The American Spectator : The End Game Is Near

Text Size

The End Game Is Near

By Brandon Crocker on 4.12.10 @ 6:08AM

It appears we’re headed toward the ultimate battle in the American Left’s war on individual liberty.

The American Left has long derided what it considers the romanticized myths regarding the virtue and wisdom of the group of dead, white males most responsible for the founding of the American Republic. It does not celebrate America as a land founded on the ideals (imperfectly as they may have often been realized) of individual liberty, equality under the law, and opportunity, but rather as a land founded on slavery, economic inequality, and exploitation. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the American Left also disdains the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, even battered and weakened as it has been by precedents set by various liberal, activist Supreme Courts, still guards the liberty of Americans against the authoritarianism required to impose a fully socialist, or other collectivist, regime. It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left’s war on individual liberty.

The catalyst is the newly enacted “health care reform” law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel Castro who congratulated President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for finally imposing on Americans a system akin to what Cubans have had for decades). The focal point will be the “individual mandate” which requires all Americans to buy health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says “no.”

According to the American Left (which now effectively controls the Democratic Party), the commerce clause in the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, in reality allows the federal government to regulate in any way it sees fit any activity that remotely could affect economic activity — in other words, just about anything, including, but not limited to, an individual’s decision to buy, or not to buy, health insurance. I can think of a lot of activities that have more impact on the economy than does my decision on what kind of health insurance, if any, to purchase. For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire? Are these decisions also subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause? One would think that if the authors of the Constitution really meant to say that the federal government has the power to regulate any activity (or even non-activity) it wants, they would have said so, instead of just saying that it has the right to regulate commerce across state lines. But left-wing law professors, journalists, and Democratic Party officials, assure us this is the case. And according to the national Democratic leadership, most everyone who thinks otherwise are ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist, survivalist, whack-jobs.

Actually amending the Constitution takes significant national consensus. That’s a problem when you want to leverage one election victory based on platitudes and “hope” into “bringing fundamental change to America” (to use President Obama’s words). It is so much easier to try to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed who share the view that the Constitution is more of a loose guideline than a legal document, and who are willing to gut the Constitution of all meaning in order to accommodate liberal policy objectives.

To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion, with no place in the “modern” world. As E.J. Dionne recently wrote in the Washington Post, court challenges to the individual mandate or federal meddling in matters reserved to the states under the 10^th Amendment reveal “how far into the past” some people “want to push the nation.” Indeed, he even claims “it would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional” because of “a more than seven-decade-long understanding of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy.” According to Mr. Dionne, the irrelevancy of the Constitution, at least in circumscribing the powers of the federal government to impose liberal social policies, is settled law.

Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne’s view of this matter is not that of some fringe commentator, using Orwellian double-speak to label the potential faithful reading of the Constitution as the work of “a rashly activist court.” This view currently holds sway in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is undoubtedly held by at least three, probably four, and possibly five Supreme Court Justices.

Fortunately, the argument that seven decades of precedent have made it settled law that the federal government has near unlimited power allotted to it under the commerce clause is hogwash. Never before has the federal government claimed the right to force individuals to purchase a certain service or product due merely to the fact that they are alive. And other attempts to justify an expanded federal role in state and individual affairs with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause have, in fact, been shot down over the past couple of decades by the Supreme Court.

The justification most often cited by the Left for the need to uphold the individual mandate is not a legal one but a practical one. It is needed, supposedly, to solve the “free rider” problem. Since treatment is required by law, people can impose costs on the rest of us by not buying insurance and having us foot the bill when they need medical attention. Like much of the rhetoric coming from the current administration on health care, this argument is amazingly bold in its dishonestly. The people for whom it is true that taxpayers (or more often, hospitals) get stuck paying the bill are the indigent (paradoxically, the people that President Obama insists are dying because they don’t have insurance and aren’t getting treatment). For the rest of us, if we don’t have insurance, or if our insurance does not cover some treatment, or if we carry high deductibles (another choice outlawed by the Democrats’ new health care regime) we, as solvent individuals, pay the bill. We don’t get a “free ride.”

The case of the individual mandate potentially carries the legal precedent that the Left has long sought. If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a “modern, national economy.” The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections.

This is not just the outcome that the American Left wants; it is the outcome the American Left needs if it is to “bring fundamental change to America.” Most members of the current Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have already shown that they do not care about public opinion when it comes to redefining the relationship between citizens and the federal government. To preserve America as the land of the free, we need the Supreme Court to uphold its solemn duty.

About the Author

Brandon Crocker is the chief financial officer of a commercial real estate development and management company in San Diego.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (171) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 4.12.10 @ 6:36AM

Note to self:...buy more ammo at Wal-Mart this week.

Paul| 4.12.10 @ 7:56AM

This has been the note that I have been carrying with me for about 5 years now. I would recommend doing this each subsequent week also.

canuckistani| 4.12.10 @ 11:24AM

Perfect, give more money to the store that has undermined US financial independence since Bush 41.
The irony is breathtakingly amusing.

loulou| 4.12.10 @ 1:04PM

Note to self: buy firearm and ammo at Wal-Mart TODAY.

Ryan| 4.12.10 @ 2:50PM

Really? How has the American consumer suffered over the past 25 or so years since Wal-mart has really taken off? If its undermined US financial independance, then why do I have more money in my bank account because I shopped at Wal-mart rather than other stores that would have had higher prices?

The American Progressive | 4.13.10 @ 9:02AM

You are such a fool and so typical of the sheep that make-up the majority of today's Conservative movement. The other post did say "consumer", it said "US financial independence". Wal-Mart has driven countless small business owners out of business. Each department in a Wal-Mart represents a small business that will no longer be viable. Furthermore, the chain has helped shrink the middle-class by moving more and more wealth into the hands of a select few. Can you really not see this? Capitalism is not the friend of 95% of those that support Conservatism. Your obsession with guns and capitalism have nothing to do with what the Founders believed in. Do yourself and the rest of your "gun-hugging, Hannity listening, racist, Constitutional and historically illiterate" group a favor and get informed.

a| 4.13.10 @ 9:42AM

Obamabot.

Joe| 4.13.10 @ 11:34AM

What's wrong with guns and capitalism? They gave you the opportunity to post on this site...

Margie| 4.13.10 @ 1:14PM

Wal-Mart didn't destroy small business. What destroyed small business (and still is) is that they were and are TAXED TO DEATH!!!

Have you ever had your own business? I worked for 10 years for a Mom & Pop co. In the 10 years I worked there I saw nothing but struggling just to keep their heads above water. By the Grace of God he is still in business but has to do most of the back breaking work himself. If he had to pay someone else to do it, he couldn't stay in business.
It's dopes like you who contribute to this mess because of your mental state, which is ILL. You "Progressives" (just a pretty word for Socialist) are anti-American power loving monsters who wish to enslave us even worse than we already are. Can you say VAT tax???
You are through succeeding though because the American electorate is awake and we're fed up with your ilk!
Lotsa luck with your future endeavors!

Richard| 4.14.10 @ 10:41AM

Margie: Your optimism is heartening but, I'm afraid, unfounded. While the country slept these insidious "progressives" have taken over the educational system, the free press and one of the great political parties. They managed to impose a malfeasant, unqualified incompetent in the White House. They have taken over both houses of Congress. They have enlarged the pool of "trough feeders" to the point that coupled with their success at election fraud, they have pretty well guaranteed the opposition's inability to stop them. They will presently add another member to the supreme court and ten to twelve million non-English speaking new voters. I have voted in every election since '68 (Nixon/Humphrey) and in all that time have never voted for a "democrat". It all feels, now, to have been in vain.

Margie| 4.14.10 @ 12:28PM

Richard,
I appreciate your thoughts very much. I too have voted Republican since my first vote in '92. I was a very late bloomer, but better late than never, so the saying goes. If anyone is a realist it's me, and actually quite the pessimist as well, those that know me know this. But because I'm a Christian I also have hope inside of me and that hope is realer than the present circumstances and conditions of both this world and its current affairs and my own condition, which is ruined sinner, saved by Grace.
I know that this life is futile but I also know that we should never give up the fight for what is right.
And in reality we are winning as conservatives (though some say we are neo-cons and not true conservatives because we are not non-interventionists). If the non-interventionists and Libertarians would unite with us and vote for conservative "enough" Republicans we could hound (as Rush said) these stinking Democrat Progressives out of office, and YES we CAN turn things around. But we have to all unite and vote Republican and NOT third party.
Prayer is what is needed in order for this to happen. The minds of the people have to be changed and that will be by the Grace of God and by our examples of standing up for the truth.
You CANNOT lose heart, Richard!
Remember: "And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart." Gal. 6:9.
You are one on whom we are counting on to continue fighting the good fight.
United we stand.
God bless.
We've come this far by faith!

emo| 4.13.10 @ 6:42PM

It isnt Wal Mart that has driven countless small business out of business, it is Economies of Scale. The same economic phenomenon that has driven small farms and small factories out of business or towards consolidation. ...do us all a favor liberal moron..try to construct an argument without calling everyone you disagree with a racist....sheesh what a loser

NO TROLLS| 4.14.10 @ 3:42AM

The 'freedom loving' American Progressive so enamored with leftist tyranny and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in the 20th century. Progressivism means death and destruction--nothing more.

Ferengi| 4.14.10 @ 2:35PM

"Do yourself and the rest of your "gun-hugging, Hannity listening, racist, Constitutional and historically illiterate" group a favor and get informed."

Ah we see the "tolerance" of the left. The love "diversity" of thought. If are so
"Constitutionally and historically literate"
why don't you know that the 2nd Amendment was enacted BY THE FOUNDERS to allow individual citizens to protect themselves from tyranical government.

"Furthermore, the chain has helped shrink the middle-class by moving more and more wealth into the hands of a select few."

Ah, I hear the smack of Marxist class warefare. Not that Marx was right about anything.

Jaxsolo| 4.14.10 @ 9:26PM

Pure unadulterated garbage.

ferengi | 4.20.10 @ 10:09AM

Jaxsolo

"Pure unadulterated garbage. "

Care to support your assertion?

bjb57| 4.12.10 @ 3:08PM

canuckistani,

What an absurd statement!

Guy| 4.12.10 @ 11:25AM

Exactly what I have been thinking. Sad commentary on our current state of affairs.

David Homer| 4.12.10 @ 11:30PM

Correction to "Note to self..." buy more ammo at Wal-Mart every week. Also extra food and emergency supplies could prove useful.

Christopher Holland| 4.13.10 @ 2:51AM

Cut a cross into the point of each bullet and make a Dum Dum round. Banned by the Geneva Convention, so you know it is lethal.

Chris Pedersen| 4.13.10 @ 9:08PM

One short add on to this wonderfully written piece;
"To preserve America as the land of the free, we need a Supreme court to uphold its solemn duty", by virture of the Oath they took with their hand on the Bible "So help me God" !

State enemy # 666| 4.12.10 @ 6:54AM

The real ammunition needed here is not the wordsmith type, it's going to be the real thing if they think for one hillbilly moment they are going to impose their will upon a free citizen such as myself.
May God have mercy upon them, for surely I will not.

AMENBRO| 4.12.10 @ 9:47AM

When 911 struck my fear was not that of a bio attack on my rural home. Fear of what the individuals this healthcare bill favors reminded me I needed efficient protection in the household.

Katrina reinforced it.

Media did not tell the entire story of what went down in NAWLINS towm.

CACA's gonna get ugly

saleboter| 4.12.10 @ 7:19AM

The term civil disobedience is going to have a whole new chapter soon.

AMENBRO| 4.12.10 @ 9:54AM

No prejudice here either. I hate all these leftwing idiots.

My Grandfather had a 6th grade education. Died rich as hell. Taught me to love and respect everyone. Employed ANYONE that was willing to work. Now theses leftwing aholes consider the working people the enemy of the state.

He taught me you cannot WAIT ON or argue with MORONS. A man has to do what a man has to.

He taug

Mike Rogers| 4.12.10 @ 7:32AM

I think it is going to take a constitutional convention to explicitly point out the purpose of the commerce and general welfare clauses and to declare all laws exceeding their scope null and void.
We also need to repeal the 17th to restore one of the most important checks on federal power, which the Progressives undermined with its passage 100 years ago - a Senate which represents the interests of the states.
In the mean time, the Supreme Court may be the final destination for individual lawsuits, but it cannot dictate what the sovereign states must do. We have allowed the Supreme Court to become the oracle which interprets the Constitution, when the document itself is the supreme law of the land. This is bad because, as unindicted co-conspirators with the other branches if the federal government, the Supreme Court will not act to meaningfully limit the power of the federal government.
Elect the best and most principled state legislators you can find - they are your last best hope of stuffing the feds back into their box.

JP| 4.12.10 @ 7:47AM

Mike,
You really don't want to go there. A Constitutional Convention can work both ways. It doesn't take much imagination to think what damages the libs and other groups can do.

There are plenty of ways to check the power of the Courts. The question is: do the voters have the brains and the political will to elect men/women who have the principles and fortitude to do just that. All 3 branches of the federal government are co-equal; each have explicit powers granted by the various articles of the Constitution. The Senate has the power to set forth judicial jurisdiction. But the Senate must be willing to flex its muscles. The Senate can also remove judges who not only break the law, but also overstep thier bounds.

The legislature has an incrediable amount of power and authority. All it takes are for the lawmakers to excercise that authority in a judicious and legal way. In times past, both Houses of Congress use to guard thier powers jealously. When the President or an executive department head overstepped thier authority, Congress use to come down on them with both feet.

No need to go the extreme route. The Constitution does provide the means to correct this situation.

1FreeMan| 4.12.10 @ 9:53AM

JP,

Thank you for your post. I agree COMPLETELY. A Constitutional Convention is exactly what the left wants. This new document (and rest assured it is already drawn up) will strip America of the religious freedom we cherish and will empower the socalist left to rework the USA into a new-world USSR. The document, as it stands, is not perfect but it is still the most powerfull and best guarantee of freedom this world has ever seen.

Leave it alone!

Mark MacInnis| 4.12.10 @ 4:36PM

Agreed. A ConCon today would be only slightly less transparent than the Obama-care legislation-writing sessions were.....we'd be voting on a new constitution first, THEN be told what is in it....Let the living constitution breathe. Let those who would usurp its power be hunted down and brought to justice, to stand trial before loyal Americans, accused of the crime they are truly committing: Treason!

Larry in Iowa| 4.12.10 @ 9:28PM

Really? What's the worst that could happen? Everything in it that protects the states or the individual is being ignored anyway.

1FreeMan| 4.12.10 @ 10:12PM

But we still have a way to fight back to constitutional law. Without it everything is lost.

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 1:43AM

I agree with everything in your statement but the instance of letting the Constitution breathe... It is the Left who paints the Constitution as a living, breathing body upon which they can cut off and reattach limbs as they please.

The Constitution is the bedrock upon which our country was founded. The firewalls have been breached by the United States government and it is our right, and our sworn duty, to remove those from office who would continue to abuse the Constitution in such a way.

Broad interpretations of the Constitution undermine the purpose and intent of the Amendment process. I would not enjoy it, but if the power of the United States was amended through the Constitution to allow such things as the individual mandate and excessive meddling in the States and individuals rights, then our country would be doomed to tyranny anyhow(The Amendment process involving the agreement of at least 3/4 of the State legislatures, we haven't had a Constitutional Convention and I agree it would be a bad idea to hold one now...).

Chris Pedersen| 4.13.10 @ 11:14PM

There is NO SUCH THING as a "living Constitution", that is exactly the mantra and mindset of the left-wing wigged out democrat idiots running this Country now, thus an unconstitutional mandate to [b]uy health care insurance just for being alive and present as an American citizen under their alledged "Commerce Clause"and/or the "Welfare Clause" inforced by the power of the I.R.S. gun, pointed at your head with further confication schemes of your tax refund or imprisonment.

Furthermore, I have never read any U.S. Supreme Court Opinion that contained the term you used "living constitution" and I have read many, many opinions of all the federal courts. It's just not there, period! It amounts to a democrat illusion of Utopia, Period!

If you find such an Opinion of any Federal Court then post the name of the case and cite the numerical book volume and page number. I will then look it up and read it, looking for your term. I respectfully disagree with your premise and the use of your term.

Jim Hlavac | 4.12.10 @ 1:53PM

There's a few things on any Constitutional Convention called by the states not often considered:
1) there's no reason that the states calling for such a convention can't restrict by the call itself what is allowed to be considered -- for instance, only a predetermined list of amendments -- and specifically state that the rest can't be touched --a sort of housekeeping convention really. Article V does say the states can call for amendments when the congress does not -- which does not invite a wholesale rewrite -- and that seems to be the intent of the current debate -- doing what Congress will not, not rewriting the whole.
2) should such a convention be taken over by the lefties which then produce some wacky socialist manifesto then it would still take 3/4s of the states to make it binding -- and given the reason for the state's call it's doubtful that they will then just roll over and play dead once they read the "new & improved" leftist version -- leaving us with the old one by default.
3) With 3/4s of the states required to vote either for a new one or to keep the same, under current rules, the 1/4 which are socialist now (NY, MA, CA, etc,) then it will provide the perfect cover for the dissolution of the First Republic, and the establishment of a Second Republic, albeit with a few soon-to-be failed socialist states on our new borders losing people via emigration to the New America -- then when they seek re-admittance they'll have to abandon the reasons for the spilt in the first place.
4) there's no reason that if the lefties take over the convention, locking out the Liberty Minded that the LMs can't hold their own convention to do what we want - - and submit both versions to the states -- and given the reason for the call I'd bet the Liberty folks get their version passed by 3/4s long before the left can get theirs through 3/4s.
5) or, if the convention is held, and the left decides they want to secede because they won't accept the new more federally-restrictive version then that can be solved in a sort of Lincolnesque way -- ie a new civil war.
In any event -- the idea that some 20% of the population that is die hard socialist is going to enlist the army or something to force the 80% of the people opposed is rather out of whack. I'd bet on the army surrounding the lefty conventioneers and giving them a wake up call of some sort.
So I'm not too worried about how it plays out -- but the one thing that is true is this: the socialists must become violent to push their cause -- and they don't have and can't get the fire power required to bring us Poppa Marx as much as they want.

Mike Rogers| 4.12.10 @ 11:48PM

Good points, JP, but a constitutional convention does not need to be called to effect a complete rewrite, rather to pass 1-3 clear simple amendments underscoring the constitutional limits on the feds.
We can, and will, send the very best reps and senators to DC to try to scale back government and hew closely to the constitution, but that may not be enough. Nor can the Supreme Court be fully trusted to enforce the rights of the states and the people, since it is a branch of the same problematic federal government.
As others have pointed out, the requirement for 3/4 of the states to approve any amendments is a very high bar, and I'd prefer the chances of a fired-up citizenry on the side of the constitution over a bunch of leftists looking to expand government.
If the federal government doesn't get the hint, if the tenth amendment laws being passed around the nation don't get their attention, then it will become necessary for the "...people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
A nation of free men will not endure this usurpation for ever.
Let's put the federal genie back in its bottle and put a good large warning label not to rub the g-ddammed lamp this time!

Ronnie| 4.12.10 @ 5:26PM

You are right Mike! We need 38 states to confirm anything that comes from an Amendments Convention. So all you leftists & Big R Republicans better try & scare the public. Botox Pelosi & Harry Butt Reed won't be running the show for the convention. Districts will elect one represntative & whatever they come up with that can get by 38 states is the NEW LAW. No President, Congress or Activist court can change it. Now LEFT if you want to fundamentally change America you will need to do it the proper way like "We The People" are getting ready to do!

James Lewallen| 4.13.10 @ 12:55AM

No, we instead need to garner support among 36 states to demand constitutional amendments under Article V of the US Constitution. If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. This provision, many scholars argue, allows for a check on the power of the Congress to limit potential constitutional amendments. In fact, several proponents of constitutional revision, such as Larry J. Sabato in his book A More Perfect Constitution believe this is the only feasible way for large-scale constitutional change to occur.

ds80| 4.12.10 @ 7:45AM

November 2010.
Refresh the Tree of Liberty.

The political class should be very afraid.

Curly Smith| 4.12.10 @ 7:52AM

"The justification most often cited by the Left... is to solve the "free rider" problem."

Ah, now I understand. We needed another massive Welfare Program to resolve issues pertaining to free-loaders and non-contributors to society.

William Wallace| 4.12.10 @ 7:55AM

"If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a "modern, national economy."

I was with you up until this point. If the quote above is true, then you have effectively thrown up your hands and said all is lost. What course of action remains? The only logical one, if we are to reclaim our liberty, is a repeat of 1776.

Pecos Pete| 4.12.10 @ 8:21AM

"Freedom!"

dennis2j| 4.12.10 @ 10:13AM

I think there's some grammatical confusion here. I read the same sentence as asserting that the case will ultimately come before the Supreme Court, not necessarily that the left will ultimately win the case. Having said that, the odds of a definitive defeat of the left's argument are pretty slim, given the likelihood of another liberal Supreme Court nomination in the next few weeks or months.

Quartermaster| 4.12.10 @ 6:47PM

Dennis, I think you are right, but the structure of the sentence can cause some one to think he said the left will ultimately win at SCOTUS. Frankly, if the SCOTUS is utterly lawless the left will win. SCOTUS' record does not encourage.

Melvin| 4.12.10 @ 8:11AM

People, the best chance we got right now is the midterm elections only if you pay attention to the primaries and vote in a Conservative candidate. Assuming that the candidate is Conservative will assume ourselves with the likes of John McCain.
Right now at the local level in North Carolina we have a race being run by three Republicans and one of them has received hefty campaign donations from Democrats. Hmmm I wonder which he this guy is going to swing.
By Democrats electing a Progressive Republican they have the best of both worlds. Someone who will vote with them and when the going gets tough someone to blame it on.
So pay attention and go to campaign rallies so you can see these candidates face to face and press them on issues.
A ConCon is not a good idea right now. We have the most corrupt government in this Nation's history right now and if a ConCon was convened with a Constitutional Lawyer as President, that would be like trying to light napalm with a short match. It would blow up right in our faces.

Quartermaster| 4.12.10 @ 6:48PM

We have a man with a JD who has masqueraded as a constitutional lawyer sitting as President. If Obama is a constitutional lawyer, then I'm Einstein.

BigFish| 4.12.10 @ 8:22PM

Er, Quartermaster, there's no such thing as a "constitutional lawyer", so President Obama couldn't "masquerade" as one. President Obama taught constitutional law. But then I've not seen many people in this chain let the facts get in the way of a good asgument.

Wally| 4.13.10 @ 12:10AM

Obama was just a lecturer on Constitutional Law, not a professor; the thug did his real teaching as a community organizer for ACORN.

Radegunda| 4.13.10 @ 12:35AM

He was alleged to be a "constitutional scholar." No evidence has been presented that he was an actual scholar of any sort. He learned only enough about the Constitution to know that he disdains it.

Bram| 4.12.10 @ 8:24AM

There was a time when Judges, Legislators, and Presidents all took their oath to the Constitution seriously. Presidents would veto legislation, not because of party politics, rather he felt it to be unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson comes to mind.

Now all matters of the Constitution are left to the Court - a court full of Judges picked by the same people who have given up all allegiance to the Constitution.

Louis Jenkins| 4.12.10 @ 8:28AM

“The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government...”

It was a pretty good sounding article to begin with. Alas, you got the Pretender n Chief health care, which is okay. How can we change this mess? We’re to the point that we’ll never be able to return to the Constitution. Many here speak of the need to get basic with our return, and that may be the only way. Are we to that point? This coming election will bring out the voters like never before. Let’s hold on to that first, rather than trying the former. Then we can see what will be needed. Pray for peace, but keep your weapons clean and loaded.

davelnaf| 4.12.10 @ 8:48AM

There is the question about whether the dems have been ‘evolving,’ so to speak, in this direction since the conception of the Great Society, or is it just their way of obscuring the fact that they are control freaks? At least there is no doubt about the fact that they are using Obama as cover for their current power grab. If things go badly for them in November and in upcoming national elections they can pivot and blame him for having been too radical for the American people; not to mention the fact that he has about as much capacity for telling the truth as his fellow dems have for acceding to the wishes of the majority. They struggle ever so much with that now, but starting this November that burden will be lifted from their shoulders for a long time to come.

Heatpacker| 4.12.10 @ 9:16AM

If the lefties honestly believe that the Constitution is anachronistic and does not meet the needs of a modern society, then why don't they do the honest thing and amend the Constitution so that it is appropriately 'modern'?
Perhaps it's because they know that they have never had the support of a majority of the American people. In the past, dishonest lefties worked behind the scenes to slowly undermine the Constituition bit by bit, to render it essentially meaningless.
However, with the passage of Obamacare, the lefties have brazenly proclaimed their desire to destroy the Constitution. This is the source of alarm and anger that fuels the Tea Party movement.
If the lefties get individual mandates past the Supreme Court, they can say 'The Constitution no longer limits the powers of the state and enumerates the rights of individuals. It is now a vehicle by which the majority expresses its will.'
At that point the ordered republic is at an end and legalized political chaos begins.
The left, most of all, should fear this.

Blackwatch| 4.12.10 @ 2:13PM

In the past two weeks other commenters have asked "What is our Lexington - Concord?"

Failure of the SCOTUS to overturn this illegal taking of our Liberty will be enough cause.

Then we shall hear the new "shot heard around the world."

Be ready and Beware the knock on your door.

ncatty| 4.12.10 @ 9:17AM

Mr. Crocker, the last sentence of your second paragraph states the ultimate issue, and all political argument derives from that issue: Is there any area of my life left that is protected by the Constitution against the reach of the Federal government?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.10 @ 9:33AM

Brandon,

Aren't you the "prophet of the nose on all our faces" though?
Gosh, how prescient of you...(not).

Why don't you go out on a limb, "soft spoken one", and give us your possible scenarios if our elections are screwed up in November........and a mere three hundred human beings think they can end liberty in these united States.

Well, I can give you a hint for your thesis sentence:

""Three hundred or so would-be communists, (pardon the shorthand), in our government have over-reached and shown their true stripes to the American people....but fifty million quiet law abiding citizens have said...No.""

Ray| 4.12.10 @ 9:35AM

It's interesting to note that many of the leftists display the very qualities they attribute to others. If one listens only to the left, one would imagine that the very people who immigrated to America in order to escape inequities like endemic poverty, forced labor, mandatory confiscation of property, and the like, are the same people who imposed those very inequities on others once they arrived here, a VERY unlikely scenario.

What is far more likely is that the left, sharing the same ideals and goals of the European Aristocrats of previous centuries, who are the ones who actually imposed inequities on their fellow countrymen, are upset that the "natural order," that being the order where aristocrats are in control of the serfs, is nonexistent here in America. This is why they feel it is necessary to demonize our past and try to instill a sense of guilt for escaping the inequities the "Enlightened" Aristocrats imposed upon our immediate ancestors.

In addition, the left, believing themselves to be the New American Aristocrats, feel must return society to it's rightful order and impose THEIR form of central control, Federal Government, on us all, for our own good, as they, and only they, are "enlightened" enough to impose their rule over us, the inferior masses.

Anthony| 4.12.10 @ 9:40AM

How is it that the Woodstock Generation managed to be seduced by the same totalitarian forces they claimed to have rebeled against?
This ironic twist of fate has amused me for decades, as I watched my fellow baby boomers morph into the rigid intolerants they have become.
Their hopelessly bourgeois parents knew more about individual freedoms and limited government then these self absorbed spoiled brats. But then again, that same self absorption is at the heart of our current problem, isn't it?
Oh well, no time like the present for some long overdue corporeal punishment.

Tom Osterman| 4.12.10 @ 10:09AM

The Woodstock Generation never rebelled against totalitarian regimes; it never lived under one. The regimes that were totalitarian were the regimes it admired: Mao's China and Castro's Cuba to name two. What it rebelled against was American society it then existed.
Look at what happened when the flower children got themselves into positions of power. Ask any conservative who went to college in the last twenty or thirty years what it was like having ex-hippies in the faculty if you don't believe me.

Anthony| 4.12.10 @ 11:01AM

Tom, That was my point. The '60s flower children transposed Mao,Che, and Ho chi Min,for the good guys, while American politicians, even the democrat variety, i.e Richard Daley, were the true fascists, along with their tuition paying, overly indulgent, bourgeois parents.
The leftist boomers have been ass backwards ever since. Corrective measures need to be taken to remedy this.

Chalkdust| 4.12.10 @ 11:16AM

Tom Osterman:
You are dead-bang on. Further, the taxpayer supported profs who indoctrinated the Hippies/Woodstock groupies of the 60's-70's were refuges and/or the children of the "White Russia Movement", labor unrest movement of the 1920's and the House Un-America Activies protesters of the 1950's.

MikeBee| 4.12.10 @ 11:54AM

Anthony,
In many ways, you're right. The Woodstock generation rebelled against the Establishment, which included the ruling class at the time and also included any standards in education. They wanted freedom from authority and from restrictive standards.

However, the Woodstock generation also idolized European society; in particular, they idolized French and Dutch societies' penchants for freer sexual expression. Many of the thoughts of radical students of the late '60s and early '70s found expression in such statements as, "Why can't we have naked statues everywhere, like they do in Europe?" and, "Why is prostitution illegal here in the U.S.?" and, "Why can't our T.V. commercials show mostly exposed women like they do in Europe?" "We in the U.S. are such prudes," they thought.

So, the radicals from the Woodstock generation joined with the Communist Party USA and fought for such things as legal abortion and contraception, so that women could have sex without "consequences;" easier access to divorce, so that women could escape "controlling" husbands and be more available for free sex; the legality of homosexual unions; and the eradication of standards in college courses (don't tell me how to do anything; true exceptionalism comes from within the human person).

But embracing the Communist Party USA, which also supported all of the above goals, also meant that the Woodstock generation was embracing the shackling of Americans under Communist party rule. The Woodstock radicals have always been severely ignorant people; the lack of standards in their college education programs ensured that they didn't have adequate historical, scientific, and social skills necessary to making good decisions. So, their inability to see that embracing Communist ideals actually negated their desire for freedom of expression was and is expected by those of us who are aware of their severe ignorance.

As always, it is and will be up to those of us who see things clearly to protect the ignorant from themselves. Many years from now, the radical Woodstock generation's freedoms will be secure, only because of our intervention, in spite of the Woodstock generation. Some folks have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to their own security.

MikeBee| 4.12.10 @ 11:58AM

Full disclosure: I am a member of the boomer generation.

Jim Wilson | 4.12.10 @ 2:26PM

What's more, if the whacko wing of your generation gets its way, ya'll will have my generation and the milennials taking care of you, deciding which treatments you're going to get, sitting on the death panels deciding who has got too low a livability rating to continue living, etc. Meanwhile we'll be swamped by an enormous debt and paying 75% of our income to keep Boomers in relative wealth and comfort.

This is an untenable situation, to say the least. After sticking it to the following generations the Boomers expect superhuman charity and restraint, after having done everything possible to extinguish such ideals in school, media, etc.

After killing 1/3 of my generation and about 28% of the milennials, Boomers expect to be supported into their 90s by the survivors? I'm on the leading edge of Gen-X and the idea frightens me more than almost anything else going on right now. What happens to America if mine and the next generation (or large enough percentages thereof) decide to let the old folks die off rather than support them forever? We've all imbibed plenty of pseudo-Native American philosophy via school, TV and movies, perhaps the proud old Injun wandering into the snow rather than burden his tribe is the wave of the future rather than the past.

Heaven help us if it ever comes to that or anything like unto it.

pugsley| 4.12.10 @ 3:41PM

Jim-kind of like Logans Run with wrinkles, or Logans Walkers. This conundrum has been approaching for decades and it is about here. Your generation will have to deal with it the best way you can after all the boomer money is used in lieu of SS, Medicare, and any other means of support that are out there. But one thing for sure is the free ride is over for everyone...Boomers most of all. I heard a comment back in the 90s that went something like this. If you think your life is in good hands just try being retired and go in the hospital, you probably wont come out standing up. I watched this for many years and that old man was right. I used to think of retirement but now I think I will just work till I drop..and I don't have to, could have retired several years ago. Like the old saying goes upon further review......

MikeBee| 4.12.10 @ 5:55PM

Jim,
What you have to do to stop the bleeding is this:
1) Establish private ownership and investment of Social Security funds for your generation and beyond;
2) Create a lockbox for Social Security funds of older generations;
3) Dramatically reduce the size of the federal government, by eliminating whole sections of it. There are many chunks of the federal government which can and should be eliminated, as soon as possible. Some examples:
a) Department of Education
b) Department of Natural Resources
c) Department of Housing and Urban Development
d) Department of Labor
e) Department of Health and Human Services
f) Marine Mammal Commission
g) and on, and on, and on.........

All of the above government functions can either be eliminated entirely, or run and funded by individual states who wish. Also, the funding which is now excess after the elimination of these departments can now go to shouldering up the promised Social Security for the boomers and above.

If all of the above is done, it shouldn't be too difficult to retire the boomers and move on to reasonable times for future generations.

MikeBee| 4.12.10 @ 6:01PM

Oops! Forgot one of the most important things future generations can do to shore things up:

Have as many babies as possible (this is the fun part). All insurance schemes operate by using funds now which are in the pool, usually for older people. If future generations aren't there to place funds in the pool, then the insurance scheme goes bankrupt, like Social Security is expected to do. The boomers' biggest mistake was in not replacing their generation in numbers.

Wally| 4.13.10 @ 12:21AM

Stop whining about the Boomer generation. Most of them are good Americans who've worked hard, paid their taxes, fought in a war they had no choice in, raised their kids and paid their dues.

How many babies have the women of YOUR generations aborted? Are you any better? No, you're even worse because you won't man up and take responsibility for your own part of the mess we're in.

Grow up! 'Death Panel' away, losers--I can just imagine the hell your precious offspring have in store for you! Couldn't happen to a nicer group of
spoiled brats.

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 1:55AM

Indeed! They should be dragged, kicking and screaming, back to liberty! Heat the iron of the United States so that their hands are scourged and marked by their firm grip upon the government and society and their controlling idealism.

podbaydoors| 4.12.10 @ 2:26PM

Not all of us who saw an overreaching government and rebelled against it adopted the red mantle. Some of us just thought that there was way too much governmental interference in citizen's lives.

Radegunda| 4.13.10 @ 1:00AM

Someone who was clued in to the sixties counterculture told me that there was a discernible difference back then between those who were besotted with Mao and Che---who became leftist academics and coercive politicians---and those who just wanted to let it all hang out and didn't like the draft, and they became libertarians.

That's a little oversimplified---but I suspect there's some truth in it.

Margie| 4.14.10 @ 12:40PM

That's a pretty good analysis as to the natural "evolution" of the species, lol.

Of course you have to account for the miraculous conversions that occurred, too. So, it's true that you say it's all a bit oversimplified, but for the ones mugged by reality at some point. Like me. I was a would-have-been-but-for-the-Grace-of-God, Libertarian. I wanted to so badly be a Hippie freak in my teens, but the good Lord intervened.
Do you know about David Horowitz? A wonderful conservative who was a hard core Leftist, who is a major example for today's "yute". He's written many excellent books as well and speaks at colleges, trying to provide some REASON to the Leftist cesspools that are the Universities of today. :^)

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 3:22PM

That's the best explanation for Leftists and Libertarians I've ever heard. Makes sense to me.

Now I know why I've always been suspicious of Libertarians.

MAJ Mike| 4.12.10 @ 9:46AM

Remember, remember the 2nd of November,
Democrat treason and plot...........

JAH666| 4.12.10 @ 10:08AM

YES!, MAJ Mike...

I see no reason why Democrat treason
Should EVER be forgot!

Becky| 4.12.10 @ 10:11AM

My son's young single hippie white friend voted for Obama because "he was tired of old white guys." There was nothing more to his philosophy.

I'm tired of this young black guy (already). I liked the stability and security of the old dead white guys' document that was honed from years of experience and deliberation.

Obama is for the historically ignorant and intellectually arrogant.
In some ways, although it is scary, I wonder if it would have been worse if McCain had won. I wonder if we would have bumbled along for another four years anyway. I am encouraged that so many middle class people seem to be awakened to the fact they really weren't tired of old dead white men.

Richard| 4.12.10 @ 11:35AM

And in this the Left a la Gramsci has succeeded: to induce people to see themselves and others as members of groups and not as individuals worthy of dignity, integrity and liberty.

Chalkdust| 4.12.10 @ 11:49AM

Thoughtful comment Becky:
I too wondered if the election of John McCain, who was never actually a Republican, would in fact only continue the decay of American valves under a false banner.
The blood and treasure lost in the four years of Obama's rule will be immense, but the liberty, freedom and self-determination gained by the Third American revolotion is priceless.

crookedwren| 4.12.10 @ 1:00PM

Great work, Becky. May I quote your great sentence "Obama is for the historically ignorant and intellectually arrogant"? In many ways, true, although some young people are "historically ignorant" and naive -- which is, perhaps, more dangerous than the first.

Nexialist| 4.12.10 @ 10:22AM

The current health care legislation is little more than a coverup for the squandering of previously-collected Medicare and Social Security funds.

Sam Marx| 4.12.10 @ 11:12AM

The Federal Government has been able to expand its power far beyond what the Founding Fathers wanted because of a Supreme Court case decided by questionable logic.
The case is WICKARD v FILBURN, a 1942 case decided by an FDR/NEW DEAL court.
In WICKARD v. FILBURN the Court held that wheat grown by a farmer that was fed to his chickens was part of interstate commerce.
WICKARD v. FILBURN gave virtual unlimited power to the Federal Govt. over the states by expanding the intent of the " commerce clause " far beyond the Founding Fathers' intention.
It was an FDR/NEW DEAL Court loaded with liberals, such as Wm. O.Douglas, deciding a case in 1942, heavily influenced by the state of the ongoing war and the recent depression.
Because of the ongoing war, Pearl Harbor occurred a few months earlier, a strong central government seemed like a good thing at that time. I was alive then and I remember the mood of the country.
The nub of the holding was that the Federal Govt. could control IntRAstate Commerce if it affected IntERstate Commerce.
But ALL Intrastate Commerce has some influence on Interstate Commerce and this is not what the Founding Fathers' had in mind when they wrote the commerce clause
The Founding Father's were thinking in terms of roadblocks or taxes imposed at the state lines
Further WICKARD v FILBURN is a way to severely weaken or get around the 10th Amendment.
It makes the 10th Amendment and States Rights subject to the " commerce clause "
The Founding Fathers were staunch States Righter's.
They never had any intention of a generous interpretation of the commerce clause so as to neutralize the 10th Amendment.
I was a mature engineer when I first read the case and was shocked and sadly disappointed that such ill concieved logic was used.
The reasoning used in that case is a sad joke.
Overturning WICKARD v. FILBURN would stop Progressivism and the Obama Health Care Bill .
The Health Care Bill gives the present Supreme Court an opportunity to do this.

ElGordo| 4.12.10 @ 12:34PM

The Supreme Court must put limits on the commerce clause to save this country from a tyrannical power grab and take over by the left.

Irish22| 4.12.10 @ 2:37PM

ElGordo,

Or by the Right -- not much difference these days! Check Walter E Williams essay "Socialism is Evil" for the complete story! You are right, the commerce clause must be returned to its originally intended meaning as stated by SAM

George S| 4.12.10 @ 1:58PM

Wickard is different because it was the farmers themselves who petitioned congress to subsidize wheat by controlling the supply to raise prices. Part of the law was the disposal and sale of excess wheat, necessary to control so farmers wouldn't sell it under the table and undermine the Agriculture Act. Mr. Filburn was fined for not disposing his wheat in accordance with that law. SCOTUS said that congress gets commerce clause power by right, since they are regulating what they're subsidizing -- plus, congress did not initiate the agriculture act that Filburn ran afoul. The problem was the wording of the SCOTUS decision which said that Filburn's personal use of wheat impacted interstate commerce (with respect to the intentions of the Act). This is what congress has been running with for years since.

ObamaCare cannot pass the Wickard smell test because this congress is controlling interstate commerce, not regulating it. We, the people, certainly did not petition congress to take away our freedom of health care just so those bastards can regulate it with the commerce clause.

Irish22| 4.12.10 @ 2:42PM

George S has given us the perfect reason to eliminate Federal subsidies . . . of anything! Why let the fox into the hen house? Kill off the "coalitions of the do-gooders and the special interests"!

Tim| 4.12.10 @ 11:15AM

If it wasn't for the wisdom of those old dead white guys that are more commonly refered to as the framers of the US Constitution, Obama would not be in the White House today.

.....And that same wisdom will allow the US Citizens to correct the problems that exist in the US Society now.

canuckistani| 4.12.10 @ 11:42AM

No, slavery would have been outlawed by Queen Victoria and the British Law would have reigned until a constitutional settlement was reached in years following.
The signatories of the Declaration of Independence would have been hanged for treason and sedition, and the country would have evolved in another direction.
The framers wanted to be free to own, that's it. That was the whole point, the other collateral benefits to non-landowners was simply happenstance and not part of the design.
These guys were slave-owning, protestant elites that no longer wanted Westminster running the show. Every one of them prospered under that existing regime, don't forget, and wanted more.
Stop romanticizing an America that has never existed - even in the framers' minds.

GW| 4.12.10 @ 12:03PM

Please, please, for the love of God, read "Common Sense" to get an idea of our founders' mindset during this time period. If "every one of them prospered under that esisting regime", they would have little incentive to go against the crown and commit, "treason" as you say (which is true).

But even if the founders' intentions were self-serving and only because of ambition or power, what gives the state the power to ignore its own laws? What limitations does the government then have, if it can ignore the Constitution? What happens if the court can now find the 1st amendment to be limited under the Commerce Clause much like the 10th has been?

Heatpacker| 4.12.10 @ 1:58PM

Please, please, for the love of God do not expect canuckistani to read 'Common Sense' or exhibit common sense. This troll never posts an original comment. That would require a certain amount of courage. Rather, he lies in wait for others to post comments and then ambushes them with condescending, cynical, insulting tripe. It is a waste of time to respond to him. Moreover, it only encourages his antisocial behavior.

Bilwick| 4.12.10 @ 3:08PM

"canuckistan's" response to GW's suggestion was probably to scratch his head and wonder, "Common sense . . . common sense . . . what's that?"

If he could force himself to read any pro-liberty literature he might also read the CATO LETTERS, which were a major source of the libertarian ideas that led to 1776, or the sermons of the anti-Royalist Protestant preachers who galvanized much of the populace. ("Rebellion against Tyrants is Obedience to God.") For more contemporary literature he might read Bailyn's IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, or Murray Rothbard's CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY, particularly the chapter that deals with the anti-statist philosophical underpinnings of the Revolution.

canuckistani| 4.12.10 @ 3:50PM

You do have a point about me being reactionary, but this is supposed to be a blog open to discussion.
Have you ever responded to the "tripe" spewed by people wanted to buy real ammunition? For what, exactly? Obama and his black helicopters swooping in and taking your white women and cable TV?
I believe in conservative fiscal values. The American people have chosen the current path and we have choice to either live with it or establish another country by negotiation or force of arms. The last time we tried that the country was torn apart. Or, be patient and adopt an incremental approach that rewards merit.
Regardless of what we believe, the people like sucking on the government teat and simply picking up our guns and running to the hills cedes everything we have worked as a tribe for 200 years.
Is a person a person or not? Are black peoples dragged here in chains not entitled to reparations and enshrined equal status under the constitution - nationally?
Catholics, Jews and blacks were openly discriminated against in my home town up to and through the 60's. Women were also given short shrift. That's just a short time ago.
The framers wanted small government and to be left alone. There was no envisioning a projected American presence around the world, nor was there the consideration that old enemies can become friends - as evidenced by the precipitation of the War of 1812. It evolved.
What I read here is a devolution to scared red-baiting antics that always burn out in favor of real hard policy work.
Invoking Paine is dishonest, as he embodied much of what America should be, not what you guys believe it was.

TROLLS SUCK| 4.13.10 @ 12:25AM

You're a troll--there's nothing honest about you, moron.

Radegunda| 4.13.10 @ 1:11AM

Scared red-baiting? So you probably think all that Communist stuff was just made up; there were never any Marxists taking all economic power into government hands, controlling the press, jailing and killing dissidents. Likewise, Obama & Pelosi didn't really take over student loans; they haven't really grabbed hold of half the economy so far; they didn't really set the ball rolling to take over every aspect of our medical care. And so forth. No, it's all paranoid fantasies. And Obama didn't really hang out with Marxists---even though he told us he did.

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 2:30AM

If you truly are a fiscal being, I submit that you should not agree with the path the federal government has taken in regard to taxes and regulations involving interstate and intrastate commerce, beyond the intent of the commerce clause as it was written(since it was written to promote a strong, cohesive economy where States could not abuse each other and trade with other national bodies would be centrally regulated) as well as establishing programs such as Medicare and Social Security. These programs, as they were produced and legislated, were intended as some sort of social panacea to a problem that would not exist en-masse if we had a truly strong, robust economy. Many fewer people would need to rely on these programs if their liberty were not being taken by their government in the form of onerous taxes. Man endeavors, through his labor, to attain private property. Private property and liberty are inextricable. When the government endeavors to take away man's labor, his private property, it takes his liberty.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay taxes. We have an obligation to fund the LEGITIMATE operations of our federal government. Social Security and Medicare are two great examples of programs outside of the Constitutionally mandated powers of the federal government. The framers of our constitution intentionally left societal experimentation up to the States, via the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. There is nothing in any Article or Amendment to the Constitution affording the United States the power and authority to "secure the health of every individual citizen of the United States," or any other individual mandate. Whereas Massachusetts has the full authority to promote welfare and entitlement legislation on the behalf of the people in that State, the United States was never intended to become a welfare institution that would be of greater size and power than all the States.

The United States government only does two things well, involving money: It redistributes wealth, and it spends it. That's all! Social programs operating at the federal level almost always create market dislocation and inequality, because the federal bureaucracy cannot adequately meet the needs of every individual or group residing throughout the States. The States are better suited to represent the individuals residing within them, as they represent a much smaller part of the population.

As I have stated before, if the United States government were to propose an Amendment giving it the power to regulate interstate and intrastate commerce, even to level of the individual, and have it approved by 3/4 of the States, then I would not be happy with the outcome, but I could then agree with you that the American people in general would be truly represented on this issue. As it is, we have many Representatives and Senators in Congress involved in much double-speak, who have their Statist agendas and no time or patience for the slow-grinding wheels of appropriate and true change through the Amendment process.

Many early proponents of the New Deal were struck down by SCOTUS early in its implementation. FDR, being the Statist he was, could not abide by the Amendment process for changing the United States government either. When SCOTUS would not agree with him, he threatened to pack the court with Statists who would agree with his programs. While it did not succeed in the short term, the Judiciary was fairly well cowed and have not ruled heavily against Statism ever since.

This is the origination of the massive federal bureaucracy we have today. If not for the New Deal and the Great Society, we would likely not incurred the debt we owe today, largely due to massive federal spending on social programs. Leave federal spending to the States, and those disasters may be well contained. Involve the whole country in Statist experiments, and we have what we have today. Can you not understand this? Is this difficult for you? We are spending ourselves into a hole, and you hang your head and say that the people have spoken. The people are definitely going to speak in the next few election cycles, and I pray you're wrong. We need to reverse course, for we are on the cliff. If all our debt were to come due today, we'd default! We can no longer sustain such massive social spending and heavy taxation/regulation on the economy! Free the markets, free the system, and we will wean ourselves off of the government tit. Only then will we have our liberty.

Pingback| 4.12.10 @ 11:52AM

VarLinux » The End Game Is Near links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Guo Zhua Xia Yodao Google netvibes newsgator Bloglines iNezha © 2001-2010 VarLinux The End Game Is Near Apr 12th, 2010 Leave a comment | Trackback It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left’s war on individual liberty. The catalyst is the newly enacted “health care reform” law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel…

martin j smith| 4.12.10 @ 12:04PM

First what has to happen is test of republican backbone against any BHO nominee for SCOTUS
Second, make sure a) elections happen b) as many voters who oppose BHO and the left agenda vote c) make sure there is as little voter fraud as possible.
Demand that the Republican Party represent the people.

Now I think there are trolls who have posted provocative posts. People can be angry and frustrated all they want. But, I think a l;ittle commonsense has to prevail in examining the words that people put on a site that will be monitored by the opposition. When see talk of "getting real ammunition or anything that smacks of military activity etc I see either people who are unable to think about what they say or people who purposely provoke this kind of talk. I do not trust any of these posters for those reasons.

Blackwatch| 4.12.10 @ 6:25PM

Your assumption that the rule of law will always be in effect is disturbing. If the rule of law is suspended how would you fight back? With words? With a demand that the Republicans represent the people? Apparently at this time the GOP represents about 48% of registered voters. That is a fraction of the American people.

You want the GOP to ensure that their are elections in the fall and that people get to vote. Specifically how would they do that? Political parties in this country do not have security forces. The GOP is not Hezbollah, Hamas, or NAZI's. We don't have the SA Brownshirts to order into action. Also how is the GOP to ensure that there will will be honest elections? Again you assume the rule of law. Bad people, such as Progressive Socialists have a history of flouting the law since to them the end is justified by the means. Rigged elections with democrats involved--wow how unusual.

So I have no trust in the GOP to accomplish what you demand of them as they are for the most part ineffectual at battling socialist. There are power hungry GOP members, but its not the majority. Full disclosure I am a registered Republican.

Martin I have about 600 rounds of ammunition for my rifle. I could easily shoot that much ammo in about 20 minutes. I live in California where our magazine size is limited. 10 rounds in 5 seconds. Reload, Aim, Fire, Reload, Aim, Fire. But 600 rounds is more than I will ever need unless violence breaks out. I don't intend to go on the offense, but I do expect that if there is a leftwing putsch against the Constitution that there will be millions of well armed angry citizens rounding up the opposition for arrest, trial, and imprisonment.

It's our duty as citizens and fathers to be ready to protect the nation from a tyrannical government. Don't begrudge the few of us who are willing to post here that we are able to do so.

David | 4.12.10 @ 12:04PM

With regard to a new constitutional convention, following is a column from Phyllis Schaffly published last Friday. She makes the founders' arguments against such an action.

Good Advice Against a Con Con
by Phyllis Schlafly April 9, 2010

Suggestions that the United States call a new constitutional convention, as allowed in the Constitution's Article V, have popped up in some state legislatures and even on a page in the Wall Street Journal. No longer do these voices claim a convention can be limited to consideration of a single amendment (e.g., a Balanced Budget Amendment); grandstanding politicians are proposing a wide assortment of many amendments to produce big changes.
Speaking to us from across the years, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention.

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.

"Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned."

Madison's prophetic warnings against a general convention to amend our Constitution (now colloquially called a Con Con) are even more compelling today. Let's examine them.

A new convention would "naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress" to amend the Constitution. Indeed, that's exactly what the Con Con advocates want: a convention to do what Congress won't do.

A Con Con would "give greater agitation to the public mind." Indeed, a Con Con would attract dozens of groups agitating for various changes, creating a bigger media event even than a presidential election and dominated by Mainstream Media and theatrical demonstrators.

The election of Con Con delegates "would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides." Although Nancy Pelosi would probably be in charge of the numbers and apportionment of Con Con delegates, their election would surely attract "violent partisans on both sides" of many issues.

The Con Con would "probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters . . . heated men of all parties." Think a repeat performance of the way the Obama crowd turned out voters in 2008 through his "Organizing for America." Think ACORN, illegal voters and vote frauds.

The Con Con "would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts . . . might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations" of our Constitution. A Con Con would, indeed, be a big attraction for individuals of "insidious" and "dangerous" views that could eat away at the foundations of liberty and a sovereign independent republic. These would include pressure groups seeking an elimination of the Second Amendment, global governance through treaty law, deletion of the provision that requires a two-thirds majority of Senators to ratify treaties (the favorite change urged by the Council on Foreign Relations), the addition of new constitutional rights (such as same-sex marriage and health care), elimination of the Electoral College, and other "insidious" and "dangerous" changes.

We could not presume that "the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony." "Harmony"? You must be dreaming! Indeed, it would be a wild and raucous political event of world-class magnitude. Have you ever attended a hotly contested Republican or Democratic National Nominating Convention? Think the Democrats in Chicago in 1968 or Republicans in San Francisco in 1964 or Chicago in 1952. Now imagine the Obama demonstrators and the John McCain demonstrators trying to agree on language to adopt.

Madison trembled for the result of another convention in the "temper of America" in his time. We should, indeed, tremble for the result "in the present temper of America." Think Obama's proclaimed goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Madison reminded us that the first Constitutional Convention "assembled under every propitious circumstance." Those propitious circumstances included having George Washington as convention chairman. Somehow, we don't see any George Washington or James Madison today, and we don't want to put our fate in the hands of men who think they can improve on the work of George Washington and James Madison.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.10 @ 1:57PM

David,
thank you for passing that along. A lot of wisdom in that.

NavyBrat | 4.12.10 @ 1:07PM

No truer words were ever spoken:

"The three branches of government number considerably more than three and are not, in any sense, 'branches' since that would imply that there is something they are all attached to besides self-aggrandizement and our pocketbooks. ... Government is not a machine with parts; it's an organism. When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming an asshole?"...PJ O'Rourke

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."...PJ O'Rourke

JP | 4.12.10 @ 1:16PM

Navy Brat,
PJ O'Rourke along with Florence King are my 2 favorite pundit/essayists. I sure hope PJ is recovering from his cancer, and that Mrs King is enjoying her retirement (I'm assuming she is retired -she is over 75, afterall).

Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.12.10 @ 1:50PM

The only things standing between America and leftist inspired oblivion is Justice Kennedy and his whimsical notion of constitutional interpretation or an untimely passing of one of the conservative justices being the other, all should hope for their continued good health...

BobL| 4.12.10 @ 2:03PM

Everyone needs to remember that the people have the "right" to "change" the government when it no longer is "for the people". Americans are not likely to give up their liberty easily. It is likely the last resort, but the American People will not go quietly into the leftest serfdom.

George S| 4.12.10 @ 2:07PM

How about getting to basics... such as what is Commerce? I say that commerce can only occur when free people engage in economic activity. Being free as such, they tend to make mistakes, take unfair advantage or, may just be plain dishonest. When that occurs, we need a referee to say "no... you can't do that -- we all agreed!". That's where government and its regulatory powers step in -- to referee the actions of a free people. Commerce is the essence of the activity a free people engage with one another, and if that activity crosses state or international borders, then the federal government can regulate. Regulate: to make regular...

So, does congress have the authority to force us into commerce? No they don't; that is not regulating but compelling our labor (See: US Constitution, Thirteenth Amendment to). If they can compel health insurance, then they can compel purchasing shelter (bye-bye homeless problem, too).

The basis of our government is that it governs after the fact -- after we make our choices from free will. Once it regulates before the fact, it becomes Stalinism, Communism or any other ism that enslaves a people.

Pingback| 4.12.10 @ 2:30PM

American Progressives and their Constitutional Problem | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…be separated from the state. In fact, Big Government is the state-sponsored religion that the Constitution protects Americans against. That’s one reason Progressives know the Constitution needs to be changed –and that’s not possible, circumvented. To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion,…

Northern Rebel| 4.12.10 @ 3:10PM

canuckiwhatever:

WalMart has done more to put money in the pockets of the normal American, than any government program ever concieved.

You socialists just can't stand free enterprise, can you?

canuckistani| 4.12.10 @ 4:51PM

I love free-enterprise, when it's free of subsidies and unlevel application of trade laws.
Whether you choose to believe it or not (I'm guessing not), Sam Walton's dying wish was a permanent MFN for China. Now they own $1.7T in US bonds, have the largest trade imbalance with the US the globe has ever seen and interestingly Wal-mart is the largest company on the planet, reducing wages nationally and ladening their shelves with imports that they procure themselves.
Walton and his family bought off whomever is in the whitehouse at a given time and they got Bush to get past his romantic reservations about human rights and endorse MFN for China.
After the Afghan invasion, Wal-mart suddenly shifted their focus from China to Pakistan as their preferred procurement source for companies looking to cut costs even further.
Nowhere has Wal-mart benefited the country structurally with high paying jobs and seeding domestic markets for production. Now you want to buy your ammo there to finally commit suicide?

molonlabe28| 4.12.10 @ 3:13PM

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

This is the operative part of the oath of office that the President and each Congress member takes.

Juxtapose that with the comments which frequently accompany today's legislation (e.g. McCain-Feingold in which its proponents, including GWB (who signed it into law), were commenting that "we will have to let the courts sort it out") and you get the stark contrast in the level of reverence which existed with respect to the Constitution when the oath was adopted (in 1884) and now, when Congress pays little more than lip service to the Interstate Commerce clause.

Spoonman| 4.12.10 @ 3:25PM

Will someone please tell my why the left and Obama will not contrive an international and national emergency just before the November 2 elections, institute marshall law and cancel the elections? What could be done to stop that from happening?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.10 @ 3:33PM

Spoonman,
You just hit the nail squarely. Fax or call a Republican Senator (staff-member) and express that very thought.
a couple of million calls/faxes will let the communists, (pardon the shorthand), know that the American people will simply not stand for screwing with the election.

canuckistani| 4.12.10 @ 4:33PM

Conjuring a pretext to war to "scare" the populace? The shock! Obama should be skewered! er, oh yeah, Bush 43 did that already with no opposition stated in this space.
Does that equal an unbalanced view or just a dishonest one?
When Bush called up National Guard troops over and over again, did you question that? When Bush spent $700B on two UNDECLARED wars, did you stomp your indignant feet for it being unconstitutional? When the GOP and Bush rammed through Patriot Acts 1&2 with parliamentary manoevers, where were YOU?
The GOP impeached Clinton over a BJ, Bush killed 4000 troops, injured thousands more based on lies and incompetence. Where were YOU demanding an impeachment hearing?
My issue is that the American people will not buy into this stuff based on the fact the boys we are promoting have not demonstrated a record of being FOR the constitution in all cases, not just selected ones.
Impeaching Clinton over nothing spat on the constitution more than this new mandate to insure people for healthcare. The thin edge of the wedge occurred when us conservatives abandoned the high ground and jumped into lake hypocrisy with the dems. We have steeled their determination and sadly us devolving into base discourse like this only bolsters their prospects in the long run.

Radegunda| 4.13.10 @ 1:13AM

Perjury before a court of law is not "nothing." But unfortunately, he got away with far worse.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 3:04AM

Clinton should have been impeached for rejecting Sudan's numerous offers to give us custody of Bin Laden in the 1990s. Clinton's dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief caused September 11, 2001.

3000 Americans were incinerated because of Clinton's incompetence and malfeasance--he was morally unfit to be president.

Richard| 4.14.10 @ 11:00AM

Addressing liberal revisionist history: Clinton was not impeached over a blow-job! He lied to a Grand Jury.

Mark MacInnis| 4.12.10 @ 4:48PM

Ominous to me that I had the EXACT same thought a few moments before skimming down and finding this comment. You can bet if one or more of us have thought about preventing this, that one or more on the LEFT have thought about PROVOKING it....

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.10 @ 3:29PM

George S,
Some really good thought above. Thank you for joining the conversation.
Best regards

armyman29340| 4.12.10 @ 3:46PM

Note to self...forget the ammo at wally world, get a flintlick rifle. No shells needed.

David| 4.12.10 @ 4:45PM

I know the dems will come up with something about the repubs just before the Nov election, but I don't think they will try (maybe they will) to cancel the elections. I believe we held national elections during our own Civil War even though large portions of the country could not vote. I believe that is factual history - correct me if I am wrong.

Tyler S| 4.12.10 @ 5:03PM

The truth of the matter is that the cases being pressed by the individual attorneys general of several states will fail, and not because the court is filled with activists (This is actually the most conservative court we've had post Warren) but because, agree or disagree with it, there is a massive body of precedent giving the congress such large power under the commerce clause. All rhetoric about activist courts aside, the courts change the law only incrementally, so while a ruling may tweak the mandate in some fashion, the court will not simply abandon a massive body of precedent. As for the whole "Lefties hate the constitution" trip, I think what you'll really find is that lefties do not support strong state rights. Inasmuch as the constitution exists to protect individuals from government excess (and this does not even come close to qualifying), we're all for it. Why can't we have a legitimate discussion about the role of government in our lives without all you whackos going off on "doom and gloom" and "civil war II" tangents? Do you truly and honestly believe us to be evil, sadistic human beings? There is room in almost any issue for well intentioned people to disagree. The solution should be discourse, not over the top rhetoric and threats of violence.

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 3:10AM

I can agree with the general body of your statement. Indeed, threats of violence and certain rhetoric propose to limit polite discourse and seek a certain end.

I also speak to you, and I say: The Constitution was founded on strong States rights, and until the Constitution is amended in such a way as to give the United States the power it has so proudly claimed for itself, we are close to ruling lawlessly and without restraint. The arguments involving a broad interpretation of the commerce clause completely circumvent the intent of the framers when establishing very SPECIFIC powers of the United States government. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear when it specifies the duties regarding taxation and regulation of commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several states..." Under no circumstance does the United States have the authority to lay claim to any individual, lest this individual is part of a greater group(like those being taxed on different income levels, though I personally disagree with even that, but the income tax was added through an actual Amendment to the Constitution!).

The precedent of which you speak, involving federal interference in commerce through regulation, is mired in incredibly, truly, pathetic cases like WICKER vs. FILBURN: This case involved a farmer that was growing wheat or corn on his farm for personal consumption by him and his livestock. The decision basically stated that because he wasn't contributing to interstate commerce, he was affecting interstate commerce by not participating. Isn't that quite nebulous logic? Yet this opened grounds for the Fed. to get involved in all types of regulatory processes involving individuals and companies, as relating to commerce.

The States, by definition of the Constitution, were left to regulate the commerce within them as they saw fit. When the United States government mires itself in the regulatory business of the States, it adds an expensive layer of complexity to business transactions that benefit nobody but the United States government, generally in the form of taxes and fines. Not only do businesses have to comply with the regulations of the States in which they do business, but they have to comply with increasingly draconian federal regulations that have been increasing by the year.

The Environmental Protection Agency is an interesting entity in itself. It has the regulatory authority to impose cap and trade legislation, as well as other legislation involving "man-made climate change" without much oversight by Congress. The EPA itself was not established by an Amendment to the Constitution, yet it rivals Congress in its stated authority to regulate commerce through many means to achieve its "environmental" ends. I'm not saying that everything the EPA does is reprehensible, but it an other regulatory agencies need to be reigned back into strict oversight and very tight control, lest it destroy our economy with draconian regulations aimed at reducing the use of energy(ostensibly to stop "pollution" of the atmosphere with CO2) through taxation and fines. If the EPA does move to tax and fine energy usage, expect such regulation to effect nearly every American, whether or not the government would give them a shelter through subsidizing their energy costs.

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 3:07AM

If repeal doesn't look possible--DEFUND OBAMACARE!

Tim*| 4.12.10 @ 6:29PM

"Why can't we have a legitimate discussion about the role of government in our lives without all you whackos going off ... "

You're an argument against yourself, Sport !

Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 12:56PM

You're right, "whackos" was a mistake. In my defense, though, there are people on here who seem to actually believe Obama will suspend elections in 2010. Thats.... well, I find that alarmist and unlikely to an extreme degree.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 3:13PM

Why do you find that unlikely? I didn't think it was likely Obama would launch a takeover of the auto and banking industries, either. Guess I was wrong and you could be, too.

Blackwatch| 4.12.10 @ 6:39PM

Tyler, you and your fellow travelers have long bloody history of saying its only an incremental change, It's only a little loss of freedom, we only want to register guns, we only want the Jews to register, we only want the Jews to leave our lands, we only need a few million deaths to finish our final solution. Get it? Your side is not trustworthy. You may be a nice boy--but there are armed thugs waiting in the wings to put you in line too. Internal purges to round up dissidents is also something your side is good at. Chairman Mao was the best. go read up on the Cultural Revolution.

go research world history. we that are alarmed by all of this taking of our liberties do not want to go slowly into the night. we won't allow you to take us into the shadows with your lying soft words of honest debate.

Tyler S.| 4.12.10 @ 7:53PM

First of all, any action can be carried to a degree at which it becomes evil. To make an argument that we shouldn't take a benign action because it could be used as dangerous precedent for evil actions down the road is essentially to say we should never act, because such statements can be applied to anything. If the last few years have shown us anything, it should certainly be that anyone can be compared to Hitler if you try hard enough. I'm sure we'll see it again in 2012 as well with whoever the republicans nominate. We must, instead, take each act for what it is and judge it based on that alone. While we must be aware of the slippery slope, we cannot let fear of it paralyze us.

And every type of government has resulted in despotism at some point or other. You point me toward Mao, well I could just as easily point you toward Khomenei, but I won't because you aren't theocratic despots and we aren't communist despots. We're all Americans, we all want to do right. We don't agree on why, but we truly want the same thing. Absolute statements are always easy, but reality is always tough. Keep armed and ready, fine, but keep the discussion going as well.

As for incremental change, I meant that due to the way the courts create law (They do and they're supposed to. This is a common law system. Its European style civil law systems where they don't) the challenges to the Health Care Bill have no real hope, as most lawyers of any party will tell you.

I do like that you call me a "nice boy" and then accuse me of attempting to steal your liberties with my "soft lying words," though. That's fun.

Radegunda| 4.13.10 @ 1:19AM

The Khomeinist revolution actually got some inspiration from, and cooperation with, the Marxists. And today the far left often is curiously indulgent toward Islamist theocracy---except when they're saying that Republicans are like the Taliban.

You're a long way from establishing that "every type of government has resulted in despotism at some point or other." If there's any possibility that it's true, it's only because every type became some other type on the road to despotism.

Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 12:58PM

Yeah ... that's kind of the point .... they *become* despotism ...

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 3:29AM

You are dead wrong. The Judiciary is not intended to "create law." That is the purview of the Legislative branch of our government. The Judiciary is supposed to play the role of a referee. If a law does not agree to the Constitution, then the Supreme Court has the authority to strike it down. As pertaining to Supreme Court precedent, as with any court, the precedent is exactly what it is, a precedent and nothing more. If said precedent is un-Constitutional, and proceeds to lead to tyranny, then the citizens have the right to a recourse with which to right those wrongs. If it is a revolution, so be it! But I do not advocate violence, and we are not under the thumb of an absolute despotism. We are in the grasp of a soft tyranny, but one that has a mailed fist under a velvet glove. If we allow the Statists in our government to continue to walk this road to Statism, we have failed in our duties as citizens, and we have failed the great vision which our forefathers had for this country when they framed the Constitution. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but it is the most perfectible system of law on the planet. It is very adaptable, but the Statists have taken advantage of the courts to set precedent that does not agree with the original intent of the Constitution, without providing a structurally firm basis for their arguments in the form of an Amendment.

I submit to you, that if the majority of the American people were to support tyranny, it would have already been Constitutionalized through the Amendment process. The Statists have eluded you through their incrimentalism and their arguments that they do things "for the greater good." If you truly believe that Statism is good for America, look at where we are now. This is not an America that has held fast to our Constitution, but one that has been overtaken by a centralized federal government that has usurped the Constitution by permeating its firewalls.

I have a question for you, Tyler S. When the government has the power to mandate that you individually purchase insurance through this new "HCR" legislation, where does its influence and power into your life end? There is no Constitutional backing for such a mandate or its limits, so where do you draw the line? Should the United States government then tell you that you have to purchase a pound of beef every week, though you be a vegetarian? Where does it end?

If you call me a fear-monger, I state to you: You have allowed me to awaken a fear inside your mind that you cannot countenance with logic, for we are purchasing the bounds of the illogical, the chaotic, and the lawless. When men are disposed to tyranny when they are not bound by morals, why should our government be any different when it is not bound by rock-steady adherence to the "supreme law of the land?"

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 3:20AM

What kind of a moron would state that the courts are supposed to create law? Troll must be from the moon.

Forget it, Eric; Progressive Marxists like Tyler count on boiling us gradually so we don't notice their tyranny--kind of like frogs in slowly boiling pots of water.

Margie| 4.14.10 @ 12:46PM

I think all Moon Trolls should be non-interventionists.

Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 12:49PM

Seriously, look up common law versus civil law sometime. In common law countries cases have precedential value, allowing courts to create a body of law known as common law. Civil law countries, where precedent has no value (such as almost all of europe) must rely instead almost entirely on statute. In fact, at the time of the founding fathers, court made law was pretty much all there was. Its only since then that the US has moved toward a form of limited codification (though still not on to the same level as European nations).

Also, Khomenei allied with the Marxists to overthrow the universally despised Shah, but as soon as he took power he turned on them, killed many of them, and struck any and all Marxist ideology from the Iranian power structure.

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 3:17PM

Oh, stop your baloney--the Courts are NOT supposed to make law, that's the responsibility of the Legislative branch. Moron.

Northern Rebel| 4.12.10 @ 7:16PM

Cookoostani:

President Bush went to war after Congress voted to approve it, in effect a "Declaration of War."

There is nothing in the constitution that spells out the specific method for congress to declare war.

Read it, and weep, cook!

Neil| 4.12.10 @ 9:08PM

Sorry to say it, but the only solution is that any person who recieves any money, benefit, salary or entitlement that is derived directly or indirectly from the federal government be prohibited from voting in any federal election. Until we remove the incentive for folks to vote themselves cash from the treasury, none of this will be corrected.

ben dover| 4.12.10 @ 10:37PM

Buying ammo at Wal-Mart isn't the easiest thing to do anymore. For the last year and a half, I've measured the pulse of public opinion by the amount of ammo available at Wal-Mart. When Obamacare passed, they were cleaned out.

Jackgn| 4.13.10 @ 1:04AM

Is there an island where people who are not leftist idiots can start a new country where it's every man for himself? If not, stand by for civil war. The right would win because the leftists are unarmed, care more about animals than people, and, in many cases, are fags. Aim for the head!!!

Dieter| 4.13.10 @ 4:46AM

Repeal the 19th amendment!

hadduhnuff | 4.13.10 @ 6:07AM

At the moment I learned that agents of the Washington D.C. establishment had set fire to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas I began to view the bureaucracy as my enemy. Before I had only disliked them. By that state-sanctioned murder I learned that the feds seek the welfare of no one but themselves. The feds despise the Constitution.

The Constitution of The United States of America is a miraculous document inspired by God Himself. People who believe that it is not are its enemy. The Republic of The United States of America depends on the Providence of God. Period. That's how it started. The farther We The People stray from the way, the truth and the life of God in Christ, the more dire our situation in this world will become. It's not for nothing that these terrible days have befallen us. People who believe and act as though the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not led the way in the history of this Republic are Constitutionally entitled to their opinion. But they shouldn't wonder when they find themselves sitting in the ashes with dust on their heads. Fair warning.

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 3:25AM

Inspired post, thank you. I wholeheartedly agree.

It's abortion--we will be treated as we have treated the least among us. It's been coming for a long time, folks; we shall reap the whirlwind.

Athelstane| 4.13.10 @ 8:09AM

THEY have interpreted the Commerce Clause. Now, let them enforce it. Once the cancer of Obamaist Marxism is exicised, by whatever means, then we can rebuild. Note to Progressives: Never bring a copy of Das Kapital to a gun fight.

Thorvald| 4.13.10 @ 8:23AM

The 10th Amendment backs the 2nd, and vice versa.
Whatever the Court does, the American People will be looking at the result. If nowhere in the Constitution say either I have to buy health insurance, or that the Federal government has to buy it for me, will the People sit idle if some "court" "discovers" that mandate?
Buy more ammo.

E Vattel| 4.13.10 @ 8:29AM

Lets just see that Article 2, Section 1 is enforced. If it is, everything bad in the past few months becomes Null & Void, plus Pelosi is in a heap of trouble. We can all chuckle at Joe for the remaining few months and relish the fact we rose to save the Republic. Nobody who has dual citizenship or is a Subject of a foreign crown at birth is by definition Natural Born. Calling people names who point this out does not change the fact.

Louis Jenkins| 4.13.10 @ 5:08PM

Although this clip is burned out, Obumma, where's your birthcertificate (the real one)?

Margie| 4.14.10 @ 12:47PM

Normal Americans will never forget, Louis.

chi | 4.13.10 @ 8:37AM

They called themselves "big government conservatives" and George W. Bush became their prime pupil. He "tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare," as Fred Barnes wrote in 2003.

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 3:27AM

GWB wouldn't protect the border, either--and he was a border state governor. He's a progressive republican like McCain. RINO

Rob m| 4.13.10 @ 9:47AM

I love how conservatives take every law or bill passed and make it sound like it's the beginning of our country slipping into communism; "For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire?" This bill was the exact opposite of that. It showed how a majority of people can elect someone who shares their beliefs and get a bill passed on their behalf; Middle Class - WIN. Upper Class Rich White Men with political ties - FAILLLLL!

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 2:14PM

Rob, this isn't the beginning of our country slipping into Communism or any other type of Statism. This is the newest addition to a long road that has gotten us to this point, with us branching sharply away from Constitutional government back in the 1930s and towards Statism. FDR and the New Deal was the genesis for the over-sized, over-powered centralized government we have today. A government that can never seem to get enough revenue these days, and will continue to raise taxes to pay for its gluttonous appetite, regardless of the fact that there is an optimal window for taxation in regards to revenue which we have long ago passed, regardless of the fact that we can no longer sustain a massive welfare state. The Fed. is looking at putting in place a VAT tax, which is a tax model that is favored by European states. This tax is among the most regressive taxes ever devised. It adds a government tax between every level of production, which is handled by the businesses, and then passed onto the customer. This type of tax will affect even the poorest of Americans.

This is most assuredly not a win for the so-called "middle class" of Americans. For anyone who aspires to be successful in this country, who desires to start a new business, this is a defeat. It adds additional regulations, taxes, and penalties for small businesses(who make up the majority of our market structure and will see their taxes go up by at least 5% because of this new legislation) and corporations who now must within the next few years decided whether or not they keep subsidizing their employees in their health insurance programs(which will now cost more) or simply hand them off to the newly created Exchanges. This is actually a win for the insurance companies, because it forces every American to be covered by a private entity. We are now required to purchase a good, whether or not we may want it, or face a modest fine or tax. This is a most onerous example of crony federalism, with companies that tow the Statist line getting rewarded and companies that don't being punished. The Fed. will continue to decide winners and losers in the "free market," despite the fact that they do not have a Constitutional mandate to do so.

NO DRONES| 4.14.10 @ 3:32AM

Rob is the perfect example of a public school brainwashed drone for the state; clueless and arrogant the 'Robs' of our country are the reason we're in so much trouble.
Rob never learned critical thinking; you can tell by his sheep bleats.

David| 4.13.10 @ 10:57AM

Rob, you are a moron if you can't see that the government has accumulated more and more power over more and more areas of our lives throughout history.

The majority of people did NOT want the billed passed. You flippin' leftists/Marxists can't even wait one month before rewriting history.

As to your hatred of "Rich White Men", has a poor black or poor Hispanic man ever hired you for a job? Didn't think so. That is, and this is a BIG assumption to attribute to a leftist, if you have ever even held a job. Couldn't resist that.

Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.13.10 @ 12:06PM

David---

Rob probably braids his pony tail with sequin, sparkle, and dirt!!! This group of Obama leftists are still living in the 60's and exceptionalism is not a goal but barrier to them...

bullwhacker| 4.13.10 @ 11:55AM

We have over two dozen constitutional amendments and none of them required a Convention.

Eric| 4.13.10 @ 2:20PM

bullwhacker, you are correct. There are two ways to Amend the Constitution: A majority of Congress puts forth a Constitutional Amendment to the States, to have it radified by 3/4 of the State legislatures before it becomes law -- Or, A majority of the States, I believe 2/3 or 3/4 of them, propose a Constitutional Convention for proposing certain Amendments or even a re-write of the Constitution(which would obviously be a bad idea).

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 9:24PM

Commentaries, Opinions, And Editorials — April 13, 2010 « Read NEWS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Fall — Kevin Slaten, The Diplomat The Strength Of Four — Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Times Of India Heavy Lifting for Berlin — Joseph A. Harriss, American Spectator The End Game Is Near — Brandon Crocker, American Spectator Google vs China: the endgame — John Parker, Asia Times Tyranny vs. the Internet — Ronald T. Jones, American Thinker Submit this to Script &…

JACKGN| 4.14.10 @ 9:24PM

To my fellow patriots:

Lock & load. War is coming and it won't be with the Chinese or the Russians. It will be with Washington, DC. Damn Obama and his fellow travelers.

Pingback| 4.14.10 @ 10:11PM

The End Game Is Near For The American Constitution #fb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says “no.” Read more at the American Spectator If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Posted in American Exceptionalism, Big Government, Constitution, Constitutional Limits of Government, Corruption, Democrats,…

wangsir| 4.19.10 @ 5:43AM

Best Blu-ray to iPad- easily convert Blu ray (.m2ts) and DVD(.vob) files to iPad

Robert| 4.20.10 @ 6:07PM

"The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections."

If it comes to that, then war is the only way we will be able to restore justice for the citizenry of this country.

jfksd| 6.30.10 @ 11:47PM

beijing massage shanghai girl

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats