To Gary Johnson Voters, Ron Paul & Other ‘Write-In’ Voters: Supreme Court Consequences

A front view of the four story, marble-clad United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.
Click on photo to enlarge. (Photo – Mark Fischer)

To: Those intent on voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul supporters, and other ‘write-in’ voters…

Take a moment to read the following IMPORTANT article from Matthew D. Carling, Esq. He lays out the case for thoughtfully considering the repercussions of your voting choices. For years to come, America’s course will be determined through coming Supreme Court appointees.

Carling’s background:

Matthew D. Carling is an attorney specializing in appellate law in the states of Utah and Nevada. He has previously been a prosecutor for the District Attorney’s Office of Lincoln County, Nevada, has served as a defense attorney, and also as Judge Pro Tempore for the North Las Vegas Municipal Courts. He received both his Juris Doctor and Master’s of Business Administration from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

(Carling has given permission to reprint his article in full.)

The Purist Vote: How Obama’s Foes Might Extend His Legacy for Decades
November 1, 2012
By Matthew D. Carling, Esq.

(or) The Purist Vote: American Conservatives Playing Russian Roulette

Every four years, American voters eagerly line up to choose their favorite candidate for President. We brim with hope for a leader who sees the world like we do—someone a lot like us. But once our ideal contender is eliminated from the field, disappointment often turns to disgust. Voters by the thousands remove themselves from the political battlefield and refuse to participate further. It’s either my nominee or nothing.

Consoled in the belief that one vote won’t matter, the disenfranchised gently beguile themselves into apathy. Surely four more years of any single administration cannot possibly unravel the rich heritage of our nation. Others withdraw out of a need to take a moral stand, indignant over the flaws they would otherwise feel they are endorsing with their vote. Some even choose strategic revenge, hoping to punish less-pure conservatives with four more years under a stanch liberal president — a small price to pay if the lesson finally awakens such “useful idiots” from their folly. After all, how much damage can one president leave that can’t be undone by his successor?

These might be valid points except for one detail. A president’s most lasting legacy is not usually the bills he signs into law, his executive orders or even the wars over which he presides. It is his unique role in shaping the entire third branch of government, the Supreme Court, which has power to overrule the others. Indeed, his nominations to the bench can alter our society for generations.

Consider George W. Bush. With the retirement of Justice O’Connor and the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush reshaped the Court with his nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both thoughtful and mostly conservative jurists. Whatever Bush’s faults, these two acts could benefit our nation immensely for generations to come. President Obama, on the other hand, countered by replacing two activist jurists (Souter & Stevens) with two more: Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor, each fully in step with the current Administration’s societal and political agenda. These appointments have not disappointed the progressive left.

How much does this matter? For most people it depends on the issue. Until recently, for millions of Americans in major cities across the nation, owning a handgun was severely restricted if not banned entirely. For decades, Second Amendment advocates had wistfully dreamed of the Supreme Court striking such laws, but were afraid to bring forth a case. What if they lost? Might the Court instead end up nullifying the Second Amendment? On June 28, 2010, with Bush’s appointees the Court finally acknowledged the original intent: that no government, whether federal, state or local, may deny a citizen the right to keep and bear arms.[i] The victory, however, was a narrow one—only 5 to 4. If one more left leaning justice had been appointed, it would have gone the other way. Dissenting, Justice Stevens argued that owning a personal firearm was not a “liberty” interest protected by the Constitution. Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” With a single vote, this suppressive notion would have been the majority opinion.

In just the last decade, this same narrow margin has preserved school choice laws at the state level, but unfortunately tipped the other way and failed to roll back eminent domain abuse. The constitution’s safety in the court is fragile indeed.

Don’t stop now. Click here!

Mitt Talking Points

For those of us talking to friends about why Mitt over Obama, I thought I’d compile a few talking points:


1. National Debt.

national debt

–Obama has significantly added to our now $16 trillion in national debt and has had over $1 trillion in deficits in each of his four years, after promises to cut deficit in half. Obama still has no plan, unless you count the glossy photo brochure with re-tread unfulfilled promises from 2008. Romney / Ryan do have a plan.


2. Bipartisanship.

–Mitt has been a model of bi-partisanship, which will be needed to reduce the deficit. Obama has blamed a GOP Congress for his failures.

3. Mitt’s a Model of Success.

–Mitt’s business, personal and government life are models of success. He’s actually done what Obama has promised: balanced budgets, turned broken enterprises around. Obama can’t seem to get past his own pride.

4. Four More Years?

–We have experienced 4 years of Obama. To expect better the 2d term is, by definition, insane. He knows he can’t change Washington from the outside.

5. Historically Low Employment.

–3.5 years of unemployment over 8%. If people hadn’t left workforce unemployment today would be over 10%.


6. Obama’s Work Ethic.

–Obama seems to show up about half the time (famously missing security briefings, unbelievable number of golf games). Mitt is already preparing just in case he wins the election, so he’ll be ready to hit the ground running.

7. Obamacare.

–This is our last chance to unwind Obamacare. Otherwise all the taxes, future healthcare rationing, lack of doctors and other problems will be permanent.

8. Supreme Court.

–Between 2 and 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire during the next 4 years, a liberal, a conservative and a swing justice. The next president will likely stack the court for a generation, either right or left.

9. Mitt Has a Plan.

–Mitt has a 5 point plan for economic success, Obama only attacks Mitt; does not have a real plan. Mitt’s plan: expand energy, build workers’ skills, cut deficit, focus on small business, promote fair trade. Obama’s: raise taxes, keep spending.

10. Stuff Obama Says (Odd Priorities; Egotism).

–Stuff Obama says: 4 deaths in Libya were a “bump in the road.” “If you have a small business, you didn’t build that.” Conservatives cling to guns and religion. He tells the Des Moines Register he has a plan to deal with immigration but wants to keep it off the record. Telling the Russian president he’ll have more flexibility when he doesn’t face re-election. I could go on.

11. Newspaper Endorsements.

–Reno Gazette Journal and a slew of other papers just endorsed Mitt.

12. Weak Foreign Policy.

–Obama’s foreign policy isn’t working; projecting an image of weakness has invited attack. First US ambassador to be killed in 30 years after security assistance was requested; the White House was alerted but did nothing while a drone watched. Stories out of the administration were inconsistent for weeks.

13. Twelve Million Jobs.

–Mitt has promised to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

14. President Biden?

–If anything happens to Obama, Joe Biden would be president.

I know there are others. My imagination tends to wane in the wee hours of the night. Add to comments what your talking points are…

Key Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCare

*Got questions about RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Visit our newly updated page on RomneyCare – The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care to find articles like this and other questions you may be wondering.

It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. It is important to note that Massachusetts, the state where Romneycare was founded, opposed Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts opposed Obamacare so much that they elected Senator Scott Brown (R) in 2010 to be the deciding vote against Obamacare after Senator Ted Kennedy’s death. Why would the state where Romneycare was founded be opposed to Obamacare if the two laws were really the same? The answer is, of course, that they are not the same. While there are similarities between the two laws, there are also key differences. Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.


RomneyCare
ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
Popularity
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Mass. constitution never considered this a tax
-Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
Federalism
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.


As the above table illustrates, the plan Romney proposed was a much more conservative, business friendly law than what the Democrats passed under President Obama.

The Boston Globe editorial board recently published an article defending RomneyCare on conservative grounds. The editorial board states “the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business friendly. Romney was a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate.”

A crucial difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that the two healthcare plans, while similar in some ways, present vast differences in the essential origins and motives that separate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One author summarized it this way:
 

We know what Romney’s goal was when he passed his health care plan. His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts’ residents [who didn't have health insurance and who were receiving free health care from the government.]

Obama’s goal prior to signing Obamacare into law was much, much bigger.
In 2003, he said, ”I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

The fact is, Obamacare was originally going to be single payer. It was going to be European — as close to it as Congress would allow. But that was curbed. What they got, instead — what we got, instead — was the first step. Obamacare. The first step toward single-payer, universal healthcare coverage.

And that is the crucial difference. Romney never said, never touted, never promised that “we may not get [single-payer] immediately” or even a little later than immediately. Romneycare is not Obamacare because Obamacare is just getting started. One was an end in and of itself. The other is (still) a means to an end.

In 2006 when RomneyCare was passed, most conservatives praised Romney’s plan. The Bush administration sent a letter praising the passage of the new law. An often overlooked fact is that without the support of the Bush administration, Romney’s health care law never would have become a reality.

One of Romney’s main goals in passing healthcare legislation was to counter many much more liberal attempts within Massachusetts to take over the healthcare system. The Boston Globe newspaper discusses in detail one plan that Romney feared would become law if action was not taken. That plan was the imposition of a payroll tax of up to $1,700 per employee on all businesses that did not offer health insurance to their employees. It was a serious threat. The plan had been voted on in the year 2000 and the law barely failed by 3%. In 2006 the employer mandate coupled with a heavy payroll tax was to be voted on again.

In regard to ObamaCare, Romney firmly believes that each state should have the right to craft its own health care program. Health care has traditionally been a state issue, not a federal issue, and Romney wants to keep it that way. In his book, No Apology, Romney states:

“My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others.”

In keeping with the belief that states should be able to craft their own programs, Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would issue a waiver to all 50 states allowing them to opt out of ObamaCare. This waiver would allow states to postpone the implementation of ObamaCare while Romney works with congress to formally repeal the bill.

In conclusion, a recent article in The New Yorker magazine states that “Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal – universal health insurance – by combining three conservative policies.” In other words, Romney had beaten Democrats at their own goal of providing universal health insurance – but Romney’s novel approach accomplished this goal not with a government takeover, but with conservative principles. The success of Romney’s healthcare law led many Democrats to consider adopting a similar approach to achieving universal health insurance. However, the end result from the Democrats under President Obama was a plan with a much larger government, much greater spending, increased taxes, and less power to the states and individuals to determine their own health care goals.

Knock Out Punch – Conservative’s Plea

Leadership and Perspective

Recently a few of those in conservative circles have been calling upon Mitt Romney to lay a knock-out punch on Obama, believing that the timing is right with the Supreme Court ruling and Obamacare. They further perceive weakness in the Romney team, which has not been as assertive as they might want in this regard, and consequentially the team needs an overhaul or shake-up. There is no question that a certain weakness exists in Obama because of Obamacare. To some degree, within the recent Supreme Court ruling and public animus toward Obamacare there is a window to capitalize upon. Even so, as to weakness in Obama, take your pick! Fortunately or unfortunately for us, there are many points of weakness in Obama: detachment; failed leadership; foreign policy (or lack thereof); security leaks; unbridled spending; obviation of Constitutional checks and balances through imperious edict and czars; Fast and Furious; immigration; burdensome debt and consequential intergenerational theft; lack, or undermining of trade policy; undermining of religious freedoms; abandonment of fundamental American values wherein he has undermined our social fabric by not defending marriage, family and life; failed economic and job policies; attempted purchasing of society; overburdensome and oppressive regulation, just to list a few. Appreciating the many conservative voices in the mix and the want to take out Obama now, we must recognize in our want for instant gratification that it is a process – a week is a lifetime in politics. If we can glean anything from history, within the political process, campaigns will experience innumerable ups and downs – and a week does not necessarily make or define a campaign – perspective.

Notwithstanding the dynamics of the process, the key constant and stratagem of a successful campaign must remain in a critically focused message, appreciating the want for static knock-out punches along the way. If there is any measure attributable to Mitt Romney and his team, it is focus, focus and focus! This does not presuppose the campaign should not and will not be agile and responsive to attacks or opportunities as they arise. However, amid the commotion and voices from the right or left the message is and remains, the economy! With the recent employment statistics and those that are sure to follow in the ensuing months, the economy will continue to be the key catalyst for change on November 6th.

Parenthetically, an interesting metaphor that harkens my thoughts and further applies to the commotive voices – when Israel was victorious over Egypt in the 6-day war. Notwithstanding the breadth of its border with Egypt, Israel’s strategy was to identify Egypt’s weakest point, line up its tanks and penetrate the border and then disperse. It was an elegant strategy for victory. The Romney team has similarly identified Obama’s weakest point (much to the suffering of America), the economy, and is laser focused on its message.

Surely, there will be many voices – Obama, his campaign and PR machine chief among them, that will seek to distract the message away from the economy and Obama’s record. Whether it is immigration, Mitt Romney’s character and personal wealth, 99:1 and class warfare, Obamacare or whatever, Romney’s campaign needs to keep its primary focus on the catalyst for change, the economy and jobs. People in America are ‘tired’ and ‘suffering’ and unlike Obama, Mitt gets it.

Mitt Romney has assembled a great team whose depth and resources are second to none. As the general election cycle continues, the team will continue to expand as was recently announced with Kevin Madden being elevated in his role, or as resources are culled and called upon for the evolving campaign dynamics and/or the Vice Presidential candidate. Gratefully, we have a candidate and support team that understands the process and is earnestly steadfast in what matters. They listen, gather data, adapt, and press forward with purpose in the message. What is the phrase – too many chefs in the kitchen spoil the broth? I am just saying… With so many passionate, interested and influential voices speaking simultaneously, and further compounded with the Obama campaign and public relations machine, the Romney campaign must remain adherent to a clarion voice of purpose, message and focus. Can they do better in communicating the message with clarity and passion? Yes. Does it require a shake-up and overhaul? No. Will the campaign be sufficiently agile in drawing upon needed, adaptive and experienced resources? Yes.

Our anxieties and wants to get Obama out now can encumber and cloud our perspective, especially if we allow it to seep into the cracks of our faith, or our understanding of ‘enduring’ campaigns. Gratefully and confidently, Romney has been sufficiently steeled in his experience to have the wisdom necessary to filter the voices of commotion; and is further endowed with the key leadership capacities to listen and guide his campaign and our country to victory in November. To paraphrase Ann Romney, with Mitt Romney the country wins, with Barack Obama, we lose!

Appreciating the quarterbacking from so many and the need to express critically constructive opinion, now is the time to stand as one, unified and aligned with Mitt Romney, that we might take back America and restore our economy and freedoms; he remains our hope for America’s future. Even so, as we are wont to offer constructive thoughts, we must do so with consideration for Obama’s PR machine and how they might seek to use our commentary as a further divide to fracture our party and nation. Without any doubt, now is the time to raise our voices with purpose and measure! Now is the time to draw upon the strength of America and Americans, coalescing all interests behind Mitt Romney to take back what we have lost in the Obama Era – restoring freedom, liberty, our economy and America’s exceptionalism.

Follow David Parker on Twitter @dparkersrs

David Parker’s latest book.

Romney Says Obama’s Health Care Mandate is a Tax

In an interview today, Mitt Romney clarified his view on whether or not Obama’s individual health care mandate is a tax.

In that interview, Romney states:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken.”

“They concluded it was a tax. That’s what it is, and the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made,” he added. “He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it’s now clear that his mandate as described by the Supreme Court is a tax.”

In the run up to the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, Republicans, including Romney, had hoped that the mandate would be found unconstitutional as both a penalty and a tax. Republicans also argued that the mandate could not legitimately be classified as a tax. It should not be a surprise then that Romney, as well as other Republicans, originally disagreed with the majority ruling that found Obamacare constitutional as a tax.

But now that the Supreme Court has ruled, their ruling becomes the law of the land and the reality America must accept. As Romney said in his interview today, “If the Supreme Court says its a tax, it’s a tax.”

Romney believes that since we are stuck with the ruling and definition of the Supreme Court, Obama needs to be held accountable to the American people for that ruling. Obama needs to be held accountable to the American people that he raised their taxes after promising many times that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.

The Supreme Court ruling then represents a major problem for President Obama because he can now be accurately described as a “tax raiser,” and a politician who can’t (whether intentionally or unintentionally) keep his campaign promises. And Romney fully intends to exploit that weakness in the coming campaign.

Barack Obama and his Dancing Ducks — The “ObamaTax”

ObamaCare — Here are the facts by phase as supported by the liberals:

First: Mr. Obama and surrogates vehemently argued for months that the bill (and then law) was not a tax and that those earning below $250,000 would not see taxes go up.

Second: Mr. Obama’s lawyers argue to the Supreme Court that the ObamaCare mandate is supported as a “tax.” They come right out and call it a “tax.”

Third: The Supreme Court this week agrees with Mr. Obama’s lawyers that ObamaCare’s mandate is supported as a tax.

Fourth: Mr. Obama’s surrogates are now stating ObamaCare’s mandate is really not a tax; that it is really a “penalty” or a “fee.” What is their next phase?

The Wall Street Journal published a short piece yesterday titled, “The Tax Duck”:

Editor’s note: The duck test—if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
[...]
Herewith, from President Obama on down, is a sampling of Democratic denials that the individual mandate is a tax:

President Barack Obama, talking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, September 2009:

Stephanopoulos: Your critics say it [the mandate] is a tax increase.

Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but—

Stephanopoulos; But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

***
From the White House website, December 2009, under the headline, “The Truth on Health Care Reform and Taxes”:

As we move into the final stage of the historic push for health reform, opponents of reform are testing the age old adage that if you only say something enough times you can somehow make it true. Yesterday, we heard a new version of the old, tired refrain that the health reform bills in Congress would raise taxes on the middle class. So let’s set the record straight: First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

***
Then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, July 2010: “I don’t see this as a tax.”

***
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, February 2012: “It [the mandate] operates the same way a tax would operate, but it’s not per se a tax.”

***
Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients appearing before House Budget Committee, February 2012:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.): If I make under $250,000 and I do not buy health insurance as I’m required to under the Affordable Care Act, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me? A moment ago you said there are no tax increases.

Zients: There aren’t.

Garrett: So that’s not a tax?

Zients: No.

***
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi commenting Thursday on the Roberts decision: “Call it what you will.”

Watch this short video of Axelrod doing the dance with Matt Lauer yesterday. Is Axelrod sly or what? I find it absolutely fascinating how Democrats are throwing the potato around to one another as they dance around truth!

Matt Lauer, NBC “TODAY” show host: “The good news [for you] is the Supreme Court said that the mandate is constitutional. The bad news is they said they are a tax. Back in 2009, the President adamantly denied that health care reform was going to be a tax on the American people. Does he now agree that this legislation, this law is a tax?”

David Axelrod, Obama campaign: “Whatever you call it, Matt, whether you call it a mandate or a tax, what it is, is a penalty on the very few Americans who don’t — who can afford health care, don’t pay for it, end up in our emergency rooms getting free care and then we all pay for it in the form of higher premiums.”

In the opening segment of The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Democrat “strategist” Julie Roginsky continues the dance (moon walk) as she completely dodges Laura Ingraham’s very simple, straightforward inquiries. As with Mr. Obama, Roginsky blames others including Governor Romney as she so artfully pivots, evades, and dodges each question all the while with a smile!


Remember those old westerns where a gunslinger is shooting the ground at the feet of another cowboy as he is dancing all over the place to avoid being hit by the bullets? For the next 128+ days, we will watch Governor Romney firing away at Mr. Obama and his lemmings as they toss the “ObamaTax” (coined by Hannity yesterday) potato from one person to the next.

“Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.” ~ Thomas Sowell


Values, distinctly American: “Liberty” — “In God We Trust” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist

Obamacare Ruling by The Supreme Court – A Preview of the Impact

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare any day now, although most expect that ruling to happen sometime in the end of June.

Since the ruling could happen so soon, I wanted to explore what impact the court’s ruling might have on Obama’s (or Romney’s) support. Luckily, there are really only 3 general ways that the court will rule, so we don’t have to get too complicated here.

#1) If the Supreme Court strikes down ALL of Obamacare as unconstitutional . . . .

Republicans will rejoice and Obama will suffer a major defeat. That is it, plain and simple. One commentator summarized the effect this would have on Obama by saying: 

“There is undeniable danger in the optics of an election-year health care defeat, just as there was in early 2010 when the bill teetered. Obama simply can’t allow health care to be a Jimmy Carter-in-the-desert moment, proof that he recklessly, fecklessly pushed through a doomed law at the expense of focusing on the economy and jobs.

If the entire bill is struck down, the credibility of Obama to deliver on his promise of “hope and change” will disintegrate. The American people will ask themselves “How can I trust Obama to improve my situation if his biggest domestic accomplishment turns out to be unconstitutional? How could a former professor of constitutional law err so badly by passing a huge unconstitutional law?” Needless to say, if the Supreme Court struck down the whole bill, this would be a disaster for the president. Obama’s credibility to bring about real change in America will be severely crippled.

Of course Obama could try to pick up the pieces of the disaster by decrying a “purely partisan Supreme Court,” and how he is the only candidate to attempt bold, sweeping change in health care reform, but it wouldn’t be enough. His brand would be too badly damaged.

#2) If Obamacare is upheld in its entirety . . . . 

This ruling would be a mixed bag for the president. He could claim success in reforming healthcare, something no president has done for almost 50 years. He could claim that bold, sweeping innovations was what his presidency was all about and now he is fulfilling that promise. 

However, despite the advantages of such a ruling, Obama would then be forced to defend a deeply unpopular mandate that requires all Americans purchase health insurance. A ruling that upheld Obamacare would rally conservatives and opponents of the mandate like never before in a last ditch attempt to overturn the mandate by electing Republican Mitt Romney who has vowed to repeal it. In my opinion, even if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, the issue will be overall negative for the president simply because it will rally the opponents so powerfully.

#3) If part of the law is struck down . . . . 

Republicans will cheer but vow to repeal the rest. Obama will sustain a heavy blow but will claim a partial victory for fixing a broken health care system. Neither side will have a clear win on the issue but I believe the Republicans will have the advantage. Republicans will claim that they fought and partially dismantled major components of the unpopular law. Obama will still be too hesitant to tout the law for fear of siding with an overall unpopular bill. 

So all-in-all, there is a good chance that no matter what the outcome, the bill is a loser for Obama. 

Interestingly, during the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare, Romney was vindicated in his assertion that an individual mandate is unconstitutional when passed by the federal government, but it is constitutional when passed by a state government. Paul Clement, the main lawyer who worked to get rid of Obamacare’s mandate, said the following about Romney’s statewide mandate:

Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.

“I do think the States could pass this mandate,” Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other.”

If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama’s mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal.

Because the federal government is granted limited/”enumerated” powers by the  constitution, it has no authority to pass an individual mandate. However, nobody is arguing that states don’t have the right to institute an individual mandate because states are granted much broader “policing” and regulating powers. 

NRA Leadership Forum: Romney Addressed Theme of American Values


The National Rifle Association Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum has been ongoing this week in St. Louis, Missouri. An important GOP interest group, the annual meeting attracts top conservatives.

Governor Mitt Romney addressed the gathering yesterday:

Although gun control groups have complained that Obama has done little to support their cause, Romney took a page from the NRA leadership, which has been saying that the president is waiting for a second term to crack down on firearms. He warned that Obama would “remake” the Supreme Court in a second term, threatening constitutional freedoms.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the Edward Jones Dome.

Referring specifically to the right to bear arms, Romney said: “If we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will.”

Governor Romney’s speech:

In his first term, we’ve seen the president try to browbeat the Supreme Court. In a second term, he would remake it. Our freedoms would be in the hands of an Obama Court, not just for four years, but for the next 40. That must not happen.

As President, I will uphold the rule of law – and put America back on the path toward the Founders’ vision. I don’t want to transform America; I want to return America to the principles that made this nation great.

Our Founders began this great American Experiment. They created a nation conceived in liberty and they entrusted us with the duty to preserve it and defend it.

A transcript of Romney’s speech may be read here.

I like this photo…

Mitt and Ann Romney NRA 2012

Before addressing the crowd at the NRA Leadership Forum, Governor Mitt Romney asked his wife, Ann, to say a few words. April 13, 2012 (Photo Whitney Curtis/Getty Images)

(more…)

Obama’s Latest Misstatement: Gaffe or Another Window to the Soul?

UPDATE:

On my way home from work tonight I heard the following exchange between Hannity and Ann Coulter, with Ms. Coulter arguing in part what I state below: judicial activism is not a court finding a law unconstitutional, but finding new rights or failing to enforce existing constitutional rights. Often she’s a bit extreme to be taken completely at face value, but I think she’s right to point out the judicial activism that concerns the right is not what apparently concerns the left:


ORIGINAL POST:

If you thought the open mic comment to new Russian President Medvedev was pretty bad, President Obama has created some competition for himself in the gaffe department. Or was it another window to his soul?

You may have heard that Monday President Obama appeared to warn the Supreme Court regarding its pending decision on Obamacare. His comments were as follows:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Yahoo called the remark a “challenge” to the Court. Others weren’t so kind. Among other problems with the President’s statement, you may recall that whether Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” can be called into question. It was a purely party-line vote. But I digress.

I’m willing to assume President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, understands the concept of judicial review, and that courts overturning unconstitutional laws is not “unprecedented.” As a liberal, he may even be among the first to re-affirm that Marbury v. Madison is still good law. But the tone and chosen wording of the President’s comments caused the White House to have to defend itself from some of those “unkind” remarks yesterday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (the guy distributing the Obama Kool-Aid) tried to make the case the President was “clearly” referring only to commerce clause cases, and with respect to those only those of the past 80 years. Neither qualification, of course, was actually included in the President’s initial comments. When pushed as to whether the president was clarifying his remarks, Carney said “Only because a handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to.”

Here’s a link to the video should you care to watch. Today he added that the President had been speaking in “short-hand.” I hope that flexibility is accorded both sides in campaign season. We’ll see.

The president’s statement caused Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post to write:

Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

And she makes clear she’s on his side otherwise. (more…)

Mitt Romney's Pro-Life Pledge


I’m a staunch pro-life believer. I believe that Mitt is a good and decent man who will make the best decisions for our society. I take him at his word when he says “I am pro-life”.

Today, he wrote this pledge to reaffirm his stance on the issue and — like the other candidates on stage at the last debate agreed — it’s time to put this issue to rest:

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that non-governmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.

I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written.

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.

-Mitt Romney

See also our on-site recourse past includes past videos and quotes from Mitt Romney on Abortion.