3/18/10, 2:42 PM Update: Here it is, folks.
-----
This is what Congress plans to ram down your throat before you have a chance to stop them.
More information:
Doctors For Patient Care
Fix Health Care Policy
Horror Stories
Patients First
Patients United Now
GOP Health Care Solutions
I say the following as a retired U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer who swore and upheld a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
Newsmax's John L. Perry is either nuts, a naïve fool, or a childish attention-seeker. His latest column speculating on the possibility of a U.S. military coup to unseat President Obama fails the most basic B.S. test. Perry hasn't the first clue about how our military's leadership understands its oath of office, nor does he demonstrate even the most rudimentary comprehension of our Constitution.
By publishing this bilge the editors at Newsmax have forever beclowned themselves.
More commentary:
Cassandra cracks open a can o' whupass
Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis doesn't like the power wielded by U.S. Senators from states with small populations. He writes:
The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.
Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York's 29 and California's 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).
Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate's purpose is. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked in return. "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, "Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it." A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?
Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota (pop. 641,481, third smallest), chairman of the Budget Committee and one of the Gang of Six, does not see any problem. Asked whether it is appropriate that his vote counts as much as those of senators from states 20 times as large, he was flummoxed. "One would hope that people would support the Constitution of the United States," said Conrad, who was reelected with 150,000 votes in 2006, when Virginia's Jim Webb needed 1.2 million votes to win. "This was the grand bargain that was struck when the Founding Fathers determined the structure and form of the United States Congress." He added: "Are you proposing changing the Constitution?"
Well, maybe. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at how things came to be the way they are. The fact remains that, hallowed as it is, the Senate is as much a product of bare-knuckled, self-interested politics as last week's fight over military earmarks.
This is so damn simple to refute that my head hurts (probably due to banging it on my keyboard after reading this garbage). Apparently, neither MacGillis nor his trusty fact-checking editors bothered to read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the rules for changing that Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Mr. MacGillis, your entire essay was an exercise in futility. To answer your question, yes, the Founding Fathers did actually construct the Constitution with ironclad protection for each State's equal representation in the Senate, even if every other State wants to strip it away through the amendment process.
This ain't rocket science.
Hat tip: This Ain't Hell
3/18/10 Update: Supposedly, the text of the proposed bill will be published online around noon today.
Check back here this afternoon.
2:42 PM Update: Here it is, folks.
3/15/10 Update: The latest published text of the bill is a shell. In other words, it's a placeholder that uses the text from the House's Obamacare bill of last autumn.
That text will be changed this week:
Minutes before midnight on Sunday, House Democrats released a 2,309 [page] "reconciliation" bill that the Budget Committee will pass early this week. The bill is a replica of the bill reported to Ways and Means last year, except with a government takeover of the student lending industry tacked on. This entire shell of a bill will be scrapped and replaced with the real reconciliation bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is writing behind closed doors.
Keep checking back here and I'll post the real text when it's available.
10/31 Update: They changed it, and it grew by 972 pages. Here it is, in all its grotesque "glory."
8/14 Update: Before you do anything else, click the graphic below.
--
Here's the text of the legislation. It's 1,018 pages long ... so far.
"America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"Start digging! Barring our diligence (or something more blunt), these jackasses will never learn.
3:25 PM Update: Heads up, Michelle.
4:05 Update: Much easier than downloading the PDF above ...
Since we presumably still live in a nation of laws and not of men, and since the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, I ask you to first read these small portions of that document, after which I'll pose my question.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Given the above supreme law of the land that sets out the enumerated powers of Congress, on what basis does Congress have the authority to enact Obamacare?
Don't tell me it's justified because it's a good idea, because it's fair, because it's in my interest to want it, because Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP already exist ... just tell me how Congress can possibly have the constitutional authority to enact Obamacare.
From the blog of the lefty group Upper Arlington Progressive Action:
We know how important the Supreme Court is to the success of progressive initiatives. We need to keep our eye on where the top nine are moving.
Of course it's important to you nutballs. It's the only way to advance your most cherished agenda items, since they'd never pass muster in Congress (much less any public initiative or referendum).
It might read something like this:
No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.
Certainly worth discussing, no?
I just caught the lawn care company applying Round-Up to every plant under 2' tall in my beds. Just lost $400+ of wildflowers, perennials, baby shrubs, and any large plants hit by the windblown spray. No wonder last year's starts (also $400+) all died too.
I'm drafting an itemized bill now. If they refuse to reimburse me, they'll learn how foolish it is to pick a fight with someone who buys bandwidth by the megabit.
You lose. Now take your frivolous lawsuit and your lying husband and go crawl under a rock somewhere.
It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Unfortunately, President Obama's loosey-goosey "living Constitution" apparently has a brand new iron-clad principle: Miranda rights for terrorists.
This isn't just Obama's fault, either. Thank you, John McCain.
Since when does this ...
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
... mean "rubber stamp approval"?
Here's another disturbing quote from Sonia Sotomayor's infamous speech in 2001:
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
The emphasis is mine. What in the world does she mean by "relative morality" here? Moral relativism? If so, how can she be trusted to impartially uphold the law?
How would Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor react to this dispute?
Update: Brilliant!
Update 2: Also brilliant!
Update 3: More from Power Line
How can the following quote from Sonia Sotomayor not be a racist statement?
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
The emphasis is mine. So, how about it, lefties?
Update: Consider this, too.
Update 2: Could Judge Sotomayor even serve on a jury?
In a post on RNC Chairman Michael Steele's mealy-mouthed answers about abortion, Allahpundit restates his own reservations about a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution ... based on his understanding of federalism. Here's the money quote (emphasis mine):
In fairness, if you look at the full quote, you'll see Steele recovered quickly from the "individual choice" gaffe to emphasize that he meant the individual choice of each state to regulate abortion as it sees fit -- i.e. the federalist position. That's an evolution in thinking from what he told "Meet the Press" three years ago, when he said that the states should have been allowed all along to handle the matter but now that we've got Roe on the books, we'd best abide by it. What I don't get, though, is how he squares what he told GQ with his statement this morning about supporting the GOP's call for a Human Life Amendment. If he believes in federalism, why's he trying to impose a constitutional solution that would prohibit states from authorizing abortion?
Back in October, I first noticed that Allah misunderstood the concept ... and he still doesn't get it. Once again, I must emphasize that amending the Constitution is an inherently federalist process.
If he'd study the Constitution he'd understand why (emphasis mine):
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.U.S. Constitution, Article V
Through their legislatures, the states get the last word on any proposed amendment, and the citizens of the states have a helluva lot of influence over state legislators. If a federally-introduced amendment does not have the support of the vast majority of the citizenry, it will not be ratified.
That's called federalism.
The U.S. Naval Institute's new blog features some heavy hitters posting on America's response to modern day pirates in the Gulf of Aden. How come? Well, those pesky Somali pirates have kept themselves in the headlines long enough to draw the attention of the UN Security Council (I'll bet the pirates are terrified). After a recent close call, cruise ship passengers have now begun debarking before their ships reach the danger area, then flying to the next port of call to rejoin the cruise in safer waters.
At the USNI blog, the Navy's current tactics catch flak from Chuck Spinney, while Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen asks about the counter-piracy endgame. The latest missive from the Department of Crazy Ideas (courtesy of lawyer and retired Navy Captain "Eagle1") suggests a cheap inshore fleet. All well and good, but something's missing.
Let's convince Congress to issue Letters of Marque & Reprisal. This isn't as quaint or old-fashioned as you might think, and I'm not in the middle of a Walter Mitty daydream about Sir Francis Drake. The most recently-issued letter of marque allowed the civilian blimp Resolute to operate as an Anti-Submarine Warfare privateer, patrolling out of Los Angeles in 1941-42.
To curb the Somali pirates, our Congress could simply turn loose civilian contractors like Blackwater, Paratus World Wide Protection, or Triple Canopy. Quick, easy, no muss, no fuss. The Democrats in DC would only need to handle the paperwork and make belligerent speeches, leaving the private military companies to figure out the messy details. There would be minimal risk to our military personnel, who would only have to assist the contractors with surveillance and intelligence gathering.
If the sea services insist on taking part, or if the DC crowd pushes them into the fray, they should resist the urge to charge right up the middle with conventional forces. They should first look carefully at the capabilities of the Coast Guard's MSSTs (and the MSRT), as well as the Navy's SEALs, SWCC Teams, and Maritime Expeditionary Security Force. There's not much sense in trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer.
Sarah Palin's comments opposing gay "marriage" in a recent interview:
Allah over at Hot Air worries about the federalism implications of a federal marriage amendment:
Normally I'd call this another reason for the base to love her, but the implications for federalism make me wonder how reaction will shake out. Althouse, who's been pretty high on her (but isn't a member of the base, needless to say), finds it "genuinely dismaying." I find it more perplexing than anything else given that she's on record recently as supporting a federalist approach to abortion. I can understand the opposite position, of banning abortion at the federal level via amendment (as Huckabee wants to do) but letting the states handle marriage on grounds that the dire moral imperative in protecting innocent life should trump normal conservative inclinations towards state rights, but what's the argument for Palin's vice versa? Is it simply a question of identifying which issue federal judges are more likely to tinker with at this point and taking that issue out of their hands before they can act? McCain shares that concern -- but thinks that any amendment can and should come after a problematic ruling, not before.
Allah needn't worry. Amending the Constitution is an inherently federalist process (emphasis mine):
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.U.S. Constitution, Article V
Through their legislatures, the states get the last word on any proposed amendment, and the citizens of the states have a helluva lot of influence over state legislators. If a federally-introduced amendment does not have the support of the vast majority of the citizenry, it will not be ratified.
A registered independent voter and professional filmmaker by the name of Molotov Mitchell has put together an 11-minute video that summarizes a brewing controversy about Barack Obama's eligibility to be President. A lifelong Democrat named Philip Berg is suing Obama to force him to prove that he satisfies the Constitution's minimum eligibility requirements for the highest office in the land.
Here's the relevant citation from Article II:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Mitchell's video frames the dispute and asks Berg to explain the situation. As you watch it, focus on one key question: if Barack Obama can instantly defeat Berg's lawsuit by handing the judge his original Hawaiian birth certificate, why doesn't he do so?
If Barack Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, why is he acting like he can't prove it? What is he hiding?
--
Update: A rebuttal
A couple of years ago I wrote a detailed research piece for a law school class on firearms law. I went way back and looked at sources like the transcripts of the debates during the Constitutional Convention, the constitutions of various states, letters and speeches by the Founding Fathers, and I discovered what they thought about keeping and bearing arms. They understood the 2nd Amendment to allow the private ownership of military weapons. All military weapons. Period.
Here's a summary of my research:
Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are "arms," but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? Although this question sounds silly at first, Larry Arnn of the Claremont Institute once remarked that if the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons. Some scholars think this kind of reading of the Second Amendment means that "individuals may keep and bear . . . whatever 'arms' they desire."
So does our Constitution recognize your neighbor's right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a "suitcase nuke" to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block?Part I of this article summarizes the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that acts as the point of departure for this journey into the "what-ifs" of the right to keep and bear arms.
Part II looks at the decision's inconclusive treatment of what "arms" means, and explains why the "textualism" school of constitutional interpretation should control the search for the meaning of "arms," instead of the "living document" or "framer's intent" schools.
Part III explains what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood "arms" to mean in their day: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.
Part IV brings that definition forward to modern times and identifies the unacceptable social risks posed by private citizens' possession and use of today's most powerful weapons.
Part V makes some tentative and preliminary suggestions for a Twenty-Eigth Amendment limiting individual access to excessively destructive weapons that threaten society, while preserving the common-sense meaning of the individual right protected by the text of the Second Amendment.
Read the whole thing and then tell me that "arms" doesn't include a .50 caliber machine gun or an M-1 tank. You probably won't like it (I don't completely like it myself), but unless you're willing to let the courts twist the meaning of the Constitution in whatever way they want, you'll have to agree with my conclusion.
It's about time. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller.
