Democrats fire on Ft. Sumter
When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."
Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back-and-forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.
What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.
In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.
So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.
Here in Indiana, for example, the state has reported that the enactment of ObamaCare will open up the government-subsidized Medicaid system to approximately 500,000 Hoosiers. That means half a million more citizens will be receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. But who will pay for it? Well, in order to carry off their outrageous lie to the American people that ObamaCare is going to save us money (the hubris behind such a laughable suggestion is impossible to fully grasp), the Democrats have mandated that the states pick up the tab for this Medicaid stampede.
Someone should tell the teachers' unions who foam at the mouth anytime someone mentions funding cuts to the public school system that they ain't seen nothin' yet. When a state like Indiana has to pick up a tab that equals billions of dollars to fund the excessive doctor and hospital visits that will soon be "free" to 500,000 more citizens, does anyone expect not to see drastic cuts in other areas, as well as massive tax increases? Yet teachers unions' continue to support the very Democrats who are forcing this funding Armageddon.
So the states will undoubtedly sue – indeed somewhere between five to ten are already actively pursuing such a strategy. They will ask the federal courts to strike down multiple provisions of ObamaCare, including the blatantly unconstitutional federal mandate that all citizens purchase healthcare. (See related article: Lawsuit awaits Obama's signature on bill)
Even the most left-leaning constitutional law experts have had a hard time coming up with a defense of the individual mandate. About the best they've got is the silly suggestion that such a mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause. But at the end of the day, they are forced to recognize that if that be the case, the Commerce Clause must be interpreted to give Congress the ability to force anyone to buy anything (next time GM is in trouble, they could just pass a law requiring you to buy a GM vehicle within a year) – a clearly untenable position to anyone who is sane.
A second battle will manifest at the ballot box as Congressional Democrats face the uncomfortable reality that their president and party leadership have made them walk the plank into a sea of furious, motivated citizens. In order to secure enough votes for passage, President Obama promised wary lawmakers that their constituents would forget about this issue come Election Day. That, of course, is preposterous. The vote Sunday only guaranteed an explosion of growth for the Tea Party movement. And it also demonstrated this crystal clear reality: there is a difference between the two political parties...a BIG difference.
Say what you will about past Republican Party indiscretions (and there have been many), but not a single Republican voted for this atrocity (see 219-212 Roll Call vote). In fact, Republicans led a courageous effort to thwart the authoritarian Democrats while offering common-sense alternatives that actually would help lower healthcare costs.
So that's what's coming next. From there, it's too early to tell. Millions of citizens are preparing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent their tax money from being used to pay for abortions (as ObamaCare did, does, and will always allow), several states are reviving the nullification theory, and Republicans are promising a fight to repeal the legislation.
But this much is clear: Sunday's vote was only the beginning. Things are about to get very interesting.
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 3/22/2010
When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."
Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back-and-forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.
What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.
In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.
So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.
Here in Indiana, for example, the state has reported that the enactment of ObamaCare will open up the government-subsidized Medicaid system to approximately 500,000 Hoosiers. That means half a million more citizens will be receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. But who will pay for it? Well, in order to carry off their outrageous lie to the American people that ObamaCare is going to save us money (the hubris behind such a laughable suggestion is impossible to fully grasp), the Democrats have mandated that the states pick up the tab for this Medicaid stampede.
Someone should tell the teachers' unions who foam at the mouth anytime someone mentions funding cuts to the public school system that they ain't seen nothin' yet. When a state like Indiana has to pick up a tab that equals billions of dollars to fund the excessive doctor and hospital visits that will soon be "free" to 500,000 more citizens, does anyone expect not to see drastic cuts in other areas, as well as massive tax increases? Yet teachers unions' continue to support the very Democrats who are forcing this funding Armageddon.
So the states will undoubtedly sue – indeed somewhere between five to ten are already actively pursuing such a strategy. They will ask the federal courts to strike down multiple provisions of ObamaCare, including the blatantly unconstitutional federal mandate that all citizens purchase healthcare. (See related article: Lawsuit awaits Obama's signature on bill)
Even the most left-leaning constitutional law experts have had a hard time coming up with a defense of the individual mandate. About the best they've got is the silly suggestion that such a mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause. But at the end of the day, they are forced to recognize that if that be the case, the Commerce Clause must be interpreted to give Congress the ability to force anyone to buy anything (next time GM is in trouble, they could just pass a law requiring you to buy a GM vehicle within a year) – a clearly untenable position to anyone who is sane.
A second battle will manifest at the ballot box as Congressional Democrats face the uncomfortable reality that their president and party leadership have made them walk the plank into a sea of furious, motivated citizens. In order to secure enough votes for passage, President Obama promised wary lawmakers that their constituents would forget about this issue come Election Day. That, of course, is preposterous. The vote Sunday only guaranteed an explosion of growth for the Tea Party movement. And it also demonstrated this crystal clear reality: there is a difference between the two political parties...a BIG difference.
Say what you will about past Republican Party indiscretions (and there have been many), but not a single Republican voted for this atrocity (see 219-212 Roll Call vote). In fact, Republicans led a courageous effort to thwart the authoritarian Democrats while offering common-sense alternatives that actually would help lower healthcare costs.
So that's what's coming next. From there, it's too early to tell. Millions of citizens are preparing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent their tax money from being used to pay for abortions (as ObamaCare did, does, and will always allow), several states are reviving the nullification theory, and Republicans are promising a fight to repeal the legislation.
But this much is clear: Sunday's vote was only the beginning. Things are about to get very interesting.
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 3/22/2010
pel
No comments:
Post a Comment