Showing posts with label john roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john roberts. Show all posts

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Political Quote of the Day


From the pen of Paul Jacobson at American Thinker:

Yes, we have been deceived with regard to ObamaCare, but the Great Deceit happened in 2008, when many Americans let themselves be duped by the "hope and change" lies and propaganda shoveled out by Obama and his Democrat henchmen.  We the people have only ourselves to blame.  There has been no deception by Roberts or anyone else on the Supreme Court.
Justices like John Roberts epitomize the vast difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy/tyranny.  In the ObamaCare ruling, he has dumped the health care issue right back into the laps of the American people and their elected representatives.  That is exactly where it belongs.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/john_roberts_v_obamacare_an_apologia.html#ixzz1zlAXnzVq

Saturday, June 30, 2012

And the SCOTUS Upholds. . . WE THE PEOPLE!

No one in their right mind would say they didn't get their money's worth in drama last week. The SCOTUS handed down a ruling that was universally loathed on both sides of the aisle, but under the hood this was a finely-tuned engine poised for full power to be unleashed. The people of the United States of America have had the power returned to them if they can seize it.

Benjamin Franklin
It calls to mind the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, a representative to the original Constitutional Convention. Their deliberations gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism, a system that every dictator has employed and must employ. May we never unravel those underpinnings.

And when it was done, a questioner asked Benjamin Franklin, the first American, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” In the sweltering record-setting heat (an apt metaphor) of the SCOTUS ruling handed down last week in Washington D.C., Franklin's response still resonates. We know we can keep our Republic, the question looms. . . Will we?

I wrote about us having to take a stand and stop having it both ways some months ago. We are at the inflection point now as never before, thanks to the SCOTUS ruling this week. The hint it was a historic court decision was all the histrionics that followed from both sides. Clearly, the legal victory belonged to the Obama administration. On a 5-4 decision the Affordable Healthcare Act was upheld by the finding that the individual mandate was indeed a tax, it was constitutional and Congress had the full authority to do that. Predictably both sides claimed victory.

The Republicans were delighted on three counts - the Commerce Clause, long abused with its meanings expanded beyond belief for decades was finally curtailed. You cannot mandate activities of the American people for something no one has done yet, the Roberts opinion stated. Medicaid expansion being forced upon the states was also slapped down. And they even found something to like in the Court's definition of the mandate as a tax, not a penalty. They will be able to remind everyone that Obama lied about there being no new taxes here, when in fact (as I stated repeatedly) this represents the largest tax increase to pay for the largest entitlement program in the history of the world.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
The Obama administration, of course, loved the legal victory of the Obamacare law being declared constitutional after all. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), however, argued it will be a short-lived and hollow victory in the end. Why? Because he believes the American people will rise up in revolt and revulsion over this decision and slap down the legislators who gave us this monstrosity of a law in the middle of the night without one single opposition vote to sustain it. Love the optimism there.

Here's what Chief Justice Roberts did for the nation last week. He actually said something no one had predicted he would say. Everyone in the nation was poised for the ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court, to finally settle the argument once and for all, and to tell all the children that "father knew best." Instead, here's what John Roberts said that will enshrine him in the pantheon of American jurisprudence forevermore: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” 


Wow! How refreshing is that? This is a restatement of the plan of salvation: Men are free to choose. Free agency, the power to choose, is a gift of God. We are endowed with it by our Creator. In 2 Nephi we read: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself" (2:16). Further, "Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves — to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life" (10:23). And in modern revelation the Lord said, "Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself" (D&C 29:35).

Joseph Smith
The Prophet Joseph Smith described agency as "that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts"(TPJS, 49). The word "free" is also used to describe free agency in this hymn Latter-day Saints have been singing since our first hymn book in 1835:

Know this, that ev'ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is giv'n
That God will force no man to heav'n.
He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
— Hymns #240

We made a political judgment with our freedom of choice in 2008. The pendulum swung in favor of the Democrats. Both houses of Congress and the White House were swept. No one, even the Supreme Court, was available in the end to change those consequences. John Roberts reminded Americans last week it was time to grow up, take off the training wheels from our wobbly attempts to ride the bicycle of freedom of choice and to stop looking for a savior to fix things. The savior did not emerge in Barack Obama, and Roberts wasn't about to insert himself or his court into that role either. Ultimately, Roberts declared, the power for good or evil is in your hands America. Choose well.

Mitt Romney
Conservatives should be dancing in the streets. Roberts gave us exactly what we believe in - a battle cry for freedom, less top-down, government-and-courts-driven dictum, and actual liberty for the people who can decide (if we will) to elect people to Congress who won't tax us and obligate us to unsustainable spending with debts we cannot pay. The choice, said Roberts, is all yours. And the big winner here, I have to believe, is Mitt Romney. Perhaps never since George Washington has a presidential candidate represented that political philosophy more eloquently and completely.

President Barack Obama
Liberals who believe in a cradle-to-grave entitlement existence under the "parental" control of an empowered tyrannical executive run rampant on individual freedom got exactly what THEY wanted - additional control of another 18% of the GDP - the healthcare industry. They now have the funding mechanism under the taxing authority of the United States government to make their progressive agenda a reality after 100 years of trying. Victory at last! Power to the oppressed! And it's all constitutional. The Constitution was crafted by the people, for the people and of the people. It granted enumerated and limited powers to the government and virtually everything else to the people. When government asserts powers it does not possess and encroaches into our individual freedoms, the only way tyranny can be curtailed is by the people. It may yet be the case that no one in the history of this Republic may be judged in the final analysis to represent tyranny more completely than Barack Obama.

Only the people are empowered to adjudicate the winner of this debate on November 6th.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts just did exactly what the nation could not have foreseen. He has literally handed back to the free people of America a very unpopular piece of legislation (I'm intentionally using restraint here) that was crammed down our throats against the wishes of the majority by a minority suddenly emboldened with the votes to do it. Now, if we really mean it and we are truly unhappy with the results of the election of 2008, we can either fix this aberration (if I'm right and that's all it is) at the polls on November 6th, or if I'm wrong we can live forever with the consequences. It seemed the electorate rose up in the 2010 mid-terms and put a stop to the runaway train by returning control of the House to the Republicans. Will the trend continue in 2012? Victory in the Senate races is paramount.

I am setting aside all the punditry and the loud protestations I've heard from both sides in the aftermath, and I will make this bold declaration: I liked what happened and what I've read in the actual opinions of the justices since the ruling was handed down. I like it because it retrieves accountability for our actions as a free people from the Executive Branch and the Courts. Our elected representatives in the Congress should now be right where they belong, in the cross hairs of every freedom-loving person in America with a ballot in their hands.

I like the idea of having a Mulligan, a chance to re-educate Americans with the reality our policy and process should begin and end with us. It starts with an informed vote, and electing representatives more carefully than ever before, people who will actually represent our collective will in Washington D.C., and will resist the few who represent the minority who would destroy us from within.

So now it's "game on" time. I hope we can throw off the idea that government is somehow the benevolent dictator of our future and the dispenser of our freedoms. The people in Washington are there only because we put them there.

Forget that routinely a minority of the electorate show up to vote. That should and must change if we are to preserve the Republic Benjamin Franklin and the others gave us. They must become our willing minions, not the other way around.

I suspect Roberts knew full well what the risks would be in handing down the majority opinion that the Obamacare law was found constitutional. Too many people will see that headline and continue to quietly go about their lives without further adieu. Factor in the complacency of many who have grown to love the idea of government checks flowing into their mailboxes on a regular basis. That is precisely what Obama and the left will bank on.

The spin has already begun. Astoundingly, what do we hear from the White House after the definition of the word "tax" has been rendered? "It's not a tax." Really? No one has done more damage to their loose familiarity with truth, justice and the American way than this administration. Well, they are transparent to anyone with eyes to see.

Between now and November little will change to measurably improve the anemic economic recovery with which we are saddled because of the policies of this White House. The MSM will continue to remind us of the "victory" in this bill being upheld constitutionally, but in the end the court of pubic opinion will prevail.

In their heart of hearts, surely Americans realize there is no free lunch, no "something for nothing" reality. . . don't they?

I'm not one who is going to bash John Roberts into oblivion. I prefer instead to think he just punted the ball deep in his own territory on fourth down with the game clock expiring and said to the American people, "If you want a touchdown, you now have the final possession and go make it happen."

We may be confused as a people with the cacophony of political rhetoric, but in his case Chief Justice Roberts was clear-eyed and deliberate. We, the people, brought the ball to the game and after the final buzzer sounds we still own the ball regardless of how battered and bloodied it may be.

I'm often wrong on political predictions. I certainly could not have envisioned what Justice Roberts just did. But I do know God is still invested in America, and her destiny will not be denied if the people who sustain her and all her ideals are still alert. Who knows, this loathsome burden on the American taxpayer may not even be the law of the land come January. Already governors are rising up in opposition and refusing to implement its provisions in their states.

If you're still reading, I advise taking the long view here. Resist the desperate voices, tune out the pundits, turn off the TV, instead listen to the quiet whisperings of your soul. John Roberts may have just saved the Republic. . .if you can keep it.

I think we can.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Open Letter on the Debt Crisis

Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader, and Mr. Speaker (and Mr. Chief Justice if it helps):

The noise in Washington this week has been deafening, the heat has been off the charts, the accusations and threats unrestrained, and the rhetoric explosive. And what have we gleaned from it all? So far, nothing. You all saw this coming when the new House was sworn in last January, and what have you done since then? You waited until the self-imposed deadline, and very little leadership among you has been in evidence. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) explains just how simple these issues really are:



There are those who claim the freshmen Republicans in the House are irresponsible with their staunch position on "Cut, Cap and Balance," but to date it is the only piece of pending legislation that has passed, until a second attempt passed narrowly late today. Since then a flurry of proposals (and that's all they are -- proposals) have not been put into actionable legislation. Moody's remains unimpressed, saying nothing they've seen so far will work to appease their pending downgrade of the U.S. Treasury's AAA bond rating. What is pathetic in a crisis of leadership that seems to characterize Democrat control of the Senate and the White House is that we haven't yet seen a plan in writing. The budget submitted by this White House earlier this year was so deficient in specifics it was voted down 97-0, and nothing has come out of the Senate since.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
I am grateful for the efforts of Utah's congressional delegation who are leading the way in this fight -- specifically Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (D-UT) and senior Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Lee is responsible for the content of the House legislation and it was sponsored courageously by Chaffetz where it passed. Cut, Cap and Balance is the responsible approach, the "balanced approach," if you prefer. Unfortunately, when it was sent to the Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader, decided to kill it on a procedural vote without giving anyone in the "deliberative body" a chance to debate or amend its merits or deficiencies.

Then the House Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), went to work with Reid, feeling betrayed by a "wiggly" Jell-o-like occupant of the White House, to craft yet another Washington COMPROMISE solution. So far, no success on that path has been reached either. We'll now watch the Senate shred this latest attempt and see if they can come up with anything over the weekend that might have a chance for passage in the House.

In the meantime President Obama remains on the sidelines where he deserves to be as a lame duck and out of the discussions because he was summarily excluded (correctly) by Boehner as an impediment.

Since January, the threat of a downgrade in the U.S. Treasury credit rating for its bonds has been on the table. The rating agencies are looking for a commitment for real cuts in spending amounting to $4 Trillion, not ironically the same amount that has been amassed under the Obama administration in a short two and one-half years. I continue to be baffled why anyone would think borrowing $4 Trillion from principally the Chinese government then blaming George W. Bush for everything, as President Obama did last week without even acknowledging his own complicity might be a factor, is a viable campaign strategy by Obama's advisers. The thought makes reason stare. Then after that he demands that wealthy Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes.



It is my considered belief that Mike Lee is the statesman in all this. I define "statesman" as one who takes a principled stand in the face of popular opinion. However, the American people are lined up behind Lee on this one. A recent CNN poll indicates as many as 74 percent favor the general idea of a BBA without even knowing the specifics. You may disagree, but his influence is having a profound impact for a junior senator from a small state like Utah. Those who doubted his effectiveness as a freshman replacing a seasoned Bob Bennett can rest assured there would have been nothing coming from Bennett by comparison. So, kudos to Mike.

I do not speak for Lee (he is fully capable), but it's important to underscore what he is attempting to accomplish without impugning his motives as some have done. He is not in favor of raising the debt limit if he were making an isolated choice. In this climate currently, however, he is willing to make the necessary compromise now if he can get the Balanced Budget Amendment to change the structure of the government's spending habit to finally come under Constitutional control. Click the link (it's not a new idea). Anything short of a Constitutional amendment allows future Congresses to adjust whatever assumptions are put in place today and to change the law at will. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. I think that position is reasoned and worthy of consideration, especially when it authorizes a mechanism to deal with "emergencies" like wars. There are twenty Democratic Senators who are on the record as favoring the BBA idea.



When 49 states require their legislatures to balance their budgets, can anyone explain to me why expecting the same thing from the federal government is such a bad idea? When did it become "reckless" for government to commit to the taxpayers they would not spend more than they take in? Will those same people explain why deficit spending and unsustainable debt and borrowing is NOT reckless? I await your response. We're at a tipping point in America. The word of the year in politics is "UNSUSTAINABLE." Everybody uses that word. So let's bind Congress in the future to a sustainable and sensible process when it comes to spending priorities. Is that reckless?

I have always maintained since first being introduced to Mike's senate candidacy early in 2010, that he would make an impact on Washington if he could remain true to his beliefs. However, I acknowledge he cannot be effective in isolation, nor that any one man can change everything. That would be a truly audacious undertaking. If I were a betting man, I would wager the August 4th deadline is mythical and has no real merit as a drop dead date for solving the problem. If Americans have a few more weeks of watching these positions revealed for what they are -- mostly lies -- we'll see a public ground swell uniting behind Mike's leadership on the BBA. Why? Because President Obama has already caved on including taxes as part of this compromise. That's a reasonable compromise, and he is to be commended for taking taxes out of the equation. However, the spending cuts proposed by Reid have been exposed for what they are -- illusory rather than real cuts to trim the baseline for this year, particularly when an "assumption" about the end of our involvement in Afghanistan is included -- and REAL, tangible cuts out of this year's budget are what the credit rating agencies are looking for. They are certainly not going to be impressed with a promise to impanel more commissions to study the matters.

Everyone knows what is required, it seems, except the Democratic and Republican establishment leadership, who are taking us down a path of more "blue ribbon commissions" to do the hard work the American people elected their representatives to do. There is a committee of 535 elected representatives already in place -- 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. They need to step up, write their best proposals, debate them in public rather than cutting deals behind closed doors, take the votes up or down, and be accountable instead of hiding behind procedure. The American people are screaming, "NO MORE GAMES!"



I stand with Senator Lee. We must put on the spending brakes immediately against THIS YEAR's baseline, then plan for the future by passing the BBA out of both houses of Congress, realizing that most of its provisions will take a matter of months, maybe years, to be approved by 3/4 of all the state legislatures before its provisions kick in. However, just the act of passing that legislation will signal Washington's commitment to the world and to our citizens we are taking immediate and realistic steps to curb the spending addiction.

If the individual states disagree with the BBA, then let them have their voice, and let the debates be held state by state until we reach the needed number. A return to states' rights and federalism at that level would be a welcomed change from what we are witnessing on the shores of the Potomac today. Yes, withdrawal from our easy credit addiction will be long and painful, but must be undertaken. Like all addictions, the time to quit is now, not tomorrow. I guarantee you those in Washington who are not willing to find the game changing solutions will be swept out of office in 2012.

There is no doubt when the Constitution was approved it baked in all the spending restraints and separation of powers by design to prevent tyranny from ever gaining power in America as it had in England. But the abuse of Constitutional principles defining those important limitations are only effective if all agree to be bound by its provisions. Sadly, that is not the case today.



Therefore, we must determine right now as a nation what course we will take. Will we at long last try to reclaim the liberties we have ceded as free men and women to an out-of-control tyrannical federal government, or will we wait for nature to take its irrevocable course and watch the ship of state sink beneath our feet? The choice could not be more clear to me. We have given money to this government and it was not enough. The government appears to be ready to confiscate and regulate even more, and we have created that voracious appetite by monetizing our debt and printing gobs of worthless paper. We have done this to ourselves, and we have what we have because of our own greed. Only our collective political will as a people can reverse this addiction and stop it in its tracks.

We can debate the merits of the proposed BBA (there are actually many versions afloat now), if a true debate can be had in today's environment, but this much seems clear -- drastic measures are needed now. If you use a percentage of past spending limits as a measurement, maybe that's not realistic, so let's come up with something else to cap what we spend if you like, but unless the spending cuts and caps are real and permanent, and until someone else comes up with a better idea, let's support Senator Lee's efforts to at least get us to the starting line on the debate as a nation.

The political gamesmanship is pathetic to watch. Only this morning I listened to President Obama suggest Americans need to keep up the pressure on their elected representatives. "Keep Tweeting," he encouraged. Really, Mr. President? That's your solution? Tweeting? Wouldn't it be hysterical if he were reported as a Twitter spammer and they shut down @barackobama?

There are some who are far to the right of Senator Lee. They would argue there is no defensible principled position on which we could possibly stand to consider raising the debt ceiling. They would advocate a complete collapse of the federal government as the only option avialable to prove a point and win the ideological argument for "purity."

I would suggest there might be an alternative.

It's called elections. They are free and vouched safe under the Constitution. We may have to wait for sixteen more months before enough like-minded people can be added to the ranks of those who believe as I do, but I have a feeling it will be worth the wait if it means saving the Republic by peaceful means. I don't love the thought of anarchy in the streets, nor do I relish a complete economic meltdown simply to prove your "pure" ideology is better than mine. America renews itself every two years by design. When it makes an egregious mistake in judgment, America can redeem herself. The pendulum swings back and forth.

While you may argue there is no principled room left to entertain a vote to raise the debt limit, I believe there is. Even Senator Lee recognizes it is irresponsible or naive to stamp his feet and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. His rational, if adamant stance on the BBA, makes sense while compromising on a debt ceiling increase tied to the strong medicine of the BBA later on. That's better than specious commissions to study and recommend spending cuts and caps that cannot bind the collective wills of future Congresses. Lost in the clamor of the ideology sometimes is the simple fact that the current proposed increase in the debt ceiling is only to handle what we've already obligated the government to do. We just need to make a stand that we won't continue our irresponsible spending habits.



Going forward, let's find Constitutional principles to stand on relative to the federal government's proper role in our lives. Then when we reduce the size of government we'll attack the silent elephant in the room in the aftermath -- who's got a plan for putting all the downsized federal government workers back to work in the private sector?

But that's tomorrow's problem.