Share This Article with a Friend!


3 Days that Could End America – Day 1

Don’t believe what you hear in the establishment media that day one of the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare was just about “housekeeping” to dispose of arguments over an obscure Civil War-era tax statute. Monday’s arguments attacked the very heart of liberalism and showed how intellectually bankrupt and bereft of integrity the Obama administration truly is.

Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). The AIA was enacted after the Civil War and requires that any lawsuit challenging tax statutes go forward only after the taxes are paid – pay first, and then sue.

You may recall that when Obamacare was being rammed through Congress by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we were told that the penalty for not buying the federally mandated insurance was not a tax.

As soon as outraged citizens and state governments sued to overturn Obamacare, the Obama administration began arguing that the AIA barred the lawsuits challenging the federal healthcare bill, claiming the penalty for not buying the mandated insurance was indeed a tax and thus the lawsuits opposing Obamacare should be dismissed.

Naturally, the states disagreed and said that the AIA should not apply to bar their case.

Now, follow this closely – the Obama administration then changed position to agree with the states that the AIA should not apply to bar this case, and that is the position the Obama administration argued yesterday.

However, today (Tuesday) the Obama administration will be back before the Supreme Court arguing that the Obamacare penalty is in fact a tax.

That’s right, when Obamacare was passed by Congress the penalty was not a tax.  But the penalty was a tax when the lawsuits against Obamacare were first filed, but then it wasn’t a tax when the Obama administration decided it didn’t want it to be a tax. Now on Monday the Obama administration said the penalty was not a tax, but on Tuesday they will say that it is a tax.

The comic “who’s on first” aspect of the Obama administration’s inconsistency on whether or not the penalty is a tax, masks the intellectual and political bankruptcy that has colored the Obamacare legislation since its inception. 

Not that we would want it, but the Obama administration and its liberal allies in Congress might have been on stronger Constitutional ground to set-up a tax-based system of universal federal health care.  However, that would have meant exposing themselves to the political consequences of raising taxes, and that’s not the liberal way.

Instead of being consistent and honest with the American people, yesterday the Obama administration was before the highest court in the land arguing in effect that the plain meaning of words, laws and the Constitution itself should be ignored in pursuit of their political goals.  Is there any wonder Americans have lost confidence in their federal government?

Who Owns the Country Now?

There is nothing in government that represents this country anymore. In fact, this government is now everything that the Founding Fathers hoped to prevent. Thos who would be king and were supposed tio be limited and restricted to a small district, now own over half of the country.

Legislating from the bench

It has been a long tradition for the republicans/conservatives to rail against' legislating from the bench'.

Now they are at the court crying for the court to legislate, by undoing earlier legislation. 

Is this the official end to the whine "we oppose legislating from the bench"?

Asking the Supreme Court to do it's job

and pass judgement on the constitutionality of a law is asking it to do exactly what it was designed to do. This is not legislating from the bench, but rather separation (balance) of powers. The protecting of We The People from this current crop of government usurpers of liberty that so obviously believes it is within it's right to force anything it so desires upon the people of this country, in spite of the will of the people. Although I can understand that most liberals don't get the difference and that's why we have had justices over the years that state a law (or individual words) they are supposed to rule on means something it never did before (and wouldn't ever mean) to an intelligent student of the constitution. That then would be the definition of legislating from the bench, It's too much to hope that you would ever accept this as reasonable so just go away and let the grown ups worry about these kind of issues for you.

Legislating from the Bench

By "in spite of the will of the people" you are actually claiming in spite of the will of the republicans/conservatives minority as the majority of we the people wants the bill the legislators passed. This is demonstrated by polls and the two branches of government that passed it. You are simply trying to use the court to undo legislation. To legislate from the bench.

Regarding being forced to do something: How about taxes? How about Social Security? How about national speed limits? How about auto insurance? How about Time? How about being required to pay for fighting undeclared wars? How about being forced to obey all federal laws? Within a few years of the constitution being written over 200 years ago the federal government required every adult male to buy a gun. You may not like it but it is obviously not unconstitutional to be forced to do something. You're simply asking the court here to undo legislation you do not like. You are asking for 'legislating from the bench'. Pure and simple.