26
Sep/09
0

The Tyranny of Health Insurance:

Obama Health Insur

Obama Health Insurance

It all started with a question. If you are going to impose on every American that they must buy Health Insurance, then what is the penalty if they choose not to?

The answer is very disturbing!

A $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail!

Read more:

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn’t happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM

 

September 24, 2009
Categories: Senate

Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS

Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The remarks Thursday from the committee’s chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama’s contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”

Ensign’s argument , however, wasn’t persuasive to the committee — which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

By Carrie Budoff Brown 04:04 PM
18
Sep/09
0

Rising Sun: Remembering Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin

What a great piece written on the anniversary of the Constitution. We could learn a lot about our government and our founding by going back and reading this stuff. Not just the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but other work and speeches during the time.

Thanks Margaret Byfield for the reminder.

 

by Margaret Byfield

http://www.stewards.us/libertymatters/summer2001/lmj-summer01-6.htm

The men affectionately remembered, as America’s Founding Fathers did nothing less than overthrow the world’s greatest power and establish an independent nation based upon the principles of individual liberty for the first time in the history of the world.

It took this remarkable combination of men to achieve this. If you take anyone of our Founding Fathers away, the American Revolution most surely would have concluded differently. Imagine winning the revolutionary war without the leadership of George Washington, or the creation of the Declaration of Independence without the wisdom and brilliant expression of Thomas Jefferson, or the meticulously crafted Constitution without the insight of James Madison.

One man in this unique class of Founding Fathers, however, stands out not only for his individual deeds, but also because he was the only patriot involved in all it’s major events. It is Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s life, born in 1706 and deceased in 1790, spans the entire revolutionary period, and he had his hand in every facet of the development of this new nation, from the colonial uprising to the final ratification of the new nation’s governing document, the United States Constitution.

It was Thomas Jefferson who predicted that of all the revolutionary leaders Benjamin Franklin would be remembered long after he and the others were forgotten because they recognized that Franklin was indispensable to the establishment of America’s independence. In a letter to William Smith after Franklin’s death, Jefferson fondly remembered Franklin, “as our great and dear friend, whom time will be making greater while it is sponging us from it’s records.”

Franklin’s first political activities began as early as age 14 when he was helping his brother James run the Boston Newspaper, The New England Courant. Because of the paper’s political opinions, which were critical of British rule, James was imprisoned for a short time while the paper continued under Benjamin’s name. This early introduction into politics was only the beginning for young Ben. By the time the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, which sparked the colonist’s uprising, Ben was 59 and had developed well-seasoned political opinions, which he gladly shared with other colonists. He is credited with creating America’s first political cartoon, published in order to galvanize the support against British oppression. It is the famous drawing of the snake cut into sections with the words “Join or Die,” inscribed.

Franklin left his Boston home at age 17 after a disagreement with his brother James. He arrived in Philadelphia with only a Dutch dollar and about a shilling in copper. Within seven years he started The Pennsylvania Gazette and was an active community leader in Philadelphia where he was busy organizing the many service organizations he is credited with starting.

These include the first fire department and night patrol in Philadelphia. He was our nation’s first Postmaster, founded the Pennsylvania Hospital and the Library Company of Philadelphia. But it was science that truly inspired him. He was continually studying the discipline and took advantage of his official trips to Europe as America’s Ambassador in order to consult with other scientists. The result is the creation of several useful conveniences. For instance, he invented the first stove of its kind, the Franklin Stove, which unlike a fireplace could produce heat and direct the smoke out of the dwelling. We are all familiar with the image of Ben flying a kite with a metal key in a lighting storm. He was the first to prove that lighting produced electricity.

Franklin was also a prolific writer. He had published several papers including “Disertation on Liberty & Necessity” before publishing his first book at age 26, Poor Richards Almanac, which contains numerous popular sayings still common today, such as “a penny saved, a penny earned.” The Poor Richard series was so popular in its time that even John Paul Jones named his ship “Bonhomme Richard,” which defeated the British “Serapis,” after Franklin’s memorable character.

By age 42, Franklin had earned enough money from his business ventures and inventions that he retired and devoted much of his time to his political activities. As a member of the Second Continental Congress, he was assigned to the Committee of Five along with John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and a young Thomas Jefferson who was only 33 at the time. The committee was charged with the duty of writing the Declaration of Independence. After signing the Declaration, Franklin’s diplomatic skills were called upon, and he was dispatched to France to negotiate a critical alliance with the European power.

Franklin was one of 17 children, and the father of three. His first son was born out of wedlock to an unknown mother. He later took Deborah Read Rogers as his common law wife where he fathered a daughter and second son. His second son died at a young age while Franklin disowned his eldest son for siding with the British. Franklin lived
his long life without ever speaking to his son after
their disagreement.

Franklin also earned a reputation as a philanderer, often seen in the European brothels while serving as America’s Ambassador of France. Although Franklin claims his wife changed his habits and made him an honest man, history has accounted for this part of his life differently.

It is certain however, that Franklin was well respected by his peers and his contributions to the Revolution were instrumental in shaping American independence. Even at age 82, he was deeply embroiled in the intellectual debate of America’s future, and the type of government that would follow. He attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where the delegates carefully debated every word of the Constitution.

Franklin believed, as did many of the delegates, that the newly crafted Constitution designed to replace the Articles of Confederation gave the federal government too much power, and he fought hard to shape it differently. Many of the delegates relied upon Franklin’s aged wisdom and held back their own support because of his concerns. But a few months before the final passage of the document, Franklin made one of his last political contributions to the new nation and threw his full support behind its passage.

“… I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; … Thus I consent Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. … On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

Franklin himself did not deliver the speech but rather asked a colleague, James Wilson, to read it for him. His age prohibited him from standing very long. He was too feeble to even walk in and out of the hall each day. Instead he had prisoners carry him into the Great Hall and prop him up in a chair. Most of his contributions were written by him and delivered by another. But when the man who had seen the Revolution from beginning to end gave approval for the great document, it signaled a new era, and the beginning of a remarkable new nation.

The Constitution was eventually adopted by the delegation, and as Franklin sat watching each member sign their name on the nation’s new Constitution, he remarked to one of his colleagues that during the debates he often noticed the painting on the back of the Convention Presidents chair, where George Washington presided. It was the painting of half a sun. Franklin told his colleague that he had wondered if the sun was rising or setting, and now he was certain it was rising.

Franklin’s last political role was as President of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. He was one of several of the Founding Fathers that fought against the practice throughout the debates believing slavery contradicted the principles of individual liberty the nation was founded upon. But it was one political battle they were unable to win. Still, Franklin never gave up and even submitted resolutions abolishing slavery to the new government in his last two years of life. He died April 17th, 1790.

As Franklin left Independence Hall after signing the United States Constitution, a young citizen inquired: “What kind of government did you give us? A monarchy or a republic?” Franklin responded “A republic, if you can keep it!”

16
Sep/09
0

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?

We The People

We The People

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337992265461227

Federal Powers: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to buy health insurance? And by what authority does it prohibit the purchasing of insurance across state lines?

A key part of the administration’s plan to reform health care is what is called the “individual mandate” — a requirement that everyone must have health insurance either through his or her employer or purchased individually.

A good chunk of the uninsured are that way of their own volition. They are young and healthy and feel they have better things to do with their money at this point in their lives. Forcing them is the only way to get them covered, but it’s not clear where the constitutional authority to do that comes from.

The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers given to each branch of government and says that any powers not mentioned revert to the states and to the people. Nowhere does it say that the feds can compel you to buy health insurance. But then, this is the administration that claims the right to a de facto nationalization of the banking system and auto industry, to set executive compensation and to fire corporate officers.

With regard to health care reform, the administration seems to be operating under a distorted version of the Commerce Clause that has been grossly misinterpreted over the years as allowing the feds to regulate and control just about everything. Because the sum total of millions of individual health decisions has a collective economic impact, the reasoning goes, government has the authority, even the duty, to regulate those decisions. It does not.

Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, a constitutional scholar now a Fox News analyst, says the power to “regulate” interstate commerce is just that and only that. He says that when James Madison used the word “regulate,” he meant “to keep regular.” Madison intended the government to function like a modern-day referee in football — to throw a flag once in a while and moderate disputes, but not call the plays.

The irony here, says Napolitano, is that at the same time the government wants to force people to buy insurance, it forbids them from doing so across state lines. In other words, he says, “Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person’s appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.”

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who served in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, wrote in the Washington Post that in United States vs. Lopez in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress can only regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity.

The Commerce Clause allows for the regulation of economic activity across state lines that involves the production, distribution or consumption of commodities. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the idea that Congress can regulate noneconomic activities simply because through a chain of collective events they might have some impact down the road.

The government does not have the power to regulate individual Americans simply because they are there and you think their individual decisions are unwise. There are other concerns, such as whether the mass collection of medical records violates the Fourth Amendment’s right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.”

The states are starting to rebel. In July, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that he might join those invoking the 10th Amendment to fight a federal takeover of health care. “I think you’ll hear states and and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care,” Perry said.

If passed into law, the House’s health care reform plan will be tested. We hope the Supreme Court will once again find that H.R. 3200, and any bill like it that imposes similar mandates, violates the Constitution.

21
Sep/07
0

Popular Vote Campaign courts Massachusetts

Great article on the reasons why we do not need a popular vote and why the electoral collage is a great thing!

By Lindsey Parietti/Daily News staff
GHS
Thu Sep 20, 2007, 12:55 AM EDT

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com

Leaders of a national campaign to elect the president by popular vote are hoping to gain ground in Massachusetts, a state proponents say has largely been ignored by presidential candidates who spend most of their time and money in states that don’t have a strong party allegiance.
Although leaders of the National Popular Vote Campaign say the issue is resonating with voters across the country, local lawmakers are less than enthusiastic about the proposed legislation.
If Massachusetts joins Maryland, the first state to sign the inter-state compact into law, it would have to cast its 12 Electoral College votes for the nationwide popular vote winner, as opposed to the candidate who wins the state majority.
“If you’re born a Republican in Massachusetts you could die without your one vote ever meaning anything,” said Maryland Democratic state Sen. Jamin Raskin. “Every democracy in the world elects its president by popular vote.”

The new system would have produced a different result in 2000 when Al Gore lost the election to George W. Bush despite winning the popular vote.
According to Raskin, who testified at a State House hearing yesterday, the advantage of the bill is that states will work through the Electoral College rather than trying, as many failed attempts have, to abolish the college with a constitutional amendment.
The national compact would not take effect until enough states have passed it into law to control the majority of Electoral College votes.
Greg Casey, aide to Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, said the senator has met with proponents, but has not yet taken a position.
“The popular vote can go either way. It’s not something that either party has a claim to,” said Casey, who believes it is one of the few truly bipartisan issues.
“I haven’t put it at the top of my priority list,” said state Rep. John Fernandes, D-Milford, who would prefer awarding electoral votes according to the percentages each party wins. “The fact that Massachusetts could go 70 (percent for one party) and 30 (percent) in the other direction and still have to exercise all of its electoral votes toward the 30. … Something about this has left me feeling not right.”
At the Election Laws Committee hearing yesterday, Chairman Sen. Edward Augustus, D-Worcester, worried the proposal would force candidates to focus on densely populated cities and states, still leaving small and rural states on the sidelines.
“There’s been a lot of issues on the Legislature’s agenda and this one hasn’t been able to be on the front burner,” said state Rep. Pam Richardson, D-Framingham, who added her name to the bill’s sponsors after hearing from constituents.
Barry Fadem, the campaign’s president, believes the 20-25 states needed to control the Electoral College will adopt the compact before the 2012 election.
But Brian McNiff, spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin, the state’s chief election officer, was skeptical, saying it would be a “somewhat difficult hurdle” to get enough states to sign on at all.
It is unlikely the compact will gain momentum if so-called swing states – states such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida where candidates compete for an electorate that could go either way – reject the idea of a national popular vote.
So far Maryland is the only state to adopt the legislation that has been introduced in 47 states since 2006.
The bill passed through the Hawaii and California legislatures, but was vetoed by their governors. Illinois lawmakers also passed the bill, which is awaiting the governor’s signature.
“I agree with the impetus behind the National Popular Vote push, particularly as Massachusetts is considered by some to be a ’spectator state’ when it comes to the Electoral College,” said Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland in a written statement. “Massachusetts voters are informed, engaged and involved, and therefore every single one of our votes should count.”
(Daily News staff writer Lindsey Parietti can be reached at lpariett@cnc.com.)