Is Obamacare unconstitutional?
Michael McConnell, a former judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a piece in the WSJ yesterday about Barack Obama choosing not to enforce existing law because it is inconvenient:
President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”
To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.
The President is not free to “refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.”
McConnell makes an argument that I have been makes:
Democrats too may acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s action, as they have his other aggressive assertions of executive power. Yet what will they say when a Republican president decides that the tax rate on capital gains is a drag on economic growth and instructs the IRS not to enforce it?
This establishes an ominous precedent:
Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress “would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King believes that Obama’s interfering with the law is illegal:
In June 2012, “Obama refused to enforce current immigration law-very bad,” he said in a June 3 tweet. “Now, he refuses to enforce his own law… The law is specific & must go into effect day one of 2014,” he said.
“Only lawful alternative is for Obama to ask Congress 2 fix.”
Let us revisit words from democrats about this sort of activity:
Dianne Feinstein:
“If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy.”
Ted Kennedy:
“…the President consistently shows a casual disregard for the rights of Congress and the courts to make and interpret the law. This hearing is one step toward reclaiming our responsibilities, and I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue.”
And how about these thoughts?
Only then will we see if the President will seek to create a gloss that Congress did not intend, or modify a provision of law more to his liking, or declare some provision of law something he and his administration will not enforce. That is wrong. That is the opposite of the rule of law. And no one–not even the President–is above the law.
and
He does not have the power to issue a decree that he will pick and choose which provisions of laws to follow in statements issued after Congress passes a law. What this President is doing is wrong.
The author of those words?
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), 2006
Obama hasn’t even bothered with a signing statement. He’s just going to ignore the law.
The President may choose not to enforce laws he truly believes are “palpably and demonstrably” unconstitutional. May we presume Obamacare to be unconstitutional? It is the only remedy available to Obama in order to ignore existing law.
If not- if the President can ignore the law with impunity, why can we not do the same?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
To the extent Obama usurps power not his by law AND the Congress and the Courts allow it, those other two have abdicated their power.
Any time the courts or congress wants to retrieve its power from a usurping executive, they can.
They should.
Will they?
The only remedy is impeachment. There’s not one member of the House with the cojones to even talk privately about that let alone mention it in public.
If obama can order federal agencies not to enforce immigration laws, why can’t he just pick the laws he wants to enforce, and ignore the rest?
He hasn’t worried about the law yet. Why start now? He even wants the United States Constitution changed. Isn’t he sounding more and more like he wants to be king?
If our president, a learned man of dubious letters, sees that his personal legislation is going to cause virtual chaos in the economy, is he justified in preventing the disaster or should he ask Americans to shoulder the burdens of his mistake?
This is perhaps, Obama’s only beneficial move to help the North American economy. Staving off the catastrophe of implementation will give businesses and our citizens one more year to prepare for the inevitable disaster on the horizon. Obama should be lauded for protecting the Middle Class from the economic chaos that will ensue after American workers are let go, so that employers can hire former illegal aliens in a sound economic move sanctioned by our RINOs in the Senate.
If America is going to survive the domestic economic policies of Obama, creative thinking is essential and for the first time since he was elected, Obama is thinking ahead to delay economic turmoil. Hurray, Mr. Obama, may you continue to your heralded intellect that you have been so careful to sequester during the last five years.
An unintended consequence that.
What Obama’s real objective was that the 2014 election not hurt DEMS as much as an employer mandate would have hurt it.
~~~~~~
Selwyn Duke at American Thinker made a comparison between Obama and a classical Greek ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes., ruler of the Seleucid Empire
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/forcing_christians_to_eat_the_pork.html#ixzz2YZhOpta7
King Antiochus is best known for the persecution of Jews. At one point the king was bent on forcing a Jewish woman and her seven sons to, of all things, eat pork.
Today, Obama insists on trying to force religious employers to fund contraception for their employees, despite the fact that offering such individuals an exemption would cost him nothing politically and would accord with the American tradition of respecting deeply held religious convictions.
Obama’s idea of ”religious freedom,” is him defining the terms….only him.
Not Christians.
@Skookum:
Thing is, Skook, the Constitution doesn’t provide for that. Congress has to do it.
@drjohn: @Nan G: An example of Skook humor, I employ it on a regular basis in conversation, but I try to be less conspicuous here. You compliment someone and walk away with them wondering whether you have actually insulted them. It’a great fun, and you must select you antagonists carefully, wasting creativity on stupid people isn’t worth the effort.
Nan, like Duke, I picture it as a martial arts contest, but Obama is sitting on the chest of religion with religion’s arms under his knees. He now begins the ground and pound, and religion is virtually defenseless; eventually, religion must tap out or be knocked out. The result is inevitable, it is only a matter of time.
I believe it is a stunning rebuke of the MSM’s denial of their obvious bias of this tyrant that we are not hearing the de facto trampling of the Constitution by Obama’s government by imperial whim manuever.
This is OBVIOUSLY illegal. If we are a nation of laws, where all are considered equal under the law, there is NO executive branch power that allows the tyrant in the Oval Office to postpone laws, refuse to uphold laws, or to make up laws out of whole cloth not passed by the legislative branch. Yet this evil marxist bastard continues his pattern of acting like he is unaccountable under the Constitution…and our synchophantic media continues to run propaganda interference for him.
He should be impeached for Fast and Furious, for Benghazi, for voter fraud, for cramming Obamacare down our throats with the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana Purchase…then holding off on implementing until after the next election for brazenly political opportunism which he CANNOT do under the Constitution.
You cannot ever trust a democrat. For any reason…and RINOs are really no different in that regard from democrats. Every single republican should be SHRIEKING at every opportunity against this gobsmackingly arrogant violation of our laws, and demand that Obama either implement his law AS IT WAS SIGNED OFF BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED Congress back in 2010, or that the entire abomination of Obamacare be repealed, burned at the stake, boiled in sulphuric acid, and blown out into space, never to be brought back to threaten us and our medical care system again.
Obamacare delenda est
the top 10% are doing very very well since Obama became POTUS. The Dow has doubled. “Economists” on this blog have been predicting a crash since 2009. These are probably the same ones who listened to Glen Beck’s Buy Gold infomercial.
Skook, Mr. Duke does not look at the long view.
Sure a leader of a people might try to stiffle religion in his borders while he lives and rules, but always he fails.
Look at how many were still Christians in the old Soviet Socialist Republics after the USSR fell.
Look at Malawi where a ”president for life” tried to force all people to relinquish their freedom to chose not to vote for him.
The Christians survived and the president is no more.
Look at Mexico when only Catholic weddings were legal.
The day they included other religious weddings they found out hundreds of thousands of couples had married secretly in other churches or temples.
In the US Obama is trying to criminalize or at least penalize acting as a Christian outside of the 4 walls of one’s church.
When Obama is gone we will see how pitifully Obama failed in that.
In fact already we see it.
The parallels between the Teleprompter and Morsi in Egypt are startling – from their election to, . . . well, to now. And the Teleprompter ain’t done yet.
If Egypt can roust 15 or so million to boil onto the streets against imposition of dictatorial powers, who knows what a Nation of 315 million might round-up . . . .
Obama is the law. He writes the laws, and he enforces them. He is a tyrant. He has 103,000,000 Americans on public assistance. That is impressive. None of the assistance is Constitutional, of course. But the Dems have a majority in the Senate, and thus Obama cannot be removed from office. Many congressional districts are gerrymandered in such a way that no Republican stands a chance, and most of the 20+ year members of Congress are automatically re-elected. Take my state (please!) of Maryland. Our Senators are big-government liberals and spenders, and care only for their own re-election. Mikulski and Carden are guaranteed Senate seats until they die. They represent themselves. We will eventually have an economic collapse (like 1929) and then all bets are off. What will it take? A nuclear bomb on Seoul. A nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv.
De Toqueville told us this in 1842, but no one is listening to him anymore.
The host of imminent apocalyptic events some people have been predicting since Obama’s initial election haven’t materialized. America is still here, the economy continues to strengthen, job figures are improving, the growth of health care costs is slowing, and the federal deficit is currently falling even faster than economists had expected.
What’s not to like about any of this? Unless, of course, you happen to be a republican, once again hoping for enough bad news to build a hostile political take-over on. It obviously can’t all be accomplished simply by pandering to anti-choice extremists; voter suppression has yet to prove itself a successful national strategy, and the recent Supreme Court decision could turn out to be an invitation to openly pursue a strategy that could potentially backfire. Contrived scandals don’t seem to be working. What to do? Possibly…change what they’re selling? Move a bit toward the middle? Unfortunately, anyone in the GOP suggesting such a thing is still likely to be figuratively taken out and shot.
By the way, the rule of law has not been suspended, except maybe in the fantasy land of right-wing radio. I’m just not seeing it. A police state? Well, maybe—if you happen to be one of millions of otherwise-law-abiding citizens who prefer occasional marijuana use to stumbling around drunk. For that preference, they’ll still sometimes knock down your door with a battering ram, take away your children, and steal your automobile or real estate or business property without due process of law. If they dislike you enough, you may even be coerced into pleading guilt to something just to end the persecution, without anyone ever bothering to engage in prosecution. Just ask Jimmy Teabeau.
To the dems this is a sigh of relief. To the Republicans, they are probably shaking because now they will have to show some spine. The average business owner is probably 10 times smarter and more successful than the average Obama supporter so they may not be as gullible and realize that despite the politically motivated move, there is still doom and gloom around the corner and they may not kick the can down the road the way Obama is and may just start the benefits and job cuts anyway.
@Greg:
Can you spell “sequester”, kids?
@another vet: #14
We have seen the results of the Teleprompter’s “revenge strategy” – so have business owners, all of whom have never seen these kinds of attacks from any Administration.
You cannot fight the IRS. So you pliantly and subserviently succumb to whatever the dictatorship wants. Jarrett warned everyone this would happen if the Chicago gangland style of administering the Nation was re-elected. Now we’re surprised?
@James Raider: The sooner this abomination takes full effect, the better. It needs to happen while he is still in office. Hopefully his supporters will be hit the hardest with the forthcoming rate increases, benefit cuts, and possible loss of jobs. As for the IRS, it would be neat if everyone would flat out refuse to pay taxes. Another strategy would be for all of the states that sued, to flat out refuse to do their part. Cause a constitutional crisis just like 1832’s Nullification Crisis. It’s obvious Congress and SCOTUS have no intention of challenging him. May as well put it in the hands of the people and/or states.
@another vet: #17
I expect to see republican voters abandoning their party and jumping to either an existing party, or one that starts up. If that happens, it will be nice to actually vote FOR a politician, instead of against the other candidate. Anyone voting for a republican or a democrat for president is voting for the same things to continue.
@drjohn, #15:
I suspect President Obama can, since he’s the one who proposed the idea to break an earlier stalemate.
@another vet, #14:
You seem to be under the impression that democrats don’t own businesses. That’s not true. Particularly when you preface the term business owner with the adjective, average.
@Smorgasbord: Both parties seem to have abandoned what they are supposed to do- represent the people and uphold the Constitution. Let them do two terms and out they go just like POTUS. The Republicans don’t want to hold Obama’s feet to the fire because they want to have the same above the law and above the Constitution power when they get the WH back. It’s an ongoing cycle.
@Greg: I realize dems own businesses. They probably run just about every green one out there. If they voted for a law like Obamacare that is going to cost them big time, not just business wise but personally as well, then they must have lots of money to piss away. Then again, perhaps they received waivers for supporting Obama. Also don’t assume that ‘average’ people vote for the Party. Plenty vote Red and Libertarian. If paying taxes (not talking sales tax) was a requirement to vote, it would be interesting to see what our elections would look like.
@another vet: #21
This is why I have said we no longer have a two-party system. We have one party, with two branches, and both branches are feeding off of the same roots. Those roots are whoever or whatever pays them the most for their reelection campaigns. They are puppets just like obama is. The puppeteers pull the strings, and the puppets obey. Somehow, we need to get the money out of campaigning, or it will just keep going like is is now. The laws also need to be changed to make it easier to run for office. They are purposefully written to make it very hard to run for the first time.
Let them do two terms and out they go just like POTUS.
The senate serves 6 years, and the house serves 2 years. That would be 12 and 4. Let’s even them to 4 year terms each, and 2 terms max.
@Smorgasbord:
Not good Smorg, not any more. That would require a constitutional amendment process and we can no longer trust the elites in Washington DC to amend the Constitution in our favor. They have already tipped the scale into oligarchy, with even a Supreme Court that makes supra-constitutional rulings for social change. Remember well that the dread Chief Justice Robert’s claim on Obamacare, was that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to ‘correct for the electoral error of voting in the wrong people,’ when according to the Federalist/Anti-federalsit Paper debates, that was primarily why the SCOTUS was created in the manner it was was. So that a wise high court could protect the Constitution, nation, and the people themselves from these kinds of disreputable political creatures.
Since when has Obama paid attention to the constitution? It would appear that his being a constitutional scholar is highly exaggerated. I want to see his transcripts.
@Smorgasbord: In the past I’ve had people tell me I was wasting my vote by voting Libertarian. My response is that they are the ones feeding the current morally and ethically bankrupt parties. The Libertarians aren’t perfect, I have serious reservations about their stance on National Security, but they stay a lot truer to the Constitution than the D’s and R’s. It will take years to straighten this country out. First it will require taking back the Executive and Legislative branches. Then it will take time to put justices on the SCOTUS who uphold the Constitution as opposed to changing it like they did with Obamacare. How ridiculous. State the law is unconstitutional and then uphold it anyway. Another prelude to tyranny perhaps?
1. In 2011, Obama was forced to permanently postpone implementation of the CLASS Act, Obamacare’s long-term care program.
That program was later repealed in 2012.
2. This past spring, Obama announced that ObamaCare’s Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) would be postponed until at least 2015.
That program was designed to help small employers provide their workers with a choice of health plans.
But Obama had to admit ObamaCare couldn’t provide those options.
3. Obama postponed implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate until after the 2014 midterm elections.
Looks like Obama knows he has a TURKEY on his hands.
One he cannot blame Bush for, too.
And what about the subsidies for poor young people whose insurance will be MUCH higher under ObamaCare?
It is an open question as to whether those subsidies will even be available in 2014.
For the system to work, the federal government needs to know which workers are eligible for subsidies.
BUT this last part of the law to fall apart means that employers won’t have to report whether their workers are being offered affordable insurance coverage until after the employer mandate takes effect, which means the government won’t have that data until at least 2015.
OOOPS!!!
The Constitution provides:
Art. II,
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . . .”
_________________________________________________
The definition for employer, employee contained in the Affordable Care Act is provided by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Public Law 93-406, for foreign affiliates, which amended section 3121(L) of Title 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. The President is authorized to wave the employer mandate, based on the International labor Organization, since it has no application to a domestic employer.
__________________________________________________
Regulations for Public Law 111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 9]
[Revised as of July 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR2590.731]
[Page 636-637]
TITLE 29–LABOR
CHAPTER XXV–PENSION AND WELFARE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
PART 2590–RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, was enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, was enacted on March 30, 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act). The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the *Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and make them applicable to group health plans.
5. Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibilities
a. Except as hereinafter provided, the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security is delegated the authority (including the authority to re-delegate) and assigned the responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor:
(1) under the following statutes, including any amendments:
(i) The *Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, except for subtitle C of Title III and Title IV (29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1232);
(ii) the Welfare and Pension Disclosure Act of 1958, as amended Pub. L. 85-836, 72 Stat. 997; Pub. L. 86-624, 74 Stat. 417; Pub. L. 87-420, 76 Stat. 35;
(iii) The Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (5 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8479); and
(iv) as directed by the Secretary, such additional Federal acts similar to or related to those listed in paragraphs (i) through (iii), above, that from time to time may assign additional authority or responsibilities to the Secretary.
6. Reservation of Authority
a. The submission of reports and recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the administration of the statutes listed in paragraph 5.a.(1) of this order and responsibilities under Subtitle C of Title III of ERISA are reserved to the Secretary. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation carries out responsibilities under Title IV of ERISA.
__________________________________________
Listed below is the 1974 amendment, ERISA, to section 3121(L) of Title 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
26 U.S.C. §406. Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(L) agreements
Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A – Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 – NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter D – Deferred Compensation, Etc.
PART I – PENSION, PROFIT-SHARING, STOCK BONUS PLANS, ETC.
Subpart A – General Rule
Sec. 406 – Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(l) agreements
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1974 AMENDMENT
PUBLIC LAW 93-406 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT
Amendment by section 1016(a)(4) of Pub. L. 93–406 applicable, except as otherwise provided in section 1017(c) through (i) of Pub. L. 93–406, for plan years beginning after Sept. 2, 1974, but, in the case of plans in existence on Jan. 1, 1974, amendment by Pub. L. 93–406 applicable for plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 1975, see section 1017 of Pub. L. 93–406, set out as an Effective Date; Transition of Rules note under section 410 of this title.
____________________________________________________________
B.T.W. listed below is the authority for Willful failure to file, the term includes, is limited to the example, foreign affiliates.
1. Title 26 USC Sec. 7203, Willful failure to file
Oct 2, 2009 – 865(g), which includes the definition of “taxpayer” as defined at 26 CFR … made by the “American employer” under title 26 USC Sec. 3121(l)).
@Nan G: 51% of the people who voted in 2012 voted for this. Hopefully they get hit hard, very hard. Unfortunately so will the rest of us. I’ve received both verbal and written notifications from my provider and it ain’t going to be pretty.
@Greg:
Almost 17 TRILLION in national debt, up almost 7 trillion before the 5 years of obamanomics.
Unemployment (U3) that has been above 7.5% for over 48 straight months since Obama took office. (The U6 rate is over 14%)
Over 47 million Americans on food stamps, the highest number and percentage of the population in the history of this country.
That is all bad, if you care about this country. If you are a marxist hemorrhoid bent on the collapse of this country, then you would find all those points to be just dandt on the march to your progressive hell.
Lowest GDP for any administration since at least 1900.
@Ditto: #24
I was just stating how I would like it to be, and I knew it would take a Constitutional amendment to do it. Please let me have my dreams.
@Pete: Remember, Marx advocated a slow step approach to his desired revolution. Lenin happened to skip a few steps which is what put him and the Bolsheviks at odds with the Mensheviks. Those who want Marxism in this country are adhering to the Menshevik approach of go slowly. It’ll help them get to where they are going without the bloodshed that ensued during the Russian Revolution and their civil war.
@Pete, #30:
And if our next president happens to be a republican, all of those figures will suddenly belong to him—or possibly her. No doubt then we would see an instantaneous magic fix.
Where do people get this stuff, and why do they believe it? U.S. Real GDP by Year
As of March 2013, the U.S. GDP, adjusted for inflation, was at its highest point in U.S. history. If average Americans are not experiencing any benefit from that, maybe they should ask themselves why that is. Rest assured that somebody is benefiting. It doesn’t make you a Marxist to wonder who, and how.
@John: #25
I want to see ANY papers of his, including his driver’s license. Does he even have one?
@another vet: #26
If another party isn’t created that I can go along with, I will probably be voting Libertarian at the next presidential election.
Didn’t you hear obama tell us not to listen to the voices of tyranny?
@Smorgasbord:
Dream on. 😉
I’m considering staying a Republican until just after the 2014 primaries, so we can try to vote the RINOs out. After that I plan to change my voter registration to the Constitution party.
@Smorgasbord:
No I didn’t, but for a change I’ll take his advice and not listen to a word he or any of his flunkies say.
@Greg:
Pardon my error….I meant the CHANGE in GDP is the lowest.
You conveniently ignored the rest of the extremely poor economic indicators I mentioned, which is what I expect from obama apologists.
Reagan inherited very poor economic conditions from Carter. It took him only two years to turn the economy around by lowering taxes and cutting useless, stifling regulations. If a CONSERVATIVE PRO-American is elected then yes, I expect to see our economy turn around. If another blithering anti-american marxist bastard is elected in 2016 then I expect our nation to continue on this horrible decline.
@Pete, #38:
Is there any modern industrialized nation in the world that isn’t Marxist, by the definition that you’re using?
@Ditto: #36
I too am considering that party. Rumor has it that there might be another party started that includes Sara Palin. If so, I will have to look into it. I think Mark Lavine or some other radio talk show host was looking into starting another party. It might be called the Freedom Party.
I will capitalize the Libertarian and the Freedom parties unless they prove to be like the democrat and the republican parties which no longer deserve MY capitalization.
@another vet: #37
Some time ago, I started hitting the “MUTE” on the remote when he came on the TV. He sounds so much better when I can’t hear him. I haven’t heard him tell a lie for some time now. Try it. You’ll like it.
@Smorgasbord: I turn the channel. Besides, other than a few nighttime shows, all I watch are the movie channels, the History and Military channels etc. I stay away from the “news” on television since it’s really propaganda. I don’t listen to talk radio and the only internet news site I’ve been on since the election is Fox and that was only once right after the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon.
now you know that you have to return the voting laws to be legitimated must be voted
by the property owners only
@ilovebeeswarzone: Property owners only. No renters? How bout only men. How bout only whites. No Jews or Catholics perhaps.
I got it Bees. How bout White, Male,Protestant,registered Repubs?
@Smorgasbord & Ditto:
Form ANOTHER party? You guys are on the bullet-train to national election disenfranchisement.
Let’s talk Ross Perot and Ralph Nader of recent memory. They had some valid arguments, but each is remembered for screwing the chances of one national party or the other in presidential elections that neither had a chance to win, not for their contributions to the “national discussion.”
If the Republican Party succeeds in splintering itself off into irrelevant fractions of what was once the GRAND OLD PARTY, then you will have succeeded where the Democrats have failed – in placing the Whitehouse permanently out of your own reach.
You might want to consider asking if the encouragement to return to the “Tea-Party” and “Evangelical Right’s” core platform issues isn’t part of a Liberal conspiracy to trick you into effecting your own self-destruction.
For the GOP to survive as a national party – as in national elections – it needs to augment its core constituency (Southern white males) with additional constituencies that are not in permanent demographic decline. Democrats have constructed a coalition of liberals, women, Latinos and gays that the GOP cannot beat without help, and that help is driven further and further away by the course the GOP is presently taking.
As a Democrat, part of me hopes that Republicans will continue to “double-down” and there-by marginalize themselves, but the other part recognizes that the country is much better off when BOTH parties are viable. Sara Palin? REALLY?
Politics requires compromise. Dems need to compromise with Republicans, and Republicans of different stripes need to compromise between themselves. A house divided cannot stand. If you cannot work within your own party to find solutions you all can live with, how can you expect to do so with the whole country?
Richard Wheeler
you remind me to not forget the mighty MILITARY AS FIRST ONE ON THE VOTING BOOTH,
NOT LIKE OBAMA WHO TRY TO HAVE THEIR VOTE LOST OR DELAYED.
FLEXIBILITY OF COURSE IS IMPORTANT TO BE ADDING THE ONES WHO ARE WORTHY TO KNOW ENOUGH
WHO IS ON THE SIDE OF AMERICA OR NOT, WE KNOW NOW HOW IT GOES IF A PRESIDENT GIVE THE PEOPLE’S MONEY TO HATERS FOREIGNERS. OR AND
HIRE ONLY THE UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT,
BEST TO YOU.
@Richard Wheeler: You are giving a bit of a misleading representation as to why originally only large property owners were given the right to vote. The overall concern was electing officials based on informed choices free of corruption. It was their belief that someone who owned large amounts of property was more educated and informed than someone who didn’t and therefore they would make more informed choices when voting. Remember, when this country was founded there was a very high illiteracy rate. The second reason was the belief that large property owners couldn’t have their vote bought by politicians promising them something. When you think about it, their concerns have manifested themselves. We have special interests buying off politicians and we have millions of people voting for politicians based on who will give them the most freebies. And no, I’m not advocating that only rich people should vote.
@another vet: Ours is a Democratic Republic for which we both have fought. I am against restricting the voting rights of any eligible citizen. We are not gonna go backwards on these rights.You surprise me. Desperation?
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: Point out verbatim where I advocated going backwards.
Richard WHEELER
you have put your finger in the right truth,’yes this COUNTRY IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO FIND THE WAY TO PREVENT THE CORRUPTS TO GET THE LEADER JOBS, BY USING ILLEGAL MEASURES,
AND BACKWARD WAS NOT SO BAD AT ALL,
BECAUSE THE PRESENT AND FUTURE ARE ALREADY IN DEBTS AND IN DESPERATION.
YOU FOUGHT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, WHERE IS IT AT THIS POINT?
AND WHERE IS IT HEADING?
HELL THE VETS CANNOT GET THEIR MONEY BACK, THIS IS AN ABUSE ON THE WOUNDED WARRIORS, AND THE WARRIORS ON THE WAR ZONE ARE NOT
GETTING THE 100 PERCENT OF THEIR DUE, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE TO THEM
AND UNACCEPTABLE, GIVING THEM WORRIES WHILE THEY FIGHT A WAR,
WHAT IS THIS, A NEW LAW TO CUT THE BRAVES?
AND UNACCEPTEBLE