A classic excerpt from Abel UpshurDetails
Why should any individual be governed by a “contract” that he never signed, and that the other party can unilaterally revise at its pleasure?Details
Does the Constitution authorize all of these departments? Does the Constitution authorize any of them?Details
On Thursday, the Supreme Court sent shockwaves across America, upholding the constitutionality of the federal health care act.
Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said it didn’t surprise him one bit.
“The federal government always expands its own power. The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. I don’t see what’s so shocking here. It’s sad, but not surprising. By ruling, once again, that uniform policies must reign over a nation of 50 states and 300 million people, the Supreme Court has continued its attack on the last vestiges of what’s supposed to make this country great.”
The Court argued that the federal government cannot enforce a mandate through the commerce clause, but it can impose a tax on those who choose not to purchase health insurance. TAC communications director Mike Maharrey called the focus on the mandate “misplaced.”
“The Supreme Court says the federal government can’t force you to do something through a mandate, but it can tax you for doing nothing in order to ‘encourage’ you into doing something. Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me. But the bottom line is that the federal government has no enumerated power to create a national health care system in the first place. The entire notion of federal health care is unconstitutional, even if you buy into this tax malarkey.”
And while many opponents of nationalized health care view the ruling as a bitter defeat, Maharrey says the Tenth Amendment Center sees a clear path forward.Details
If you are still listening to those in the political class who are falling over each other to condemn leaks from the government to the media, you’d think the leaks had revealed private information in which the public has no legitimate interest, or perhaps a planned secret government mission to rescue innocents. Neither is the case.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress, most of them from the House and Senate intelligence committees, have blasted the White House for leaking to The New York Times and others the existence of President Obama’s secret kill list and his cyber-warfare against Iran.
According to those doing the blasting, the leaks were made in order to bolster the president’s war-on-terror credentials with voters in anticipation of an onslaught against those credentials by Gov. Mitt Romney in the coming fall presidential campaign.
So, who has violated the Constitution and federal law, who has caused more harm and who has performed more of a disservice to the nation: those who leaked the truth to the media, or the president, who caused death and destruction among those he hates and fears?
We already know the basic facts, as the White House has denied none of this.Details