-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Constitutional Opinions
A Teachable Moment
How the Obamacare lawsuits can raise consciousness about the Constitution.
For conservatives, Christmas came early on Monday. For liberals, the happy holiday was stolen by a black-robed Grinch. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a new federal policy compelling the purchase of health insurance “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
In other words, Hudson determined that the individual mandate — the centerpiece of the national health care law that is in turn the centerpiece of Barack Obama’s domestic agenda — is unconstitutional. Congress had no power to enact it. The president and his czars have no authority to enforce it. No amount of hiding behind the interstate commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, or the ability to levy taxes can justify it.
This decision came as a shock to those who did not realize there were any constitutional boundaries of congressional power, or any limits whatsoever to what the political class could do if it set its mind to it. Among the millions of Americans taken by surprise were the president of the United States, most members of Congress, and perhaps even a majority of Hudson’s colleagues on the bench.
Hudson’s judicial earthquake was triggered by Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. The aftershocks will be felt later this week when another federal judge hears a similar lawsuit filed by Florida with the support of 19 other states and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Nobody knows what the courts will ultimately do. This is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s world and the rest of us are just living in it. But no matter what happens, this should be a teachable moment for the American people. And it is one that should not be wasted on the “situational constitutionalism” whereby the party out of power conveniently rediscovers the Bill of Rights in between elections.
The Constitution imposes substantive, as opposed to merely procedural, limits on the federal government. It does not simply set the basic qualifications for being one of our federal masters, in the form of residency requirements and minimum ages. It doesn’t just divide Congress into two chambers or the federal government into three branches. The Constitution specifies what the president, Congress, and the courts are allowed to do.
The interstate commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause, the earnest assurances of big-government senators who hand out little paper copies of the Constitution to schoolchildren who visit their offices — none of these are escape clauses. If it ain’t in the Constitution, the federal government can’t do it.
Republicans need to re-learn this lesson no less than the Democrats. During the health care debate, there were no shortage of arguments about whether the taxpayers could afford Obamacare, what effect it would have on insurance premiums, whether it would reduce economic growth, etc. The fact that there was no legal basis for central components of the legislation was almost an afterthought.
The protests are already streaming from the reader’s lips. But the Constitution was written by old white guys a long time ago! In ancient times, before Brett Favre was a quarterback and when television was still in black and white. We, in the enlightened, diverse America of the 21st century, need a national health care law now! And lots of other stuff not covered by those pesky enumerated powers, too.
Leave aside, for a moment, that the Constitution has an actual amendment process. Has post-constitutional government really provided us a vastly superior political future? Right now the constitutionally unconstrained creatures of Capitol Hill are bickering over two deeply unpalatable options: strangling an already fragile economy with untimely tax increases or crushing the country with even more debt. Whatever deal they strike by the time they finish will leave some future Congress even less ideal choices.
Returning to the Constitution would not create some utopia or heaven on earth. But it would give us a country less tangled up in laws, regulations, taxes, burdensome government programs taxpayers cannot afford, and debts to unfriendly foreign regimes. We have merely replaced our written Constitution with an unwritten second constitution of Third Rail entitlement programs we can’t reform, Supreme Court precedents we cannot reverse, and an increasingly capricious and incompetent federal government we can barely question.
Like George Bailey in It’s A Wonderful Life, the absence of constitutional government is felt more deeply than its presence. But it’s not as if the Constitution was never born. It has simply been turned into a dead letter by people who pretend to venerate it as a living document.
Perhaps the debate surrounding the constitutionality of Obamacare can be the first step in the founding document’s revival.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/14/a-teachable-moment
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Boys and Girls
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pelligrino| 12.14.10 @ 6:40AM
Let us all hope that Judge Hudson remains unharmed due to this Monday decision. Even if not physically harmed, I imagine he will face a firestorm unlike what he has known in his life to date.
Let us pray for his well-being.
Isn't one of our biggest problems now -- of the last 60 years -- that the upper levels of legal and judicial positions throughout the land are occupied by those disdaining the U.S. Constitution?
Aren't our law schools bastions of what hath wrought our demise? (my lingo: idiotic, pompous, overbearing legalism and liberalism)
Aren’t our legal schools the ugly foundations where it is preached to be avant-garde (and it is permanent en vogue) creating law from the bench?
Thus, not only will Judge Hudson get pilloried from the legislators (and the armies of well-heeled lobbyists) but also his 'brethren' within the legal fields?
(Think about ALL those regulators and newly – not yet hired – IRS employees who may now be staring at long-term unemployment. No new leviathan bureacracies created....Yes, think about them, too.)
Isn't this what has really occurred in our land over the last half century: Upright judges bullied off the bench or out of the profession?
e.g. Uphold the 2d Amendment in a case and feel the ire of your judicial peers. Ditto if you rule in favor of marriage defined as that between a man and a woman. Expect your alma matter and your various legal assocations to dis you – forever. Right?
So….this could be real trouble for Judge Hudson. I mean, those other issues are big. But national Healthcare Reform is was the centerpiece of the Grand Scheme, yes?
I am asking in all these questions. I seek to learn through the discussions/comments that will follow today. Thank you.
Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 11:57PM
"How the Obamacare lawsuits can raise consciousness about the Constitution."
No, too many uneducateds in America, and more sneaking in from Mexico and points South of Mexico every day.
You lose.
Appleby| 12.14.10 @ 7:09AM
My late Daddy went to school in the Wisconsin Prairies in the 1930s, and he knew the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights word for word, down to the last punctuation mark. It was required in those days. Not only that, but he could point to those places where current law erred and why.
If they could teach that in a school without WiFi or iPhones, they can teach it to todays lumpen proletariat. Its way past time we began.
Bus| 12.17.10 @ 4:09PM
Good luck in getting such a mandate in the schools, the places where you have to fight to be able to post the national motto (so as not to offend anyone) Besides most of the teachers wouldn't understand what they were teaching either.
ElGordo| 12.14.10 @ 7:19AM
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.
In 1942 the Supreme Court expanded the Interstate Commerce Clause in a manner that the Founding Fathers never intended.
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.
A few months earlier, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and a strong central government was what the country felt was necessary at the time.
I was alive then and I remember the mood of the country then, a strong central government was needed to fight a war without the interference of states rights.
The nub of the holding was that the Federal Govt. could control commerce within a state if it affected IntERstate Commerce, even marginally.
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 tariffs imposed at the state lines
Further WICKARD v FILBURN severely weakens or gets 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.
The original intent was to prevent state interference of the free transport and trade of goods between states.
A few months before WICKARD v. FILBURN , we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and a strong central government was what the country wanted at the time.
We were at war and the mood of the country was for a unified central government not 48 states with different opinions.
So the 1942 Supreme Court expanded the Interstate Commerce Clause in a manner that the Founding Fathers never intended.
The INTENT of the Founding Father's may be discerned from Madison's writings. Madison wrote the following:
"A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.
Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.
We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility."
So, "Commerce" meant and applied to the transport of goods. It did not apply to production, farming, or anything else. It applied only to the transport of goods from place to another. And "Regulate" means, to be evenly treated.
It means to maintain even trade between parties.
I was law student when I first read the case and was shocked and sadly disappointed that such ill conceived logic was used and the original intent was perverted.
The reasoning used in that case is a sad joke
Almost all the succeeding cases expanding the Federal power is based on the ridiculous reasoning of WICKARD v FILBURN.
WICKARD v FILBURN is the main cornerstone of the expansion of Federal power.
Overturning or Severely Limiting 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.
When the Supreme Court finds ObamaCare unconstitutional, they will have an opportunity to also limit the holding in WICKARD v FILBURN.
I believe they, especially Justice Clarence Thomas, will try to limit the WICKARD v. FILBURN by stating "the action or conduct's effect on Interstate Commerce must be direct and substantial to fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause to be limited by it"
buckeyeman| 12.14.10 @ 10:15AM
Gordo,
You are completely correct about Wickard v. Filburn. The legal "reasoning" was preposterous. Such nonsensical thinking has been perpetuated and extended ever since, from the federal ban on marijuana (growing your own affects the ILLEGAL interstate commerce in this substance) to the ban on manufacturing your own fully automatic weapon for your own use (they reasoned that the manufacturing process would involve buying parts or supplies that could have been obtained through interstate commerce!).
I fear that you are completely wrong in believing that the Supreme Court will find Obamacare unconstitutional. BTW, the esteemed Judge Hudson could not find it within his legal intellect to determine that the individual mandate was inseparable from the bill at large (thus dooming the entire law), despite the absence of a separability clause in the law.
Leaving the bulk of Obamacare intact while eliminating the individual mandate will simply guarantee the collapse of the private health insurance industry (which is why some have argued that the omission of a "separability clause" in the bill was not an oversight).
MikeD| 12.14.10 @ 12:03PM
ELGORDO; this is a very well written piece. May I have permission to forward it to others so they may understand the expansion of the "COMMERCE CLAUSE"? If so, would you prefer that I attribute it to you or not? This was informative and clearly presented. Thank you.
bluecollarbytes| 12.14.10 @ 8:26AM
J Antle- 'The fact that there was no legal basis for central components of the legislation was almost an afterthought.'
This was one of the larger disturbing clues as to how lost Republicans have become.
David Kleindienst| 12.14.10 @ 8:58AM
There is no excuse for Hussein and Pelosi not knowing what is in the Constitution.
I personally sent them a copy of the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
In questioning several liberal college graduates, I find that the Constitution is no longer taught in public school nor in those institutes of higher educations,
The 535 office holders in Washington are seemingly oblivious to the restrictions the Constitution places upon them.
The only time the Constitution is referred to is when it can be used to further the leftist agenda.
The first Amendment has been so twisted that it is unrecognizable, and the second Amendment is about ready to fall.
Those members on the right side of the hall are obviously as ignorant of the Constitution, re GW's reference to the Constitution being only a "G.. D..... piece of paper.
For those who do not have a good grasp of the Constitution, I would recommend the National Center for Constitutional Studies, or nccs.org .
David Kleindienst| 12.14.10 @ 9:04AM
CORRECTION
nccs.net
Al Adab| 12.14.10 @ 10:36AM
David,
Al, Dick?
carnot| 12.14.10 @ 9:21AM
what a timely article! I recently have been prompted to reread the Federalist Papers precisely because of what is "at stake".
a core concern related to what is described above: if you read closely, for example letters 1-16, there are some very definite assumptions about human behavior ("the passions") and American cultural homogeneity in respect to certain core values. In particular, there are assumptions about the character and disposition of the federal magistry (judges) that...ultimately backed by the sanction of force......rule on laws directed at individuals. the key assumption is that this magistry is somehow detached from the parochial interests of the several States and dedicated to the overall purposes of government: the common weal and individual liberty. as we all know...a very deliberate and effective effort has been executed over the last 100 years to suborn the "magistry" with ideologues committed not to the Constitution and what it is purposed to achieve, but rather a set of moral values held by a select group of individuals. Recent Supreme Court nominations are but one more common example.
no one is talking about it...but the conservative "revolution" underway is gonna take more than just changing budget priorities. it's gonna require...errrrrr.....cleaning up the court system.
bus| 12.17.10 @ 4:06PM
Re-read the anti-federalist papers as well, its amazing how on point they were particularly their fear of the power of the federal judiciary. they could see the future pretty well.
1FreeMan| 12.14.10 @ 9:48AM
It seems as if the Constitution is just an inconvenient hassle to these progressives. Being above the law, immune from prosecution and free the break any law and only get "censured" the members of the house and senate simply don't care what "we the people" want, don't care about the law and ignore the constitution. This is going to get ugly when the liberal Supremes overturn this ruling and we are forced into servitude to the insurance companies and the federal govt. Don't get sick... you could die from it... and save the rest of us from paying your social security. It's for the children, ya know. Progressives indeed! Blah!
scythe| 12.14.10 @ 10:00AM
Hey the right to an abortion was ratified by old white guys too. Heard anyone screaming about that being a reason to push it aside? Didn't think so. How about the Civil Rights Laws? Desegregating the schools? Why don't we on the right try using that reason to destroy all the leftie's little pet laws and see what happens. Good for the gander, good for the goose.
Al Adab| 12.14.10 @ 10:17AM
This is the moment, this is the hill on which to fight. If we are to remain a nation of laws and not of men then this issue and the other over-reach issues must take our attention.
By what logic do we treat different "classes" differently? That implies that some (the rich?) need to be penalized. Should not government policies be such as to encourage rather than penalize wealth? Why estate taxes in the form of confiscation? What claim has government to our personal property including our incomes?
Mandated purchases are bad enough. Will they next require us to buy the Chevy Volt? Perhaps every second car should by law be electric. That would "save" GM. Central planning of the economy never works. Markets not planners and bureaucrats best provide our needs.
The twenty states suing over health care and the others that have opted out by vote of their citizens show us they way. The stakes are too great to ignore this fight.
Frank Natoli| 12.14.10 @ 10:20AM
Antle cogently argues the importance of the Constitution in this matter. And he is right as a matter of law, though not a law that many if not most judges choose to obey, their oaths notwithstanding.
But beyond the law I suggest that the single most important question facing the country today is: what is the proper role of government? The Constitution certainly places legal limits on the role of the federal government, which should be final, but manifestly is not.
It is because the vast majority of the country no longer argues the role of government, but rather argues precisely how big government should be wielded, that we have arrived in our present precarious predicament.
Yes, it is true, fatty foods are "bad" for you. But it is not the role of government, or Michael Bloomberg, to legally impede you from enjoying such foods.
Yes, it is true, there are risks in drilling for oil in Alaska, coastal waters and the Bakken Basin. But it is not the role of government to first declare all such lands "public" and then become the only country on earth which by government fiat strangles its own petroleum production. Anybody get a heating oil delivery lately?
Etc. Ad Nauseum.
We'll win the Constitutional argument after we win the philosophical role of government argument with the majority of the electorate.
NeilBJ| 12.14.10 @ 11:21AM
The only reason to have a constitution is to place a limit on the powers that can be exercised by a government. If a government can do anything it pleases, it becomes a tyranny, and the freedom of the people is greatly diminished or otherwise lost.
This basic reason for the existence of a constitution has been ignored in ruling after ruling. It is self evident that over the years, the constitution has been interpreted in favor of increased power for the federal government.
All other philosophies of constitutional interpretation are secondary or even contradictory. A judge ought to approach each case with this simple rule. If his interpretation increases the power of the federal government, it should not even be considered.
We are so far beyond what the Founding Fathers intended that I don't know if we will ever get back to the Constitutional Republic that they intended.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Perusha| 12.14.10 @ 1:31PM
We would be wise to thank our lucky stars that the dumbed-down American voters finally passed their final exam, by electing Obama.
Thomas Sowell, bless his truth-telling heart, nailed our future, when he predicted putting the One in the White House would be a catastrophe---as it is written, so it will be.
A basic rule of life, indeed, probably THE key one, is that in order to get real change, whether as an individual or a society, you NEED a crisis. We American “lobsters” have long been getting slowly cooked, but with BHO the chef with a degree in socialistic cooking, the temperature on the burner just went too high too fast, and we finally NOTICE the killing heat.
By trying to foist on every American the requirement to buy ANYTHING, even the dimmest citizens have been shaken at their core self defining nature---I am ME, and I am in charge of ME!
Even if the SCOTUS says Obamacare is “legal”, does anyone really believe that would be the end of it? There are MANY forks in the decision tree “road”, in the future!
Consider the past, and learn from it.
I had a relation who NEVER got a driver’s license or auto insurance! Of course, in the old days, with fewer cars on the roads, and no freeways, he was able to safely and consciously drive by FOLLOWING THE LAW, and never even encountered a cop.
I, myself, was too “smart”, too soon, about the game of insurance.
It is the ultimate “let Joe do it” form of socialism.
In Vietnam, I read “Pay Now, Die Later”, by an ex-insurance salesman, that proved to me that term life insurance was a rip off, especially for younger people. I’ve never had any form of life insurance.
Until state governments got up to speed, I rarely even had car insurance (I finally joined the “legal” society in 1997). Now, thus self-insured, I ALWAYS was totally careful to drive as safely and legally as I could, being super sensitive about keeping watch for any cars that got anywhere close to me.
I always drove a safe distance behind the car in front of me, AND constantly checked both the rear and side mirrors to be aware of any drivers too dangerously close to me. Actually, even when NOT driving a motorized vehicle or pumping a bicycle, or walking, or sitting, using the eyes and other senses to be aware of the bubble of one’s Being is a simple part of being responsible, anyway.
Of course, thus “self-insured”, I never caused an accident. One guy rear-ended my VW, years ago, and I had to take him to small claims court because he refused to pay. I actually used the money “won” to rebuild the engine, so it turned out to be my gain!
As an American overview, perhaps we could even see that this Obamacare imbroglio is simply the salient thrust of the growing sickness of American society---to wit: moral hazard.
Need I say I’ve never had health insurance, either? Imagine all the money I SAVED, that would have gone to pay for OTHER people’s bad luck or judgment, not to mention the cost of the insurance companies “paperwork” and profit!
Only twice have I needed medical services, and both times it was my fault, and I paid for it myself---then, and there. Oh, yeah---in 1986 or so, many years as a sitting worker, pounding away at a calculator as a controller, had resulted in a bad back.
So, I did spend around $2,000 to an excellent chiropractor who manipulated the spine with many moves that straightened it out.
Yes, moral hazard---let Joe do it---is THE prevailing conventional “wisdom” for the vast majority of “fat” Americans, these dark days---what a crisis!
An aside---this rant down memory lane just plucked what I consider THE key theme from that classic movie, “Catch 22”.
Remember when Yossarian is being grilled about not wanting to fly any more dangerous missions?
”What if everybody had the same attitude?” And, his answer---“I’d be a damn fool to think otherwise!”
Follow your Heart.
Red Phillips | 12.14.10 @ 1:48PM
Excellent article!
Cris Worth| 12.14.10 @ 2:03PM
One would think the biggest non-constitutional entity to come about in Congress...the establishment of a central bank would now after 97 years come under challenge in federal courts. Congress is authorized to coin money, no mention of a central bank to print money. Also other court decisions need scrutiny and challenge like the removal of religion from public schools be it voluntary prayer, bible reading, ten commandments, etc. And last but not least Roe v. Wade return abortion to the states and the people (10th amendment). Strike while the iron is hot!
Al Adab| 12.14.10 @ 3:02PM
Cris,
Central bank issue was fought out in the 1820's. That doesn't mean it was deemed Constitutional just that everyone got tired of the fight. Same with "internal improvement" which was another where everyone got tired of fighting and just went along possibly because of electoral advantage in doing so. The Whig party formented a policy about tarriffs and internal improvements and the bank called "The American System". Madison thought internal improvements a good idea but said the Constitution would have to be amended to allow it. They went ahead anyway. All of which, in re Roe, just means that if one side keeps pushing the agenda long enough other issues take over and no decision is ever reached. Things continue by default. They hope for the same with Health Care.
The progressive era then gave us income taxes, direct election of Senators, Trust busting and regulatory agencies along with national parks. The history of Federal Government is a history of expansion and growth. How and where we start the rollback is less important than the fact that we start somewhere. Now is indeed the time.
Oldefarte| 12.14.10 @ 2:41PM
Beyond the issue of the constitionality of this health insurance/commerce clause, etc is the general liberalDemocrat definition of government being a RELIGION [which is why liberals attack all religious activity, since same competes with government]. If government is supreme and limitless, then its power to control people, places and things has no boundaries. It's administrators are therefore rulers/dictators that have the power to establish who, what, when, where, how,etc. Are we a free people, or do we owe our existence to government? Is ours a government of the people, by the people,etc or not? Are we required to worship the religion of government???????????
jstwndring| 12.14.10 @ 3:55PM
All we as U.S. citizens need to know is that there is no such thing as good govenrment. Our Constitution, if you read it, makes it obvious by who it seeks to constrain: the government. There is no way, in my mind, that the expansion of government power should ever be trusted.
jstwndring| 12.14.10 @ 3:58PM
I should also add, that, this is especially true when your man or woman gets elected. Watch them like a hawk. Never trust anyone that's wants to be a professional politician.
Dixie Pixie| 12.14.10 @ 4:13PM
Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Section 1. Nether slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
ObamaCare is demanding everyone involuntary work for the insurgence companies.
That is the definition of involuntary servitude.
So why is the ObamaCare mandate not unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment????
Al Adab| 12.14.10 @ 5:22PM
Hi Dixie,
It is punishment for a crime, the crime of electing him.
Dixie Pixie| 12.14.10 @ 6:50PM
Greetings Al
The crime is being a member of the private sector and the punishment is to be a governmental serf.
mames| 12.14.10 @ 4:39PM
at the root of this ignorance and willful stupidity is our government school system. Garbage in..... "We must dismantle these mandated education grind houses, which by the way are themselves unconstitutional! Your are forced to pay for them whether you use them or not and whether you have children in them or not. A life sentence of mandated servitude to purchase a product you do not want. There in these socialist hotbeds our children are taught nothing about our system of government and little else.
Yosemeti Sam| 12.14.10 @ 4:52PM
http://www.askheritage.org
Free Constitution booklet.
Stormzeye| 12.14.10 @ 4:56PM
To understand the liberal/progressive mind one had only to watch last Sunday's interview of Justice Stephen Bryer by Chris Wallace. He actually said that one should take the moral and ethical teachings of the Constitution to heart but that the words themselves were subject to interpretation (i.e. had little meaning) because the Framers didn't know about the telephone, the internet, global commerce, etc. or, in general, understand the complexities of modern life. It was, to me, frightening!
John Carne| 12.14.10 @ 4:58PM
After fixing the commerce clause, the next item is to repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators). Re-institute state checks on the federal government
jrjr| 12.14.10 @ 5:34PM
As jstwndring posted "All we as U.S. citizens need to know is that there is no such thing as good govenrment." the poster was excellently and obviously discussing the article. But how many of you have had another increase to your state, local, school, etc., this year? Even though our population may not change, the politicians must increase taxes --- and we have been in a recession or depression. Lop off their heads! Toss the tea into the bay! Just say no! We do not want anymore hopey and changey!
Maire| 12.15.10 @ 8:52PM
Fantastic article and great follow-up comment by Appleby.
Both much appreciated.
Thank you.
yalam| 12.16.10 @ 12:58AM
Thank you, Judge Henry Hudson. You are a true patriot and savior of the US Constitution, who defended our liberty and rights despite of Obama and his cronies threats and failed efforts to block the legal procedure. But Judge Hudson stood up against Obama regime and ruled to uphold the constitution. Good job, Judge Hudson. God bless, Judge Hudson. We salute Judge Hudson.
Carolyn Flynn| 12.16.10 @ 12:45PM
I'm encouraged as much by the educated comments posted here as I am by the article itself. Remember Rahm Emmanuel saying that you must never let a crisis go to waste? Comments here lead me to believe that the left is not the only one allowed to take advantage of a crisis. The tea parties and other concerned citizens need to use this economic crisis to pressure a return to the Constitutional limits on the federal government, ending the Federal Reserve, and returning issues such as abortion and gay marriage to the States. If the "general welfare" clause meant that the federal government was unlimited in providing any and everything the public needed for its "general welfare" then what is the purpose of any of the rest of the Constitution? Why enumerate anything else? Why delineate duties and restrictions? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the founders had no intent for that clause to be so far-reaching and intrusive.
Keep the conversation going, friends. We have so much to do ...let's take advantage of the crisis of the times to get it done!