@irreplaceable-spark / irreplaceable-spark.tumblr.com
How about they not decide what people can eat or not eat - if they wanted to actually protect people they would just pass a law stating that all food products must list in detail everything in it and then it is up to the consumer what they want to do with this information. If that were the case many people would be repulsed by what is allowed in processed food but then it becomes a real choice.
In case you haven’t heard, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments today regarding Obamacare’s very specific use of the words “established by the state.” See, the law says that only states can set up Obamacare exchanges, but after several states decided not to implement Obamacare, the IRS unilaterally decided to circumvent the law’s wording (as well as the Constitution) and institute a national version of the subsidies for insurance exchanges.
The IRS invented this “rule” with zero statutory basis and even had to delete previous rules in order to keep from contradicting themselves. Effectively, the IRS completely dumped the entire phrase “established by the state” and re-wrote the law to include the Federal health insurance exchange (from which we got the epic failure of the Obamacare website).
Supreme Court experts always tell you not to read too much into how the justices question the solicitors before them. However, if we were to try to read the tea leaves from today’s oral arguments, it doesn’t look so good for the Constitution. All 9 of the justices appear to understand that the gravity of striking down the Federal exchange would virtually cripple the entire law. Justice Kennedy (who is undoubtedly the swing vote in this case as he in in most cases) even used the words “death spiral” to describe the consequences of killing the illegal Federal exchange.
from Hot Air:
He could simply side with the White House’s reading of “established by a State” and rule that “State” includes “federal government” for purposes of subsidies. Or he could decide that, whatever was meant by “established by a State,” he has no choice but to side with the White House according to the Court’s own rules of interpretation. One of those rules, trumpeted lately by lefties and mentioned today by Kennedy, is “constitutional avoidance,” which says that if a phrase in a statute is unclear and you’re trying to decide how to read it, a judge should read it in a way that doesn’t implicate constitutional principles. (Constitutional rulings have major consequences are are all but impossible for Congress to undo so the Court tries to avoid them whenever possible, at least in theory.) A similar rule also mentioned today by Kennedy during oral arguments is the “Chevron rule,” which says that when a statutory phrase is unclear, a judge should lean towards the interpretation of the federal agency that’s enforcing the statute, in this case the IRS. Here, “constitutional avoidance” and the Chevron rule point the same way, towards the White House’s interpretation of “established by a State.” If you believe, a la Kennedy, that the challengers’ reading of that phrase would violate federalist principles under the Constitution, you should prefer the feds’ reading. If you believe that the IRS’s decision to extend subsidies to customers on the federal exchange deserves some deference, you should also prefer the feds’ reading. The third option open to Kennedy is the trickiest. What if he decides that “established by a State” isn’t unclear, that the plaintiffs are obviously right that “State” means the states only, not the federal government — but that, per the federalism/coercion reasoning of those 1990s cases, that means the statute is … unconstitutional? What happens to the statute then? Is the entire subsidies scheme, not just for federal customers but for state customers, now illegal? That would be an even bigger disaster for the White House than they’re expecting. Or, as SCOTUSblog suggests, would Kennedy decide that because the state subsidy scheme is unconstitutional, the only solution is to remove the element of coercion by letting subsides flow to customers on the federal exchange too, which would be a total win for the White House? If Kennedy goes the latter route, he’d essentially be curing a constitutional defect by rewriting the statute himself to make it conform to the White House’s expectations. How’s that for drama?
The third option is obviously the correct one. We know for a fact (thanks to Obama’s pal Jonathan Gruber) that the law was intentionally constructed in such a way as to punish the states that didn’t set up their own exchanges. We have him (the architect of Obamacare) admitting that on camera multiple times.
The way the Obamacare law is written has severe Constitutional issues because the Founding Fathers made it clear that the principles of Federalism prevent the Federal government from coercing the State legislatures into action. The law’s text jeopardizes the entire system of Federalism and would set a precedent that Congress can force State governments to act. The phrase “established by the state” is not a “typo,” as some in the media have argued. It is an intentional violation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, if Kennedy were to side with the Obama administration on this issue, he would also give future Congresses a free pass to include vague wording in laws and change their positions on them when challenged. It would render the written law into a moving target, and any interpretation of any law would be subject to the whims of whoever was elected into office.
The FBI apparently doesn’t think the 1st and 4th Amendment applies to them.
from WND:
In a deliberate “show of force,” federal and local police forces raided a political meeting in Texas, fingerprinting and photographing all attendees as well as confiscating all cell phones and personal recording devices.
Members of the Republic of Texas, a secession movement dedicated to restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic, had gathered Feb. 14 in a Bryan, Texas, meeting hall along with public onlookers. They were debating issues of currency, international relations and celebrating the birthday of one of their oldest members. The group, which describes itself as “congenial and unimposing,” maintains a small working government, including official currency, congress and courts.
According to MySanAntonio.com: “Minutes into the meeting a man among the onlookers stood and moved to open the hall door, letting in an armed and armored force of the Bryan Police Department, the Brazos County Sheriff’s Office, the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office, agents of the Texas district attorney, the Texas Rangers and the FBI.
“In the end, at least 20 officers corralled, searched and fingerprinted all 60 meeting attendees, before seizing all cellphones and recording equipment in a Valentine’s Day 2015 raid on the Texas separatist group.”
“We had no idea what was going on,” said John Jarnecke, president of the Republic of Texas. “We knew of nothing that would warrant such an action.”
Information Liberation noted, “The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ‘simulated court documents’ — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ‘simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ‘show of force’ – 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”
The invalid court summons was signed by Susan Cammak, a Kerr County homeowner, and David Kroupa, a Republic of Texas judge from Harris County.
The search warrant against the Republic of Texas authorized the seizure of “all computers, media storage, software, cell phones and paper documents.” Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer said the seized devices “will be downloaded and reviewed to determine if others conspired in the creation and issuance of false court documents.”
Police searched and fingerprinted each person at the meeting, but they did not perform cheek-swab DNA testing as the warrant allowed.
“You can’t just let people go around filing false documents to judges trying to make them appear in front of courts that aren’t even real courts,” Hierholzer, who led the operation, told the Houston Chronicle.
I would submit that the “summons” issued to the judge would still be protected under the 1st Amendment. The group didn’t try to force the judge to appear. They sent him a piece of paper, that’s all. If that qualifies as “intimidation,” then there is no freedom of speech left in this country.
The issue of succession is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what this group’s political positions are nor how unpopular they might be. We must stand up for the rights of everyone to peaceably assemble and speak. We must stand up for the rights of everyone to be free from searches and seizures like this.
SEATTLE (AP) -- The U.S. Forest Service is proposing permanent new rules that would require media organizations to obtain a permit to film and shoot photographs in more than 100 million acres of the nation's wilderness.
This is ridiculous. You should not need a permit to film in the forest. This is the government trying to squeeze more money out of its people and extending its oversight. I think this is infringing upon the media's rights and this allows for media then to be subjected to government bias. If the government doesn't like the story, then the media can't get the permit. The government is definitely overreaching with this proposal.
