The Stupid Party Expands Government Again

Erick Erickson

From RedState.com, by Erick Erickson, June 28, 2012 – House and Senate Republican leaders, collectively the Stupid Party, are yet again set to expand government, government spending, and engage in Keynesian economic policies they’ve criticized Barack Obama for.

Somewhat wisely, they are releasing all this as the Supreme Court releases its Obamacare decision so no one will pay attention. Ironically, as we wait to see if the Supreme Court gives Congress plenary power through the Commerce Clause, Congressional Republicans are feeding the Leviathan on their own.

Republicans and Democrats have agreed to a massive increase in federal gluttony with a highway bill. The Republicans decided to drop demands for approving the Keystone XL pipeline and demands that the EPA stop its ridiculous regulations on coal plants that will harm our energy future. In exchange, Democrats will not fund bike paths and highway landscaping.

In other words, Democrats should not be at all worried about Republican plans for Obamacare should any portion of it be declared unconstitutional later today. The GOP will just get scared and cave.

We’re at $16 billion in debt and as the sun rises this morning we are can be reminded of two things: the Republicans are not serious about paying down the debt and many outside conservative groups will politely avert their eyes arguing that we must fight Barack Obama, not stop the Republican’s complicity in bankrupting our nation.

So much for credibility in the argument on spending.

5 responses

  1. Senator_Blutarsky

    Erick……………the REPUBLICAN majority SCOTUS just ruled on fascist healthcare, and of course it is basically upheld. So much for the argument that voting for Romney to be able to appoint SCOTUS members is important. We are a “banana republic” in every sense of the word. So here, RINOs – you have an unfunded mandate on steroids!

    Today’s ruling is important because it is the first time in history that the federal government has required citizens enter into contract with private corporations to buy a product or service. It also represents one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in American history.

    “The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,” writes Ron Paul. “This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.”

    “The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.”

    Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829–1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong and frequently quoted language:

    ‘The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man’s fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last
    degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience?

    * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge
    an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an
    ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.’

    In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day
    as they were then, that ‘if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their
    Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.’
    O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).

    Hey RINOs, lets vote the WASCALS out, right ? Regardless of which wing is in power, the political hack appointees will continue.Send more $$$ to the RNC ! LOLOL

  2. Senator_Blutarsky

    and Erick has come out with an “update” trying to spin Roberts vote in to a positive !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’m Not Down on John Roberts

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

    Thursday, June 28th at 11:35AM EDT

    My response –

    deadstate is whistling past the graveyard, AS USUAL

    bunch of BS spin, looking for an undigested kernel of corn in a pile of cow manure, and calling it a gourmet supper. Erick, you have hit rock bottom. You have no shame

    these are the same SCOTUS klowns that gave us Citizens United, Kelo etc

    the writer, Erick, was REALLY “reaching” – but of course the FAUX “conservatives” continue to try to deflect flak from a Bush appointee. After all, he had an “R” after his name !

    found that kernel of corn yet? Enjoy your supper, RINOs………

  3. Senator_Blutarsky

    On Thursday, June 28 most Americans stopped what they were doing at 10 a.m. to watch as the US Supreme Court announced its decision concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare. Americans held their breath waiting to hear whether or not the individual mandate—which would have forced every person in the country to buy health insurance—was constitutional. If the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, it would—or, at least, should have—spelled doom for Obamacare. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, found that the individual mandate was unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause in the Constitution does not give Congress the right to punish people for not engaging in commerce. That should have ended Obamacare. Justice Roberts then did what the Constitution does not allow him to do—he rewrote Obamacare as a tax. Clearly, this was something Congress very deliberately avoided doing. No where in the 2,409 pages of HR3200 is Obamacare called a tax. No where in the 2,409 pages is the word “tax” even mentioned. The “fine” in the individual mandate can’t be a tax since constitutionally (Article I, Section 2), taxes must be equally apportioned—you can’t tax some people for their conduct and not tax everyone. By its nature, John Roberts’ “tax” is still a fine—which is what Congress intended. To give Obamacare a semblance of constitutionality, Roberts called a “fine” a tax, and declared it constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, in making an accommodation for Obama, violated his oath of office and created an impeachable offense.

    By rewriting just one word in the Obamacare language—calling the “individual mandate fine” a tax, Roberts did something no other Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States has done—he wrote a completely new tax law that did not exist before the high court visited the individual mandate. Congress very deliberately did not intend that the individual mandate be called a tax. John Roberts’ slieght-of-hand created what in 1775 would have been called “An Intolerable Act.” The Intolerable Acts were the catalysts that started the American Revolution.

    The high court lacks the prerogative of rewriting legislation. It simply isn’t their job. The sole role of the high court is to determine what Congress intended to do through the language of the law, and rule accordingly.) Congress fully intended that the individual mandate to be enforced with a fine for nonparticipation. Once the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional, the high court had only one recourse open to them—striking the mandate from the law. This was not a matter of judicial discretion by Roberts. Roberts very deliberately went out of his way to very specifically help Barack Obama save Obamacare through political meddling. .

    Roberts wrote a new tax law by changing one word. That one word has a one trillion dollar price tag. What’s more, the health insurance tax, assessed on those who refuse to purchase health insurance, will impact low income families. But, that’s only the start. Here are some of the new taxes which h would have died with Obamacare, that John Roberts—who has no taxing authority—just passed on to the American people. You might say his one word tax law has a price tag of about one and a half trillion dollars and growing. The new taxes emanating from Obamare below were found in one day. I expect they actually present less than 5% of the new taxes birthed by the illicit relationship between John Roberts and Barack Obama.

    full article –
    http://www.jonchristianryter.com/News_Folder/Behind.html

    No amount of “spin” by Erick & Redstate and all the other neocon apologists can put enough ” lipstick on this pig ! “

  4. Senator_Blutarsky

    “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    “In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” –Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

    “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    The forcing of an ‘individual mandate’ will be upheld by the IRS with a gun to your head and that’s just what old Roberts said.

    The states can reject Obamacare, but how are they going to protect their citizens from the IRS?

    I guess we will see what our local “Christian conservative” Rep & Senator want to do about 10th amendment solutions in the next session. I doubt either of them will dare ruffle a feather.

  5. Senator_Blutarsky

    Attention- public servants King & Estes – your mission should be clear –

    On Thursday, the Supreme Court sent shockwaves across America, upholding the constitutionality of the federal health care act.

    Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said it didn’t surprise him one bit.

    “The federal government always expands its own power. The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. I don’t see what’s so shocking here. It’s sad, but not surprising. By ruling, once again, that uniform policies must reign over a nation of 50 states and 300 million people, the Supreme Court has continued its attack on the last vestiges of what’s supposed to make this country great.”

    The Court argued that the federal government cannot enforce a mandate through the commerce clause, but it can impose a tax on those who choose not to purchase health insurance. TAC communications director Mike Maharrey called the focus on the mandate “misplaced.”

    “The Supreme Court says the federal government can’t force you to do something through a mandate, but it can tax you for doing nothing in order to ‘encourage’ you into doing something. Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me. But the bottom line is that the federal government has no enumerated power to create a national health care system in the first place. The entire notion of federal health care is unconstitutional, even if you buy into this tax malarkey.”

    And while many opponents of nationalized health care view the ruling as a bitter defeat, Maharrey says the Tenth Amendment Center sees a clear path forward.
    “The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead.”

    Jefferson argued that “when the general government assumes undelegated power, its acts are, unauthoritative, void and of no force,” and he called nullification “the rightful remedy.” Maharrey acknowledged that many Americans consider state nullification rebellious and lawless, but he said he thinks that’s because they are conditioned to believe the states are united on a principle of unlimited submission to the feds.

    “Who is really behaving lawlessly here? A federal government that refuses to operate within its delegated powers, and rips authority away from the states and the people? Or the states, working through legitimate democratic processes, saying, ‘No!’ we don’t accept this? I would argue it’s the federal government that’s in rebellion, and it’s time for the states to put a check on illegitimate federal power.”

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/28/what-next-nullify/

%d bloggers like this: