Friday, June 29, 2012

A SILVER LINING, DICTA, AND GENERAL WELFARE (WHATEVER!)

CONGRESS HAS BEEN VINDICATED BY THE DICTUM OF THE SUPREME COURT TO AUTHORIZE AS A TAX (NOT A PENALTY) TO BE IMPOSED "IF"  ...

DICTUM
n, Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis of judgement. The standard counter argument is: "It is only dictum (or dicta)".


IN OTHER WORDS (THE FOX IS IN THE HEN HOUSE) ... THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING CONGRESS FROM ELIMINATING OR MODIFYING THE LAW OR THE IMPOSED TAX; THEREFORE CHOKING THE LIFE OUT OF THE OBJECT OF THE DICTUM.  NOW THE SHOE MAY FIT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLETE THE MARATHON. 
HOWEVER, THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THE AHCA ... THE VOTERS AND NATION SHOULD BE REMINDED OF JUST HOW OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ENACTED THIS HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL.  IT WAS ENACTED WITH LEGISLATIVE BRIBES, USING ARCANE CONGRESSIONAL RULES, AND WITHOUT A SHRED OF BIPARTISANSHIP.  HOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WALKED INTO THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY WITH THEIR EYES WIDE SHUT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE FACT 'THEY' ARE THE MOST IGNORANT ELECTORATE IN THE FREE WORLD.

Article ISection 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
  • the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
  • prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[8]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[9]
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
  • James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[10][11] It should be noted that the requisite threshold of nine states for ratification of the constitution had already been met by the time Virginia ratified[12], and eight states had already ratified before the specific paper in which Madison made this argument [13] was published in bound form [14][15]. Before this time, they had only been published irregularly outside of New York[16], which itself ratified after Virgina. While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders[17], they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[18][19][20][dubious ]
  • Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[21] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[22]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[23]
Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[24] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[25] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[7] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.


THIS ISSUE ISN'T OVER YET ... NOT BY A LONG SHOT!



























Sunday, June 24, 2012

ONE POTATO, TWO POTATO, THREE POTATO, MASHED

Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats.
But an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, play no favorites. Using simple common sense to call them and a little understanding of history the following prediction can be made ... for a Romney victory!
32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense.

Here is the gut instinct from Los Vegas book maker.

  • Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama.
  • But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
  • Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
  • Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
  • Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.
  • Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

FISHY, CATCH & RELEASE, NOW SLOW ROAST


President Barack Obama declined to take any questions from reporters about his controversial and significant decision to offer a de-facto amnesty to at least 800,000 foreigners aged 15 to 30.

The president turned and walked away from reporters at the end of an early afternoon address in the White House’s Rose Garden, even though two reporters called out questions about his decision.

The announcement of the decision comes at a time of record unemployment among low-skilled workers, Hispanics and African-Americans.

For example, less than 50 percent of younger African-Americans have full-time jobs, according to data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unemployment among Hispanics, youth and African-Americans rose in May, according to the BLS.

Obama justified his immigration decision by saying it is supported by business lobbies.

The president has often used this no-questions strategy when making important or poll-boosting announcements. (VIDEO: Reporter explains his Rose Garden exchange with Obama)

It allows him to deliver his message to his target audience, uncluttered by awkward questions. He speaks smoothly and finishes very rapidly, leaving assertive reporters few chances to ask a question before he reaches the refuge of the Oval Office door.
Ads by Google

Sometimes, the president does answer shouted questions. At the end of a March 23 Rose garden event, for example, he answered a shouted question about Trayvon Martin, a Florida youth killed in February.

On Friday The Daily Caller asked a question as his speech appeared to be ending.

The president rebuked the TheDC, but then he declined to answer any other questions when he finished his carefully crafted statement.

He declined to answer TheDC’s shouted question about the impact of his new policy on American workers. He also failed to answer another reporter’s question.

In previous administrations, some reporters used the tactic very effectively. ABC’s Sam Donaldson, for example, was famous for his shouted questions to President George H.W. Bush.

TheDC’s shouted question was described as a heckle by some established outlets.

Obama’s deputy, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, followed the same strategy Friday during a morning telephone press-conference. She gave a short statement and then left the conference while two officials provided not-for-attribution answers to selected reporters’ questions.

The reporters selected to offer questions included established media outlets and Spanish-language outlets. The chosen outlets included the Los Angeles Times, CNN, National Journal, Univision, The New York Times and La Prensa.

The selected reporters did not ask about the controversial impact on American workers.

During the Rose Garden event, Obama depicted the immigrants as Americans except for their legal status.

This pitch blurred the political distinction between Americans and foreigners, and helps him portray the illegal immigrants as deserving of American citizenship.

American citizenship is a highly valued status, because it provides Americans with legal protections worldwide and gives them access to the shared wealth and sympathy of other Americans. Millions of illegal immigrants have risked their lives to win the prize for themselves and their children.

Obama has been under increased pressure from Hispanic lobbies to provide access to citizenship for up to 10 million illegal immigrants, whose arrival will boost the clout of ethnic lobbies.

In general, Democratic politicians have favored easy immigration, despite the impact it has on American workers, who provided the party’s base up until the 1980s.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/munro-obama-ignores-questions-about-controversial-de-facto-amnesty-decision/#ixzz1xuH6RzxU

THE LAW IS IN THE NUMBERS ...

HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER ... 

COLUMNIST ANDREW MCCARTHY GIVES US WHAT PROBABLY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ... "

  1. JUSTICE SCALIA JUST TURNED 78 YEARS OF AGE
  2. JUSTICE KENNEDY LATER THIS YEAR WILL TURN 78 YEARS OLD
  3. JUSTICE BREYER WILL BE 76 IN AUGUST
  4. JUSTICE GINSBURG RECENTLY TURNED 81 YEARS OF AGE
OF COURSE WE ALL WISH EACH OF THEM A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE ... BUT,  THE STATISTICAL REALITY AND FACT IS, WHOMEVER IS ELECT AS PRESIDENT IN NOVEMBER WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO BE CHOOSING ONE OR MORE REPLACEMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT.  IN ADDITION HUNDREDS OF OTHER LIFE-TENURED FEDERAL JUDGES WILL BE UNDOUBTEDLY BE REPLACED. ALL OF THESE FEDERAL JUDGES WILL BE MAKING MOMENTOUS DECISIONS ABOUT OUR LIVES FOR DECADES TO COME.

SO, WHAT'S THE ISSUE ... WELL IT CAN BE SUMMED UP IN ONE PHRASE ... 


SUPREME COURT JUSTICE 
CANDIDATE 
ERIC HOLDER!!!1


























Wednesday, June 13, 2012

REASONS TO LIVE IN OKLAHOMA ...



Is the only state that Obama did not carry one county in the last election...

While everyone is focusing on Arizona 's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!
[]
An update from Oklahoma :
Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
[]
Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
[]
Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
[]
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives, joining Texas, Montana, and Utah as the only states to do so. []

More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals. The Liberals didn't like it -- But....

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.
[]
Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, the Liberals don't like any of this either.

Guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.
[][]
[]



















Saturday, June 9, 2012

IDOITS TO THE LEFT OF ME, IDOITS TO THE RIGHT ... A BUNCH OF DEAD PARROTS FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS!


House rejects effort to ban polystyrene foam containers in House cafeterias

By Pete Kasperowicz 06/08/12 11:30 AM ET

The House rejected a Democratic proposal on Friday that would have prevented the House from spending appropriated money on polystyrene foam food and beverage containers in its cafeterias.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) offered this proposal as an amendment to the 2013 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, but Republican opposition led to its defeat in a 178-229 vote. Only 10 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting it.

Moran's amendment is the latest of several Democratic attempts to bring cardboard or other more environmentally friendly containers back to House dining areas. Several times last year, House Democrats complained that Republican control of the House also brought back polystyrene foam containers — often described as Styrofoam — a point Moran reiterated during Friday morning's debate.

"We should be using recyclable and biodegradable products and avoiding polystyrene foam packaging," Moran said. "The House of Representatives is the only place within the Capitol complex to revert back to Styrofoam products."



CONGRESS & THIS SKIT IS ONE IN THE SAME ... CONGRESS IS THE DEAD PARROT


Moran also repeated the Democratic charge that Styrofoam — Dow Chemical's trademarked name for polystyrene — is unhealthy for consumers.

"Toxic chemicals leak out of these Styrofoam containers into the food and drinks they contain, and thus endanger human health and reproductive system," he said.

But Republicans rejected all of these charges, and argued against the idea that polystyrene is more environmentally sound, because alternative packaging costs more and is more resource-intensive to produce.

"Peer-review studies confirm that foam food and beverage containers, which are recyclable and, by the way, are still used by McDonald's, use significantly less energy and water than their supposed eco-friendly alternatives," Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Administration Committee, added that there is a recycling program in place that turns polystyrene waste into energy, and noted that one of these processing plants is located in Moran's own district. Lungren chided Moran for apparently wanting to kill off those jobs in his district.

"And yet the gentleman comes before us and says, 'that program you have in my district, doggone it, we just don't want it,' " Lungren said.

The Moran amendment was one of seven considered for inclusion in the legislative branch spending bill, H.R. 5882, which was expected to pass later in the day. By voice vote, members approved language from Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) that would ensure $200,000 in funding to print new pocket versions of the Constitution for members and staff.

Also by voice vote, the House approved a proposal from Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) to limit spending on printed copies of the United States Code.

Roll-call votes were needed to handle the remaining four amendments:

• From Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz), to reduce funding for Botanical Garden upkeep by $1.235 million, reducing funds to 2009 levels. Passed 213-193.

• From Rep. Broun (R-Ga.), to reduce funding for Congressional Research Service salaries and expenses by $878,000, reducing that account to 2012 levels. Passed 214-189.

• From Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), to eliminate all funding for the Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund (OWC), reducing the account by $1 million and using the funds for deficit reduction. Passed 204-203.

• From Rep. Flake (R-Ariz.), to prohibit funds made available in the bill for Member's Representational Allowances (MRAs), House Leadership Offices or Committee Employee funds from being used to purchase paid advertisements on any Internet site other than an official site of the member, leadership office or committee involved. Failed 148-261.