Tag Archives: Supreme Court

MY 2 CENTS ON “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT”

 

“People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes.  Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.”

Who said that?  It was not our current president.  Here’s a clue – It was the only President in our history who presided over an even longer economic recovery than Barack Obama.  It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in an address to Congress in 1935.  It is no coincidence that the economic policies of both presidents failed.  Minds that think alike produce results that look alike.  Roosevelt ordered thousands of young pigs to be destroyed to raise the price of pork – in a depression!  Obama ordered thousands of serviceable cars destroyed which raised the cost of transportation for lower income families — in a recession.

As the opening quote attests, Roosevelt sought to siphon money from the employer class to pay for federal government programs.  Obama seeks to do the same.  Roosevelt’s plan for recovery was to put people to work on the taxpayer’s payroll, not in the private sector.  See the CCC and WPA.  Obama’s plan is to rebuild roads and bridges (WPA) and subsidize unprofitable environmental programs like the Solyndra (CCC).

Roosevelt took measures later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  See The Schechter Brothers and the NRA (National Industrial Recovery Act).  Obama has also been at odds with the Supreme Court.  Both presidents felt restrained by the Court, as well they should.  The Court is there to protect the people from an overreaching government.  Both presidents sought powers beyond those stipulated by our founders, albeit for different reasons.

When two presidents think so much alike and manage economic recoveries with results that are so much alike, it’s not coincidence.  It’s because their policies don’t work.  And what are those different reasons?  Roosevelt’s goal was to restore the economy and benefit lower income workers.  He just didn’t know how to do it.  Obama’s goal is to put a choker on capitalism and completely transform America.  He knows what he is doing.  It’s up to the voters not to let him do it.

 

THE UNITED STATES vs. ARIZONA – THE SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION DECISION IN A NUTSHELL

Four issues were argued and decisions rendered.  The most significant and most controversial provision in Arizona’s law was upheld by the unanimous vote of eight of the nine Justices.  Judge Kagan recused herself.

The other three provisions of Arizona’s law were struck down on a 5 to 3 divided vote.

Upheld
Arizona police may check the immigration status of an individual stopped on reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

Struck down
1. Arizona state law that mirrored existing federal law making it a crime not to complete or carry immigration papers.

2. A provision of Arizona law that made it illegal for an illegal immigrant to apply for or hold a job.

3. A provision of Arizona law allowing police to arrest and detain an illegal alien not yet convicted of a deportable crime.  Police must release the individual after telling them to show up later for a hearing.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissent.
Here is the decision.
Here are excerpts from Scalia’s dissent.

Post Script – The case is actually identified as AZ vs. US but I think the United States against Arizona better reflects the reality.

OBAMA DENOUNCES PUBLIC MANDATE

In case you missed it ….

The Republican Party is preparing a collection of juxtaposed videos for TV commercials to be shown during the national campaign.  Thanks to Al Gore for giving the internet to the people, the Blogosphere is already suspending the Democrat contender from his own petard.

IS CARVILLE ADMITTING OBAMACARE IS AN ALBATROSS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

If the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare “I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party,” according to Democratic strategist James Carville.  Puzzled?  Here’s his reasoning,

“You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, ‘We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority’.”

Carville … predicted health care costs will only increase in the future, in which case Republicans will be to blame for leading the drive to expel a federal program designed to help Americans cover those costs. (CNN)

“Then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,” Carville said.

Pass a bad law and then root for it to be repealed so you can blame the other party for the mess you created.  Good plan, Mr. Democratic Strategist.

Comments coming from Supreme Court Justices in response to Obama’s Solicitor General have been a riot.  Watching the Court hasn’t been this much fun since the Justices overturned Roosevelt’s NRA (Google it).

SUPREME COURT HEARINGS on OBAMACARE and the ARIZONA BORDER

Two highly significant issues are being prepared for presentation before the Supreme Court.  One is the United States Government vs. the State of Arizona.  The argument put forth by the Obama administration is that the federal government is given exclusive power to regulate immigration.  The question then is what power does a state have to protect its own people when the federal government imperils the states citizens by failing to enforce its own laws.

The second significant item is the constitutionality of Obamacare.  No case has actually been filed as yet but one is fully expected.  At one count, 38 states had joined or were considering joining in a suit to argue the health care plan is unconstitutional.  The issue here is the “individual mandate”.  The plan requires everyone to carry insurance or pay money to the government for failure to do so.  The crux of the argument lies in the characterization of that money.  Is it a tax or a penalty?

If it is a tax, Obamacare is more likely to be found constitutional under the clause that gives the federal government to levy tax for the national welfare of the people.  However, if it is a penalty, Obamacare is more likely to be found unconstitutional under the interstate commerce provisions which give Congress the power to regulate, but not to mandate interstate commerce.

The states will argue that the money is a penalty.  The Obama administration will argue it is a tax.  It would be interesting if President Obama were to be called to testify about his assertions to the American people that his plan would actually save money and therefore no new taxes would be required to pay for it.  That won’t happen, of course.

LAST WEEK

Week ending August 6, 2010
Monday
Mexican Drug Cartel Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff’s Head
Sherrif Arpaio is one courageous guy. However, the Cartel has nothing to fear from Barack Obama.

Tuesday
Democratic Congressman on hot seat at Town Hall, says Federal government can do anything it wants.

Excellent video. Sharp lady in the audience asks the right questions.

Wednesday
Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy
Not Arpaio, another Sheriff. About 17% of those detained in Arizona already have a criminal record in the United States. “

Thursday
Gay judge strikes down “only between man and woman” rule
Supreme Court, here we come!

Friday
Elena Kagan confirmed for Supreme Court seat.
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, young liberal women are on the Supreme Court for life.

Bob B

WHAT ABOUT IDAHO ?

Elena Kagan, from Manhattan to the Supreme Court
The President has put forth his nominee to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is Elena Kagan and would be the third woman appointed to the Court. That’s okay. But they are all from New York City.

Now, citizens of a city do not see the world in the same manner as rural folk. And citizens of New York City in particular don’t believe there is any intelligent life more than forty or fifty miles from Times Square. In fact Times Square itself is not held in very high regard; it’s mostly tourists from fly-over country and Japan. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with tourists, but one does not want to mingle with them, does one?

The New York Times building is still there and so is the Broadway theatre. Were it not for these redeeming features it would just be another of those places about which Yogi Berra would say, “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.”

The Supreme Court needs more diversity. What about Idaho, Iowa or Oklahoma? They must have some judges who would like the job. Perhaps Obama could not find one willing to move to Washington. That would be understandable. Or perhaps he just wanted to give someone a chance to be a judge who had never been one. Ms. Elena qualifies on that count.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

WASHINGTON BY THE WEEK

Week ending April 16 2010

Leftovers
Once upon a time I had a neighbor who insisted his wife never made an original meal, only leftovers. (Is it still OK to say “wife”? I am never sure these days.)

Leftovers from last week, Friday April 9
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens resigns
Stevens was leaning left, as they say, so the numeric balance will not change but the angle of the dangle, as they say, may increase.

Dawn Johnson withdraws
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the name. She was Obama’s pick to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The Leftside bloggers are very upset. The Rightside speculates that Dawn was too far left for Harry Reid to be able to garner enough votes for confirmation, even with his filibuster proof majority.

Originals for this week
Saturday
Obama breaks protocol
The Prez ducks the press and goes to a family function without them. I told you the man is not insane. Good for him!

Monday
Google CEO proposes screening your news
Eric Schmidt is a political activist supporting Obama. He is also CEO of Google. He says technology of the sort employed by Google should be used to determine what you are given to read. Joseph Goebbels would have loved the idea.

Obama bows again
President Barack Obama greets Chinese President Hu Jintao with a bow during the official arrivals for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. It would be nice if he had shown the same respect to someone like the Dali Lama.

Tuesday
Rasmussen poll – 58% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare

White House asks the White House Correspondents’ Association to limit access of conservative newsgroup to the association’s annual banquet.

Wednesday
Rasmussen poll Surprises, Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama would be a dead heat if election were today, 41 to 42 percent. And 24% of voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement.

Neil Armstrong says Obama decision will make the U.S. a 2nd or 3rd rate player in space.

Thursday
Cap and Tax revived in Senate.
The House has already passed their own version.

Friday
White House complains about CBS report that potential Supreme Court Justice nominee may be a lesbian
So what?

Bookmark and Share

BILL OF RIGHTS

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case on gun control. The Second Amendment gave citizens the right to bear arms. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The case at issue will bring the entire Bill of Rights into the picture.

The narrow issue is whether states and cities can restrict gun control without violating the Second Amendment. One side argues that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit Federal government and does not apply to state and local government. The opposition will counter with the tenet that state and local law cannot contravene Federal law.

If the first argument prevails logic follows that the entire Bill of Rights only prevails at the will of each state. The ten amendments get their name from their function, a list of citizens rights that cannot be abrogated by government.

If you have read A Conflict of Visions or even just the review, you know where each side stands and the core reason why. The Left trusts leaders of government more than it trusts the citizens. They favor more power to our leaders. The Constitution limits the power of our leaders. The Right supports the limitation because it recognizes that all leaders are not good and wants a strong Constitution to protect America from ever drifting into control by a despot.

This case is about a lot more than gun control. It is about government control.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share