over a couple ounces. Then they’ll be after ice cream sundaes, no doubt Burger King’s bacon sundae will be first on the ban list, onion rings, pie, cake, new york cheesecake and fried chicken. Give these people time and they’ll ban everything fried, everything sweet and everything that tastes good.

The worst part about this is that if the Democrats dream of single payer healthcare ever passes, people will go right along with these infringements on food liberty because of an imagined healthcare cost savings. It matters not that the experts are lying about how fat people are, it matters not that they create artificially low weights in order to make us all obese. We’ll buy into freedom infringement because we imagine it will save us money. When it doesn’t, well we’ll have forgotten all about our freedom lost by then. It starts with Nanny Bloomberg’s pop ban. When will the infringement on liberty end?

Filed under Food Police Tagged with , , , , , ,

Polls Show Clear Shift Towards Romney

June 8, 2012 Leave a comment

It’s really too early to make a big deal out of Presidential polls. But there are several polls out that are just to good to ignore. Here in Michigan, Romney is up 1 among likely voters. Romney also has small leads in Ohio and Florida while the candidates remained tied in Colorado. Even the gender gap is tightening, the left’s faux war on women line is failing. Also last month Romney was able to out fundraise Obama by around $16 million. This isn’t a sign of the tide turning in Romney’s favor but it does set things up well for the Republicans come the fall.

Obama has been savaged by one piece of bad news after another for the last three months. It all begins with his whisper in the ear of the Russian President. Then Obamacare was savaged before the Supreme Court, then the Arizona immigration lawsuit was savaged. Economic numbers are down. The President’s campaign message is all over the place, he spent a week talking about Romney’s dog, now he’s calling him a vulture. Bill Clinton is becoming a problem. Now security leaks are becoming a hot issue, even Democrats are outraged. His cabinet looks incompetent, Eric Holder insists that emails that contain the phrase ‘fast and furious’ doesn’t actually refer to the Fast and Furious program. Of course we cannot forget Tuesday’s repudiation of public sector unions in Wisconsin.

It could get worse for the President with the Supreme Court scheduled to rule on Obamacare within the next three weeks. It is with that ruling that Obama has an oppertunity to turn the tide. He essentially has two choices if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. He can argue for a modified version of Obamacare with all the goodies people seem to support such as children staying on their parents policy until they’re practically middle aged (26) and guaranteeing coverage for preexisting conditions. His other argument is to double down on socialist medicine and argue for an outright single payer system like he did in 2008. If he’s wise, he’ll go with the former because it gives him an opportunity to make healthcare an issue in this election and on his terms no less.

Romney has to love the numbers he’s seeing so far. His campaign must be confident at this point. He needs to do two things which will help his campaign. First he needs to beat Obama to the punch on healthcare. If Romney is going to support some of the goodies of Obamacare which are popular then he needs to come out and do it right now before Obama has a chance to formulate a response to the Obamacare decision. Politically this is a good move, even if economically it isn’t.

Second, Romney needs to formulate a long term economic plan and present it clearly and concisely to the American people. He doesn’t need to do that today but he needs to start putting that together in order to roll it out in August. If economic numbers continue to stagnate or slide, the election will become a pure referendum on Obama. For Romney to win that, he needs to at least be able to demonstrate that he has a grasp of the issues and has a clear alternative to Obama. This is what Reagan did in 1980 and what Clinton did in 1992.

The polls are encouraging for Romney and the Republicans at this point. In the very least, even if Romney isn’t able to win states like Michigan or Wisconsin he’s going to force Obama to spend time and money there that cannot be spent in real battle ground states like Ohio and Virginia. Most importantly for Romney at this point though is that Obama has utterly failed to define him, no matter how hard he has tried. That will pay dividends in the fall. We may look back at this period as the time when Obama let victory slip through his hands.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Food Nazi Alert: Nanny Bloomberg Bans Large Drinks

June 1, 2012 12 Comments

New York City Mayor Michael “Nanny” Bloomberg wants to ban large drinks. Apparently Bloomberg is convinced that large coffee’s and large pop’s are making Americans obese. This “problem” is something Bloomberg thinks government must take on. A century ago progressives like this were trying to ban alcohol, now they’re trying to ban drinks with sugar in them. He isn’t concerned about milkshakes with all their fat and sugar. He isn’t concerned about large 32oz beer’s with all their calories served at Yankee Stadium and bars throughout the city. Nor is he concerned with doughnuts and all their fat and sugar. In fact, the Mayor endorsed National Doughnut Day with a video!

It’s only sugar drinks over 16oz that Bloomberg wants a piece of. He believes it’s his duty to “force you to understand.” He isn’t banning us from doing things, he’s simply forcing us to understand. How Orwellian. Adults can and should be free to make their own drink size choices. It really shouldn’t be any of the government’s business one way or the other. Bloomberg’s plan fails in that there’s nothing stopping me from buying two or more 16oz drinks. It also fails to combat obesity by failing to ban milkshakes, doughnuts and doritos. The problem though is that it’s a step in that direction. The progressives learned from prohibition. Going at it all at once is a bad idea, taking it step by step works. Food totalitarianism here we come!

One of the problems with government control of healthcare is that it leads to a reasonable argument for government micromanaging our lives. If it saves the state money to micromanage us by banning drinks, it becomes a taxpayer savings argument that may even draw in conservatives. A quarter of Americans are on Medicaid these days, almost as many are on Medicare. In New York it may be even higher. Suddenly obesity, which should be little more than a private issue, becomes a “public health” issue.

This is where Obamacare becomes so problematic because it will lead to socialist single payer healthcare. Rather than having fat people pay higher rates for their health insurance, taxpayers are going to be stuck paying for fat people’s healthcare. That gives incentive to people like Bloomberg, who want to micromanage our lives, to propose laws that actually do so. Step by step of course. One morning we’ll wake up to discover that we aren’t allowed to drink pop, we aren’t allowed to have an egg cream and National Doughnut Day will have long since been banned.

Bloomberg is trying to force us all to understand. What he doesn’t understand though is that we adults already know that sugary drinks can make us fat. We simply don’t care. We make choices, we’re adults who understand that the momentary pleasure of drinking a pop could lead to the undesirable consequence of obesity. We’ve made a rational choice not to care about the latter. We of course won’t even get into the absurd statistics which have been manipulated to show that nearly all of us are obese when in fact most of us are simply a few pounds overweight.

Bloomberg needs to understand what freedom is. It is not his job as Mayor to micromanage the lives of the people of New York just like it’s not the job of the President t micromanage the lives of Americans. Bloomberg is proposing food totalitarianism. If successful you can bet it will be coming to a city near you soon. Mayor’s across the country have power envy, once one mayor achieves an amount of power over the people in his city every other mayor wants the same power. New York first, San Francisco next, then Chicago then your small city. Meanwhile freedom falls by the wayside.

Filed under Food Police Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare Ruling Looms Over Obama, Romney Campaigns

May 21, 2012 2 Comments

It’s no secret that we here at Steven Birn Speaks are poll watchers. These days the Obama-Romney matchup is more or less a statistical tie according to Rasmussen and Gallup. That equates to a Romney victory as generally speaking 80% of undecided voters end up voting against the incumbent. Thus a 45-45 tie in the polls is really a 53-47 Romney lead. Obviously the number of people undecided will shift before election day. But on election day, those who are undecided will mostly shift towards the challenger.

Having said all of that, we cannot forget it’s only May. We have just under six months to go before the election. A lot can change between now and November. In fact, a lot will change and not just on the economy which is presumably the number one issue heading into the election. The big elephant in the room is the Obamacare case at the Supreme Court. How that case is decided will set up the 2012 election, even more so than the economy provided there isn’t a massive downturn. (it’s too late for a massive upswing)

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is ruled constitutional it’s a big feather in the cap of Obama. He can run around the country pointing to Obamacare as his big first term achievement and he can tell the people he should be the one to fully implement it during his second term. It’s a solid argument. But we cannot forget that the polls show that 60% of the country wants Obamacare repealed. In other words, Obama may win the argument on constitutionality but lose because his signature piece of legislation is simply unpopular.

A ruling that the individual mandate is constitutional would certainly fuel Obama and his supporters but it could arguably work up Republicans more than any other issue. Nothing may galvanize Republicans more behind Mitt Romney than the threat of Obamacare being fully implemented by Obama. Romney has pledged to sign the repeal of Obamacare, that pledge alone could propel him into the White House on a wave of anti-Obamacare electoral storm. There isn’t another issue that could cause Republicans to back Romney more than a Constitutional ruling from the court on Obamacare.

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or the whole thing is ruled unconstitutional it would be a major blow for Obama. His signature piece of legislation will have been ruled unconstitutional. A Constitutional law professor’s signature piece of legislation no less. That’s a serious problem for Obama. But he can recover from it based on his reaction to such a ruling. If he spends his time attacking the Supreme Court, he’ll lose. But if he instead pushes for individual bills enshrining parts of Obamacare into law, particularly the popular portions of it like the pre-existing conditions clause, he could come out victorious.

Romney already appears behind the eight ball concerning what to do without Obamacare. He’s talked about vague free market solutions but he doesn’t seem to have a plan. He really needs come up with a solid alternative to Obamacare, since a Romney Presidency will result in the elimination of Obamacare. In fact, Romney could shift the polls by coming out with a solid, free market plan before the Supreme Court rules on the matter. That said if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, Romney’s response to the ruling will be just as important as Obama’s.

The Obamacare ruling, due out late next month, will be the opening shot in the 2012 election cycle. There will be plenty to talk about before then as Obama attempts to define Romney from his bully pulpit. But in terms of polls, they aren’t going to matter a whole lot because they will shift substantially after the court rules. They may even shift twice depending on how the candidates respond to the ruling. This decision will determine how the fall narrative goes. This election isn’t just about the economy, it’s also about Obamacare or what will replace Obamacare.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Obama Economy Is Not Booming

April 9, 2012 1 Comment

Last month’s economic news wasn’t very good. No doubt the administration will brag about the 8.2% unemployment rate. What they don’t want to talk about is the fact that nearly 88 million adult Americans aren’t in the work force. If someone isn’t in the work force, they aren’t considered “unemployed.” In other words, a record number of people are either retired, a housewife or have simply given up looking for work. It’s the latter that is driving the number higher on a monthly basis. In short, the only reason why the unemployment rate is down is because the government isn’t counting the unemployed who have given up.

The rest of the jobs report isn’t good either. After posting new jobs over 200,000 in February, March saw only 120,000 created. More people gave up looking for work than jobs were created. Economic forecasters had predicted over 200,000 created jobs in March. With the economy creating less jobs than anticipated, many seem to believe that the jobs market is getting weak again. Keep in mind, we would have to have three years of monthly job growth like February just to get back all the jobs lost in the recession. For March to produce just over half of what was predicted is disappointing. Not surprisingly, it’s led to a stock sell off this morning.

The economy is a mess right now and bragging about the unemployment rate is just putting lipstick on a pig. Gallup reports the underemployment rate at 17.8%, meaning more than one out of six Americans is underemployed. (ie, they want to work fulltime but cannot find 40 hours of work per week) Inflation is hitting big as gas prices have increased substantially to $3.90 a gallon. We can expect to see food and clothing prices increase in the next couple months as a direct result of increased gas prices. Big ticket items might not increase in price but the cost of day to day living is on the rise and has been throughout the Obama administration while wages remain flat.

Poor economic news really gives Romney an opening this fall. If the economy cannot pick up steam, Obama may be in trouble. He can win re-election with economic news like February’s. But he cannot win with months like March. At some point, Romney is going to make the case that the unemployment rate is a farce because it so many are excluded. The underemployed rate and the number of adults no longer in the work force are the better measures of employment. With inflation, low job growth, Romney has an opening. He can ask Americans if they’re better off than they were four years ago. For most at this point the answer is no.

We’re not even getting into Obama’s direct economic contributions such as the failed Stimulus, the massive debt incurred under Obama’s watch, the financial reform package which didn’t reform anything but made the cost of business increase, the effect of various regulations or the uncertainty created by Obamacare. This is Obama’s economy, just like it’s Obama’s budget deficit and Obama’s GSA spending wildly in Las Vegas.  Obama has not made conditions good for business. He’s created tax and health care uncertainty. His energy policy is costing us jobs and money. His regulations are costing businesses money, which is seen in job cuts and/or failure to hire more workers. Creating 120,000 jobs isn’t enough when we lost so many millions during the recession. The economy is his, the question is whether Americans are content with mediocrity and whether Romney can take advantage if Americans are not content.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

What Is Judicial Activism?

April 4, 2012 Leave a comment

On Monday President Obama, former Constitutional law professor, threatened the Supreme Court declaring that if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional the court will be an “activist court.” He seemed to back off those comments yesterday, although he still declared that the burden was on those who believe Obamacare is unconstitutional to prove their case. What Obama is trying to do is browbeat conservatives, who have long complained about judicial activism. Obama wants to re-define the term to suit him. So we must ask ourselves what is judicial activism?

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison declared “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Thus all laws which are passed by Congress which are unconstitutional are null and void. When a court strikes down a law because the Constitution forbids it, the court isn’t engaging in judicial activism. It is simply upholding the Constitution which it has sworn to uphold. Thus when Congress tries to limit free speech the Court rightfully strikes the law as void as it did in Citizens United. If the Court strikes Obamacare, it will be because they have determined that the Commerce Clause does not grant the Federal government the power to force Americans to buy privately marketed products. It matters not whether a democratically elected Congress passes a law if it is unconstitutional.

What conservatives consider to be judicial activism is when the court writes and creates law. Thus the right attacks Roe v. Wade, which undid nearly 50 state laws by creating a Constitutional right to abortion. There is no clause in the Constitution granting the Court or the Federal government the power to ban states from outlawing abortion. Likewise in Griswold v. Connecticut the Court created a Constitutional right to buy contraception. In Lawrence v. Texas the Court created a right to commit sodomy. In these cases the Court didn’t simply play judge, it played Legislature as well. There is no clause in the Constitution granting people these rights, they’re at best state issues.

Obama cheers all of these decisions, wherein the Court created rights. But when his law is threatened he whines about judicial activism. It’s completely disingenuous of course, but Obama doesn’t care because the ends justify the means. When a Court looks to the Constitution and finds that a law passed by Congress is illegal and doesn’t fall under the powers given it by the Constitution (read the people) then the Court has every right to strike the law. Marbury has always stood for this principle. This is the opposite of the progressive’s positive view of judicial activism wherein the Constitution is pushed aside in favor of changing morals and opinions. The progressive left, unable to pass any number of things democratically, has long looked to the Court to manufacture rights.

In short, Obama is trying to change the language of law. He wants any judicial ruling that determines that Congress is acting outside of its authority deemed ‘judicial activism.’ In short, he wants a tyranny of the Congress and White House. This is something the founders warned against, it’s why the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of government. You would think the Constitutional law professor would know that and care about it. But he doesn’t, largely because he has his sights on remaking America into a socialist nation and that pesky Constitution gets in the way.

Filed under Supreme Court Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Alinsky Style Supreme Court Attack

April 3, 2012 2 Comments

President Obama declared war on the Supreme Court yesterday. One wonders if he hasn’t been leaked information about how the Friday’s vote went down because Obama was particularly outraged at the prospect of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional. He declared that ruling Obamacare unconstitutional would be an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, undoing a law the democratically elected Congress passed. It is clear what the Democrat strategy is going to be if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. They’re going to accuse the Court of being partisan and if that doesn’t fail the left will go to its old standby and call conservatives morons.

Obama once again displayed his narcissism for the world to see yesterday. As though nothing negative has ever happened to any other President before. As though other President’s haven’t seen legislation they supported ruled unconstitutional. Obama displayed a glaring lack of historical knowledge when it comes to the Supreme Court. FDR saw eight of his New Deal programs ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court went so far as to shut down FDR’s beloved NRA and it’s infamously nasty blue eagle program. The court also ruled various wage and price controls unconstitutional, undoing an important part of FDR’s socialist New Deal. Obama’s lack of historical knowledge is glaring considering he’s a former Constitutional law professor. You would think he would know about these cases.

Obama attacked conservatives who oppose judicial activism, a thinly veiled warning to those on the court who support original construction. In making this argument Obama shows he doesn’t even understand what the conservative argument is regarding the Constitution. Judicial activism has given us such gems as Roe v Wade wherein rights are created out of thin air and deemed constitutional. Original construction opposes the creation of additional rights, it also opposes the Federal government acting outside of the limited enumerated powers in the Constitutional. Obamacare is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t grant the government the power to order Americans to buy products. Obama seems to think conservatives believe the Congress can do whatever it wants without any comment from the judiciary. It’s a patently ignorant position coming from a Constitutional law professor.

The truth is Obama doesn’t care what original construction is and he isn’t interested in what conservative jurisprudence believes. All he cares about is demonizing his enemies ala Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He’s doing two things in his comments on the Supreme Court. First he’s threatening them, likely trying to scare Kennedy into switching sides. Second, he’s setting up the narrative for late June if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. He’s going to demonize a Supreme Court that disagrees with him. He’ll call them partisan, though one wonders what we are to consider the four Democrat appointees who likely will vote Obamacare Constitutional. They won’t be partisans of course, only Republicans are.

Obama believes a whole lot of Constitution law professors agree with him. No doubt he’s correct. But just because a bunch of professors think something doesn’t make it so. Apparently Obama either didn’t pay attention or doesn’t care to pay attention to the 27 states who challenged Obamacare’s Constitutionality or to the lower courts who ruled it unconstitutional. Perhaps he didn’t read any of the briefs filed by any of the lawyers who believe it’s unconstitutional. As an attorney, Obama ought to know there are two sides to every issue. He displays incredible ignorance in pretending otherwise. But of course he’s not interested in acknowledging the “enemy’s” point of view. He’s only interested in demonizing it. This is what happens when we elect a community rabble rouser, I mean a community organizer.

Filed under Obamacare Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Not A Good Day For Obamacare

March 27, 2012 4 Comments

Last week I opined that Obamacare would be ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In that piece I reserved the right to change my position based on the arguments made before the court. Today the court heard arguments on the individual mandate. What is clear is that Obamacare is in serious trouble. There’s no reason for us to get overly excited yet but if the comments of the five Republican appointees is any indication Obamacare may be going down in flames.

Chief Justice Roberts was one of the two conservatives who was thought to be on the fence. It became clear today that he isn’t as on the fence as originally thought. He wondered whether the government could force citizens to buy cell phones because they might need emergency services one day. Scallia wondered if the government could force us to buy broccoli, after all it’s healthy. Justice Alito asked if we could be forced to buy prepaid funeral services, since we’ll all need to be disposed of. Roberts seems to be buying into this line of reasoning, that being if the government can force us to buy health insurance there isn’t anything they can’t force us to buy.

The real fence sitter though has always been Justice Kennedy. Kennedy has always been a moderate, though he has trended towards the right lately. It still isn’t clear which way Kennedy will vote. But his line of questioning was clearly in opposition to Obamacare. Kennedy said during today’s hearing:

But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

Of course this doesn’t mean that Kennedy is going to vote a certain way. But his line of questioning and his statements were clearly in opposition to the Obamacare law. It’s entirely possible that he’s asking these questions and making these statements to see how the solicitor general responds. Kennedy could be swayed by his arguments. But in the very least, Kennedy is coming from a position opposed to Obamacare’s constitutionality.

What’s most interesting though is that the Supreme Court seems the siding with the very arguments Obama made against the individual mandate. You’ll recall Obama opposed the individual mandate before he supported it. This took place during the 2008 Democrat Primary wherein Obama supported an outright socialist model while Hillary supported an individual mandate. Obama made all the arguments the five conservatives on the Court made today.

Obamacare has a real shot at being ruled unconstitutional. We don’t know how the justices will react to the attorney’s arguments and we won’t get to find out until late June. But if their line of questioning is any indication, Obamacare is going down. Liberals must hold out hope that Kennedy can be swayed during the court’s private discussions after this week’s hearings. It’s always possible that a Justice can be convinced to vote a different way, it’s happened before. The odds of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional have increased substantially though.

Filed under Obamacare Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers