The massive accounting blunder that should sink health care reform

Washington Examiner

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer

Yesterday, David discussed the CBO’s miscalculation regarding the Senate health care bill. Democrats had been insisting that bill somehow cut the deficit and strengthened Medicare, but as it turns out the CBO had to clarify that the savings of the bill were being double counted. The “savings” the bill produces either have to be applied toward the Medicare trust fund or they have to be put toward the cost of the legislation to make it reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the next ten years. (That’s assuming you buy into the shady accounting tricks used to score the bill.) Megan McArdle has a typically astute blog post up discussing the implications all of this. Megan even observes that as recently as Saturday, President Obama was trumpeting the bill’s twin achievements of deficit reduction and strengthening Medicare. However, Megan didn’t quote Obama in full — fortunately The American Spectator’s Phil Klein did. The entirety of Obama’s remarks in the immediate aftermath of Senate Democrats securing finally securing 60 votes to pass their health care bill are worth pondering:

[Read more →]

Now I’m Really Getting Pissed Off

Information Clearing House

by:David Michael Green

Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf, and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately?

No, as a matter of fact – I’m not talking about Tiger Woods.

You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama.

But the little prick is making it very hard.

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Did this clown really say on national television that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street”?!?!

Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing? Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

Are you freakin’ kidding me??? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter…

But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

Are you going to tell us that “I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex”? But what – they’re just so darned pushy?

“…I did not run for office to continue George Bush’s valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It’s just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky.”

“…I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It’s just that they asked so nicely.”

“…I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it.”

“…I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn’t want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops.”

Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

And he doesn’t even seem to realize it.

Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself “a good solid B+” for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed?

Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?

I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less than a year’s time, falling now below fifty percent. His party, once dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month, Obama’s inverted coattails (don’t even ask where those go) got two Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that in Kentucky, “a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington”. Wow. Obama is now wrecking state senate races! What’s next? Will local Republican candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers?

More

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
December 21, 2009

For the past few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject line similar to: “Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!”

Well, if you believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

So if you think marching on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to “throw the bums out” in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and gone.

But, those of you who visit this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.

While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box. Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by resisting it on a state level.

That’s nullification at work.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. The time is long overdue for people to start recognizing this fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

Congrats, Democrats. You own Obamacare

The Washington Examiner
December 22, 2009

It took hundreds of millions of dollars in bribe money to win over Sens. Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, (plus even more millions for a senator whose identity cannot be determined thanks to the obtuse language of the bill). By hook or by crook, Obamacare’s Senate backers got their magic 60 votes. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, his 57 Democratic colleagues; and both Senate independents own Obamacare. Their votes moved Obamacare past its biggest legislative hurdle yet in a tally taken in the dead of a very cold Sunday night on a massive bill none of them actually read in its entirety.

These 60 senators have joined in what surely ranks among the most breathtakingly arrogant spasms of anti-democratic hubris in American legislative history. By every credible measure of public opinion, opposition to Obamacare has grown for months as people learned more about it. Fully 61 percent of those responding to CNN’s most recent survey turned thumbs down on Obamacare. And still these 60 senators opted to thumb their noses at the majority.

Just how bad is Obamacare? Here are some of the proposal’s most important flaws, as described by one of the proposal’s most passionate critics:

• It forces you to pay up to 8 percent of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
• If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2 percent of your annual income to the Internal Revenue Service.
• After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
• Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
• It allows insurance companies to charge older people 300 percent more than other customers.
• The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Care to guess the name of the Obamacare critic who pointed out these and many more flaws in the bill? Try Jane Hamsher of the very liberal blog, Fire Dog Lake, who called Obamacare “a con job.” Clearly, opposition to Obamacare has grown to span the political spectrum. Yet these 60 senators couldn’t care less. May the day come soon when all of them have to explain their disdain for their constituents

Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution

Tips to J.C.

Suite 101

David J. Shestokas

Washington assumes that Congress has the authority to directly regulate the doctor patient relationship. Is there validity to that assumption?

Often Congress passes legislation without including statements in the law of the constitutional authority it has acted under. When this happens the courts must sort out the authority under which a given law was passed. The oath of office taken by each Representative and Senator requires that each support and defend the Constitution bearing true faith to the document. Consideration of this oath would include an obligation to consider the constitutionality of laws being passed. This obligation applies to President Obama’s pending health care reform.

Congressional Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution

Article VI of the Constitution requires all federal officials to take an oath of office. Since 1884, the Congressional Oath of Office taken by all Senators and Congressman has been:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

This oath by its own terms requires members of Congress to act in accordance with the Constitution in the conduct of their offices. When there is a statement of constitutional purpose in legislation the courts are given significant direction in interpreting the law and its validity.

Social Security Considered by Court After Program Was Entrenched

By the time litigation regarding Social Security reached the Supreme Court there had been collected $150,000,000 in payroll taxes, a huge bureaucracy was in place and some claimants were all ready getting benefits. The Court was faced with a fait accompli and came up with a convoluted opinion in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) to uphold a law which would have been a nightmare to dismantle.

// <![CDATA[//

Ads by Google

What’s Wrong with America
We’re Facing 3 Major Problems That Could Lead to Disaster. A Must Read
www.DailyWealth.com/US_Crisis

Pocket $44,000+ in HITECH
Sign up for our free EMR and keep all your stimulus incentives.
www.PracticeFusion.com

// <![CDATA[//

This historical situation applies to the current health care debate as Congress attempts to impose its will on one-seventh of the American economy. There are significant constitutional considerations involved in the debates regarding health care. Current proposals do not include statements of constitutional authority.

Doctor Patient Relationship Subject to Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court has been very protective of the doctor/patient relationship and finding that the federal government has little if any business being involved in that process.

In the 1925 case of Linder v. United States, a doctor proscribed morphine for a patient allegedly in violation of federal law. The doctor was prosecuted and found guilty in overturning his conviction the Court said: “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”

More recently the right to privacy in medical decisions found in the 9th and 10th Amendments has become important to the Court and was the principal factor in Roe v. Wade. In 2003, in rejecting an appeal of Conant v. Walters, the Court refused to change a lower court decision that allowed doctors to be involved with their patients regarding medical marijuana. In 2005 the Court upheld Oregon’s assisted suicide law in Gonzales v. Oregon.

Individual Mandates

A principle element of President Obama’s health care reform proposals includes something called individual mandates. These mandates would essentially require someone to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties. Government would be involved in some of the most private decisions individual Americans make.

Consider the Constitution Before Passing Laws

The congressional oath of office requires support of and true faith to the Constitution. Fulfillment of that oath includes passing constitutional legislation. Inclusion of a statement of constitutional purpose and authority gives the courts significant direction in future rulings
Read more at Suite101: Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution: Can Congress Regulate Health Care Choices? | Suite101.com http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_reform_and_the_constitution#ixzz0aOWjK1U1

Senate and Obama ignore the Constitution to Socialize Healthcare

The Betrayal

Copyright © 2009 Impeach Obama Campaign

In an outrageous example of the abuse of near dictatorial power, the leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, forced a vote on nationalized health care. With total disregard for the will of the people and turning a blind eye to the United States Constitution, Reid sought passage for this bill by corrupting the legislative system.

“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, referring to the last-minute blitz of dirty deal making that enabled Obama to lock in the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.

[Read more →]

We Have Come Full Circle

The Post & E-Mail

by KJ Kaufman

The Battle of Charlestown (c/o The National Archives).

(Dec. 21, 2009)  —  Many of us were taught that the American fight for Independence began as a fight of no taxation without representation as the Colonists were being taxed by King George III when the Colonists had no representation in British Parliament.  Although this characterization is certainly true, the ultimate decision to declare independence was much more than that.  The colonists were developing a nation.  Today, we would think of them as modern day entrepreneurs.  At every turn they were being taxed so as to make their exports less attractive and imports exorbitantly expensive.  Their commerce was obstructed and they were sent goods of lesser quality.  American Independence truly began as a culmination of infringements of the colonists’ God given rights being usurped by a mad man in England and also by the British Parliament.  I use the term mad man, not in hyperbole, but in earnest as King George III suffered throughout his life from mental illness.

As many of you know, Tea was taxed.  In Boston, Patriots dumped tea (circa 1773) into the harbor in protest which sparked elevated tensions and resulted in the passage of the “Intolerable Acts” by the British Parliament, but there was trouble in Boston and elsewhere long before the dumping of tea.  The Revolution began as the result of numerous punitive actions against American commerce as well as taxation.  The Revolution began as the result of:

• English merchants enjoying a monopoly on raw materials and requiring importation of manufactured goods from Great Britain.

• Discriminatory trade practices where American exports were devalued and British imports were so highly valued that there was a never ending debt cycle for the American farmer and merchant.

• In 1765, seeking to alleviate their war debts, the British Parliament levied a Stamp Act tax which required all legal documents, newspapers and many other articles to have a Stamp placed upon them.  The colonists had no representation in the British Parliament and maintained responsibility for levying their own taxes that they sent to the British Crown.  This was the first tax against the colonists imposed by a government body in which they had no representation.  The Stamp Act Tax was repealed by the British Parliament just one year after it had gone into effect.

• Even though the British Parliament had repealed the Stamp Act, during the same session, they asserted their supposed right to tax the colonists.

• The colonists retaliated by general agreement to not purchase English goods that had taxes attached.

• In Boston, the colonists were unruly, and the King sent British troops to occupy the city.  By 1760, the occupation had so added to the tensions that a snowball fight between young boys in Boston against British soldiers culminated in the “Boston Massacre” where gathering Bostonians were gunned down by British soldiers.  Five Americans were killed while many others were wounded.

• Tensions remained in Boston for the next three years.  Even though the British Parliament repealed the Townshend Act which was the tax on tea, the British Parliament in response to the dumping of tea in the Boston harbor, passed the “Intolerable Acts” with its most restrictive measure being the closure of the port of Boston resulting in Massachusetts being under what can only be described as British martial law.

• By May of 1774 a grassroots movement began in the colonies against tyrannical rule.  Many meetings throughout the colonies sprung up to reassert individual rights.

• In the summer of 1774, the “Fairfax Resolutions” were drawn up and stand today as one of the first influential documents regarding American political thought.  The Fairfax Resolutions reiterated the limited powers of Parliament against the colonists and highlighted the rights of free men.

• The colonists began their Congresses later that year in 1774 holding the First Continental Congress in September of 1774.[i]

I have highlighted above the many events of the 1760’s and 1770’s to show the parallels to modern day America.  The above illuminates egregious regulations of commerce, taxation and usurpation of individual rights.  In American modern times, can the last century as well as the events thus far into the new millennium be characterized in different terms other than parallel to those described above?  Is history repeating itself a mere two and a half centuries later?

The United States government under liberal and progressive plans has resulted in the promotion of the collective against the individual.  There can be nothing more un-American than to subvert the rights and liberties of the individual in advancement of the collective.  There was a time in America where we understood that to promote a Marxist ideology, an ideology that failed miserably during the 20^th Century resulting in the death of tens of millions of human beings, was simply un-American.  Today, our Democratic leaders readily accept this ideology in direct contrast to our founding and in direct violation of our Constitution.  Let me share with you just a few statements from our Democratic Senators, uttered on the Senate floor in yesterday’s health care debate soliloquies.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – Quoting Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Hofstetter, Senator Whitehouse charged:  “a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well being and safety would become impossible…Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets, strange fruit has hung from southern trees…”

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) – “And that’s really what we are trying to achieve here is to create that availability of a right.  I don’t know of anyone that disagrees with the statement that health care in America ought to be a right…”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – “We are talking about a revolution in primary care here…Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans.”

I led off with Senator Whitehouse’s comments because they are so offensive, they ought to be rendered moot just on their face, but unfortunately Senator Whitehouse’s attempt to use another’s words to push the deceit that if you are against health care reform with respect to this particular bill, then you are rolling fellow citizens to the guillotine or are a racist is outrageous and repulsive, utterly offensive, arrogant and self-serving.  Senator Whitehouse, in our history, it has been those with opinions such as yours, that the individual and individual rights can be subverted by his fellow man through the ways and means of government, who are first to throw the rope over the branch of the tree of tyranny.  You are a despicable excuse for a leader, and you are in direct violation of our Constitutional protections.  Consider yourself on notice.  Your tyranny will not prevail in a country of free persons.

Ascertained from the remaining quotes, it is duly noted that the Democratic Party continues to push the philosophical position and moral imperative that health care is a right.  Nothing could be further from philosophical and moral fact.  Health care is not a right as rights cannot be obtained through the subversion of another’s rights.  Health care is not a right nor is it a privilege, rather, it is a good and service for which will all strive to procure.  We all have a right to live and pursue our lives.  In that pursuit, we may choose to take care of ourselves and avail ourselves of health care.  However, nowhere contained within our rights can we require another to provide for our own care.  We can readily accept the generosity freely given by our fellow men and women, but we cannot force them to make a contribution to ourselves.

Our Declaration of Independence assured us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Constitution provided for us a bill of rights.  Neither document grants health care as a right, and there is absolutely no government empowerment to legislate such.  There is no philosophical moral imperative to the right of health care.  There is a moral imperative to resist at every turn the encroachment on another’s rights.

The Democratic Party is simply lost.  They no longer understand the American Founding nor the ideals and guarantees of our history.  To willingly, unlawfully and without authority expand the powers of government so that they resemble a Politburo more than our own Constitutional Republic was once considered tyrannical rule in this Country.  No more, today it is simply standard operating procedure for the Democratic Party.

Our commerce has been subjected to regulation where no enumerated power can be found for such encroachment into our free market system.  Our citizenry has been taxed in ways and by means that have no Constitutional founding and are in direct violation of our rights to our own property.  Our private businesses have been usurped through government infusions of money in total contradiction to its monetary powers contained in our Constitution.  We have been subjected to legislative act after legislative act in direct violation of everything we once believed and knew to be the fact of our inheritance.

As you can see from the events quoted at the beginning of this article, there comes a time in a man’s or a woman’s heart where he or she can take no more.  It is with this understanding that we know the time draws near when the masses will rise up to reassert their God given rights.  A free people will never willingly be subjected to tyranny.  It is only a matter of time before the citizens of these United States rise up as their forefathers did and declare that they have had enough.  Whether this revolution results in violence or continues through peaceful protest and redress remains to be seen.  What is certain is that the American People have only just begun to fight.

Attention U.S Senators

Dear Senators:

You have just met to vote on your parties  Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, your vote will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com…), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) (“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”);

Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com…), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) (“It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”)

Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org…), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are ‘the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.’ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com…), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) (‘It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state’s police power.’) The Attorney General ‘may not…regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.’ Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”)

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com…), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) “We think the suggestion has never been made — certainly never entertained by this Court — that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state’s criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state’s laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. IV.

Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA www.iahf.com… jham@iahf.com 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World

Kentucky Resolutions Redux

The Tenth Amendment Center

“A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky’s position that federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed.”

For those history buffs out there, Kentucky was at the forefront in asserting the principles of State Sovereignty in the early days of the Republic.   The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 took what some consider to be the strongest position on this issue in our history.

Here’s an excerpt:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Read the rest of the Kentucky Resolutions here

Here’s the remainder of the modern-day Kentucky Resolution:

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the state; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” and the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

NOW, THEREFORE,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Senate concurring therein:

Section 1.   The Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2.   This Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

Section 3.   It is the position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

Section 4.   The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall distribute a copy of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and to each member of Kentucky’s congressional delegation.

Typo in Law Establishes Mandate to Lock Gun-Toting Train Passengers in Boxes

Dec. 21, 2009

By Chad Pergram

– FOXNews.com

Because of a typo, President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey

Harry Houdini made a career escaping from locked boxes. So did David Copperfield and Doug Henning.

And now, add to that list Amtrak passengers packing heat in their luggage?

It may sound absurd. But President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey.

It’s a mistake in the law’s wording. But for now, the clerical error is the law of the land.

Earlier this week, Congress sent the president a massive spending bill that funded dozens of federal departments. Tucked into the transportation section of the legislation are safety requirements for Amtrak customers who carry firearms on board the government-backed train system. The bill Congress passed mandates that passengers with firearms declare they have weapons with them in advance and stow them in locked boxes while on the train.

The bill text was correct when the House approved the legislation last week. The Senate followed suit Sunday, but somewhere along the line, the language that referred to putting the guns in locked boxes morphed into stuffing “passengers” into locked boxes.

Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became aware of the problem Wednesday night as the House voted on its final slate of bills for the year. Pelosi’s staff tried to negotiate with Republican aides to see if they would agree to change the text of the bill without revoting the entire piece of legislation. But it was all for naught as Obama had already signed the measure into law.

It’s clear the typo alters the legislation’s mandate. But no one quite knows the origin of the mistake.

Senior Congressional sources familiar with the error suggested the problem may have been introduced in the “enrolling” process of bills. Once both the House and Senate approve the final version of a bill, the text of the legislation is sent to an “enrolling clerk” who actually copies the bill onto parchment paper. The parchment version of the package is then sent to the White House for the president to sign into law.

Another theory is that the mistake could be something as simple as a printing error. The House and Senate run multiple versions of bills before they send the final copy to the White House to become law. Another possibility is that Congress sent President Obama the wrong, non-proofed version of the bill to sign.

The misfire is fixable. But probably not until early next year. The House late Wednesday completed what it expects to be its final session of the year. The Senate remains in session debating health care reform. But both the House and Senate would have to agree to a technical correction of the text that missed its mark.

The law, though, states that Amtrak has six months to implement the policy. So it’s unlikely that any gun-toting passengers would have to travel in a box.

The error is reminiscent of $289 billion farm bill President Bush vetoed in May, 2008. In that instance, both houses of Congress inadvertently sent Bush an incomplete bill, leaving out a 35-page chunk. The president then vetoed an incomplete bill. Congress discovered the error when lawmakers attempted to override the president’s veto.

In that case, House re-passed the entire farm bill and overrode Bush’s veto.

“This bill is one of the most-passed bills we’ve done,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., quipped at the time.

The rules to allow Amtrak passengers to carry weapons with them are new. Airline passengers have long been permitted to transport weapons in checked luggage. But Amtrak banned firearms from its trains after Sept. 11. Only police officers are now allowed to board Amtrak trains with guns.

Rep. John Fleming and Sen. Roger Wicker, both Mississippi Republicans, are the primary advocates of the Amtrak gun provision.