If you had a chance to stop Obamacare, AND advance the Tenth Amendment right of the various states, to interpose and even to nullify actions that restrict the liberties of individual citizens, would you want to take it?
There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation’s highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.
The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would’ve lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal “standing” to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . . Read More »
Marriage is and has long been a cultural, social and wedge issue in American politics. One of the more dramatic turns of defining marriage came in the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Some forty years later, interracial marriage inspires little debate and has mostly been seen as an acceptable definition of marriage. However, as the twenty-first century dawned and developed, the issue of marriage definition has again come into American politics.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA into law. DOMA, which President Obama has recently (and unconstitutionally) declared unconstitutional, said that the United States federal Government recognized marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. It also said that no state would have to recognize the gay marriage of another state. Thus, an Alabama gay couple could not be married in Massachusetts and return home as newlyweds.
In 2008, Californians passed Proposition Eight, a measure barring gays from marrying in the Golden State. The proposition had passed narrowly in the general election and was later struck down by federal judge Vaughn Walker. A similar measure had previously been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.
Still, all the talk about how government defines marriage begs another question: should the government define marriage?
In several interviews, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has expressed the idea that “love is bigger than government” and argues that government should recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults and that the term “marriage” should be saved for churches and the private sector.
This is an idea that Libertarians should embrace. Americans have become hung up on the term “marriage”. Still, public opinion poll has showed time and time again that the vast majority of Americans support basic rights for gay and lesbian individuals including legal and sometimes financial benefits. Granting every adult, consenting couple a civil union would allow all citizens the rights they deserve as far as their partners are concerned. Additionally, it would continue the support of separation between church and state.
For too long, the American People have allowed their government to define what is and what is not marriage. A couple who love each other shouldn’t need the State’s permission to bind themselves legally and equivalently together. Civil Unions would grant equality to law abiding citizens and would promote freedom for all individuals regardless of their political, professional or marital positions.
The fix is in. That’s right, and by “fix” I really mean dreadfully broken. Check out the latest effort from the Institute for Justice:
Imagine if Nancy Pelosi wanted to run for governor. If she decided to run as a “Clean Elections” candidate, every time her opponent would raise a certain amount of money from private donors, she would receive the same amount from taxpayers. That’s right, publicly funded elections.
This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him or her. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The system curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.
Earlier this year J. Christian Adams resigned his Justice Department position and began discussing the new administration’s policy of inequality under the rule of law. This story, which should have been national news, petered out over the past few months. However, there’s a new whistleblower in town corroborating everything Adams said. And it’s not just anyone, it is Christopher Coates, the former Justice Department Voting Rights section chief.
Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights. Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”
Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.
This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!
Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.
Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Interestingly, on Election Day November 2008, the members of the New Black Panthers raised cane with voters at a polling place in Philadelphia wearing uniforms and brandishing billy clubs. The same Justice Department, after looking into the matter, dropped prosecution of the people involved, leading federal prosecutor J. Christian Adams to resign from the Justice Department in protest.
If it had been white supremacists intimidating voters by waving Bibles in the air they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragons (the late Robert Byrd excluded) intimidating voters with burning crosses they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Aryan Nation members toting guns they would have prosecuted them. But it wasn’t, it was an angry horde of black supremacists intimidating voters and trying to distract poll workers so that A.C.O.R.N. members could vote illegally, and that was okay.
By practicing federal intimidation of states, our Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, is using its own form of racial profiling – or should I say racist profiling – to decide who and who not to prosecute.
Obama campaigned on “Yes, We can!”, but he’s governing on “Yes, You Will.”
He’s so similar to George W. Bush, and in some cases worse (drone bombing fetish?), on foreign policy that I expect to hear him start mis-pronouncing the word “nuclear” any day now.
He, like his fellow progressives, believes government is the solution to all the problems of the world. Will it take someone hurling a shoe at him to wake him up to the fact that the government doesn’t have such a great track record when it comes to solutions? That probably wouldn’t work. He’d just accuse the shoe-thrower of being a Right-wing extremist and/or a Tea Party racist and/or a domestic terrorist and/or a misguided soul who has been brain-washed by “my opponents” to believe that government is the problem.
Then he may calm down a bit and suggest that perhaps he just needs to explain things better so the stupid peasants that live around his DC castle and beyond understand that the proper role of government is to be involved in every aspect of their lives.
For instance, let’s investigate the health welfare individual mandate.
Just minutes ago the Supreme Court of the United States delivered their opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states in a 5-4 decision.
Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
Gun rights prevail
The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.
The ramifications of the opinion will play out in the gun rights vs. gun control debate going forward. This case (McDonald v. Chicago) was filed the day after the Heller decision was announced back in 2008. It will be interesting to see what new cases get filed given the results of this case. The gun rights lawyers are taking a step by step approach in their fight for the right to keep and bear arms.
This is pretty much what was expected. It appears Justice Thomas is the only one with the guts to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause which would have had far-reaching implications for law outside of the gun rights world. More later as the analysis begins.
We interviewed Rand Paul the first time back when he was trailing Trey Grayson in the Kentucky GOP primary by 11 percentage points according to polls at the time. As everyone now knows he ended up winning the primary and the first money bomb (or blast) is scheduled for tomorrow (June 28th).
Dr. Paul was kind enough to take time out of his insane campaign schedule to answer some questions for us. Check out Rand Paul’s second interview with Liberty Maven below.
And don’t forget to participate by donating during the money bomb!
LM: Immediately following your landslide victory over Trey Grayson in the primary, the left-leaning media began attacking you and the attacks have not eased up. Thinking back, prior to your primary victory you probably anticipated being attacked from the left, but did you believe the attacks would be so unrelenting and national in scope as they have turned out to be? Do you fault yourself for inviting the initial attacks a bit, by agreeing to go on Rachel Maddow’s show the day after your victory?
Rand Paul: Our election night victory was spectacular. We won by 24 points. Over 500 people gathered for our victory. We had satellite TV trucks from every network and did 15 national interviews the next day. But it didn’t take long for the media to decide that they were going to be less than neutral after our victory. Since then it has been relentless attacks from the left-wing media in Kentucky and the left-wing media nationally. I joke with people that it was like Dickens wrote in the Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. But the good news is that the polls still show us with a double digit lead, despite all of their attacks. I think the mood of the country is for reigning in big government, for controlling the deficit, and for bringing attention back to a government that should be restrained by the Constitution.
It’s always easy to look backwards and say I could have, or should have done one thing or another. In retrospect, going on a Left-leaning network that apparently had an agenda since they had been discussing it all afternoon and misconstruing my position was probably not a good idea.
In the two-party charade that is American politics, our choices are limited. You’re either for the wars that exist, or you’re for the wars that exist plus a couple that don’t yet. You’re either for an increase in spending domestically, or an increase in spending abroad. You either want the Fed to increase the debt, or you want the Fed to monetize it. However, even in the few instances where the media and the party leadership tilt the fun house mirror to make the two sides look different, the truth is that they differ in execution – in which rights to usurp – rather than fundamental philosophy.
A shining example of a major party with phony principles is the “defense” of civil rights in America by the Democrats. You see, the Democrats want to protect civil rights. Countless party leaders have spoken out in outrage over the discrimination against minority groups. The Democrats of today support the right of marriage for all people, regardless of their sexuality. They want equal pay and equal opportunity for people of all backgrounds when it comes to employment or housing. In fact, according to their website: “Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.” Few Americans would argue with the underlying principle: equal opportunity for all, and discrimination against none.
However, the same Democratic Party that wants equality of opportunity in marriage or the workforce would willfully overlook that equality when it comes to other choices that individuals might make. The philosophical principle of equal opportunity must necessarily mean free choice, lest it be inconsistent and hypocritical. Freedom to pursue the job that we want or the familial structure that we are most comfortable with must mean the freedom to choose what foods or drinks that we want to consume, or the freedom to decide manner in which we defend our own property, or the freedom to select the most appropriate form of health insurance for our families (even if it means no health insurance at all). As it turns out, though, the party that champions civil rights actually defends just a small subset of rights – those which will rally its base, scream injustice, and are not uncomfortable to defend.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, the freedom-loving host of Freedom Watch, penned a column describing in detail why Obama was wrong and Justice Alito was right, when Alito mouthed the words “not true” during the State of the Union speech on Wednesday night.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling — which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions — and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.
The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.
The Judge later appeared on Fox Business News with David Asman to discuss the topic. Check it out below. It appears that Justice Alito’s “Not true” was more right than the snake oil salesman Obama would ever admit.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
