Death Panels are Here
http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
by Diane Rufino, Jan. 3, 2010
Socialized health care has always conjured up the fear of rationed health care to those deemed of lower social value, such as the elderly and the disabled (but not necessarily criminals and predators, of course). We’ve heard talk of “death panels” now for at least a year – those beaurocrats who would be responsible for deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not…. Those who would have to determine the value of the life that requires medical care and then make the weighted decision as to whether the costs involved would be better spent on others.
It sounds like a “cost-benefit analysis” – the kind of analysis that government officials, as well as the rich and powerful, are so fond of making to justify decisions and investments.
Rationed health care (or death panel decisions) would make sense, even though in the minds of Americans, we don’t want to face that cold reality. We look around and see the dynamic changing in our country. Those who value hard work and education and pursue the American dream (wealth and prosperity) are becoming the minority. The middle class and wealthy class are shrinking. In other words, the income tax-paying segment of society is shrinking. Those who exist at the poverty level or just above are out-producing the contributors. Immigrants and illegals are burdening our system. Health care for all that is subsidized by a shrinking subset of the population is bound to reach the point where care will NEED TO be rationed in order to remain feasible.
On July 31, 2009, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann took the floor of the House and addressed rationed health care:
“We need to know what the people who advised the President of the United States think and believe about health care reform, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the President’s advisors’ actual words is very enlightening.
This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCoy – from a column dated July 24, 2009 – and I’d like to quote extensively from it now. Ms. McCoy wrote the following. She said that the health care bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions for our care in Presidential appointees. The government will decide – not the people, not their doctors – what our plan will cover, how much lee-way our doctors will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.
But what is more important are the actual words of the President’s advisors on health care. Here are the words from one of the President’s first advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who advocates health care rationing by age and disability. He is the brother of the White House Chief of Staff and has already been appointed to two key positions: One is as Health Policy Advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and the other is as a member of the federal counsel on Comparable Effectiveness Research. This is what Dr. Emanuel has written, and I quote: “Big promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, establishing electronic medical records, and improving quality of health care are merely lipstick measures for cost control… they are more for show and public relations than for true change.”
Isn’t this how Democrats promised to save $500 billion in health care costs? The President’s own advisor, however, says this is just lip service. This isn’t where the real savings are. Savings, the President’s advisor, writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients. For example, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously.
Now hear me, Mr. Speaker. This is the President’s own advisor writing this: ‘Doctors take their Hippocratic Oath too seriously’…. as an imperative to do everything possible for the patient, regardless of the cost or effects on others. But that’s what people want and expect their doctors to do. Dr. Emanuel, on the other hand, wants doctors to look beyond the needs of the patient and consider social justice, such as if the money would be better spent on someone else.
This is a horrific notion to our nation’s doctors, but it is also a horrific notion to each American because doctors believe, just as Americans believe, that social justice is given out one patient at a time. But the President’s advisor, Dr. Emanuel, believes that communitarianism should guide decisions on who gets care. He says that care should be reserved for the non-disabled. So watch out if you or someone you love is disabled. He says care should be reserved for the non-disabled and not given to those who are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” An obvious example, he said, is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (even though they may have spent their entire lives as productive good citizens).
We just lost my father-in-law to dementia two months ago. I thank God that the doctors were able to alleviate my poor father-in-law’s symptoms at the end of his life, at age 85. Apparently, under the Democrats’ health care plan, my father-in-law would not have received the high quality of care that he received in his last two months of life. The same would apply for a grandmother with Parkinsons or a child with cerebral palsy. Watch out.
In fact, the President’s advisor defends discrimination against older patients. He writes, and I quote: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different stages of life, rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority care over 65-year-olds, everyone who is now 65 was previously 25.” [The error in his logic, of course, is that everyone really needs the medical attention when they are closer to 65 and not when they are younger, and they live their lives expecting that greater medical attention when they need it… when they need the quality of life and the comfort that comes from medical intervention]
These bills that are being rushed through Congress right now are going to cut over $500 billion from Medicare in the next ten years, putting it on the backs of the State legislatures to fill in the gaps. Knowing how unpopular these cuts are, the President’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has urged Congress to sever their own authority over Medicare in place of a new Presidentially-appointed beaurocracy that will not be accountable to the public.
The President’s next advisor, Dr. David Blumenthal, recommends that we slow medical innovation in order to control health care spending. He has long advocated government spending controls. He in fact considers the worth of medical innovation – that is, new and expensive treatment and devices – to be debatable. He says they are often associated with long waits and selective availability. He questions whether the timely, or less-than timely, care Americans get with innovative health care treatments is worth the cost.
Mr. Speaker, Americans need to wake up and read what the President and his advisors say about healthcare reform.”
On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin brought up the concept of government “Death Panels” when she wrote:
“As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.”
Palin was severely criticized for such talk of death panels. How preposterous.
But now we realize that Sarah Palin deserves an apology and Michele Bachmann, although we didn’t want to have to conceive of rationed care here in the United States, was trying to warn us. We just learned, thanks to an article in the New York Times that these women were right all along. The new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will indeed lead to “death panels” deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not. Oh, it will not be as overt as that. Instead, we will see it instead through a doctor “advising” elder patients or counseling them on end-of-life options that don’t include expensive treatments.
And in fact, that is exactly how it will play out. Under a new Medicare policy not included in the original law passed by Congress, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. This option was originally going to be included in the healthcare reform bill, but it was omitted from the final health care bill because of the potential political fall-out and claims that it would encourage euthanasia.
The final version of the health care legislation, which was signed into law by President Obama in March, authorizes Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or “wellness” visits. The new Medicare rule provides that doctors will be compensated for discussing at such wellness” visits “voluntary advance care planning,” which includes end-of-life treatment.
This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats drafting general guidelines as to who is “fit” to live and who is not. (Here is where you are supposed to shutter because you just recalled the “death panels” of Nazi Germany).
So now the Death panel ‘myth’ has been debunked. As Cal Thomas wrote on January 3rd, in his article: “New Rule May be Deadly”: “Ah, but it’s not a myth, and that’s where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the “final solution.” All human life was once regarded as having value because even government saw it as “endowed by our Creator.”
It’s true. The death panel is not a myth. It is indeed a reality which started with the New Year. The question now will be whether the panels will remain should Obamacare be invalidated or repealed. Will Medicare continue to pay doctors to counsel elderly Americans on end-of-life options that don’t include expensive treatments? At what point does advice become “coercion”? And at what point does the payment itself become coercive? Will it cloud the doctor’s mind with respect to his Hippocratic oath?
Mr. Thomas also wrote: “Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don’t measure up to “evolving” government standards. It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public… [T]he next step [will be] physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.”.
References:
Sarah Palin, “Statement on the Current Healthcare Debate,” Facebook, Aug. 7, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
Representative Michele Bachmann’s Address to the House regarding the President’s Healthcare Advisors, July 31, 2009, YouTube. Referenced at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI
Cal Thomas, “New Rule May Be Deadly,” The Daily Reflector, January 3, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.reflector.com/opinion/thomas/cal-thomas-new-rule-may-be-deadly-228345
Robert Pear, “Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir,” NY Times, Dec. 25, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Five Things We Should Worry about in 2011
Big Government
Five Things We Should Worry about in 2011
By Dan Mitchell On January 3, 2011
The mid-term elections were a rejection of President Obama’s big-government agenda, but those results don’t necessarily mean better policy. We should not forget, after all, that Democrats rammed through Obamacare even after losing the special election to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts (much to my dismay, my prediction from last January was correct.
Similarly, GOP control of the House of Representatives does not automatically mean less government and more freedom. Heck, it doesn’t even guarantee that things won’t continue to move in the wrong direction. Here are five possible bad policies for 2011, most of which the Obama White House can implement by using executive power.
1. A back-door bailout of the states from the Federal Reserve – The new GOP Congress presumably wouldn’t be foolish enough to bail out profligate states such as California and Illinois, but that does not mean the battle is won. Ben Bernanke already has demonstrated that he is willing to curry favor with the White House by debasing the value of the dollar, so what’s to stop him from engineering a back-door bailout by having the Federal Reserve buy state bonds? The European Central Bank already is using this tactic to bail out Europe’s welfare states, so a precedent already exists for this type of misguided policy. To make matters worse, there’s nothing Congress can do – barring legislation that Obama presumably would veto – to stop the Fed from this awful policy.
2. A front-door bailout of Europe by the United States – Welfare states in Europe are teetering on the edge of insolvency. Decades of big government have crippled economic growth and generated mountains of debt. Ireland and Greece already have been bailed out, and Portugal and Spain are probably next on the list, to be followed by countries such as Italy and Belgium. So why should American taxpayers worry about European bailouts? The unfortunate answer is that American taxpayers will pick up a big chunk of the tab if the International Monetary Fund is involved. Indeed, this horse already has escaped the barn. The United States provides the largest amount of subsidies to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF took part in the bailouts of Greece and Ireland. The Senate did vote against having American taxpayers take part in the bailout of Greece, but that turned out to be a symbolic exercise. Sadly, that’s probably what we can expect if and when there are bailouts of the bigger European welfare states.
3. Republicans getting duped by Obama and supporting a VAT – The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama Administration is contemplating a reduction in the corporate income tax. This sounds like a great idea, particularly since America’s punitive corporate tax rate is undermining competitiveness and hindering job creation. But what happens if Obama demands that Congress approve a value-added tax to “pay for” the lower corporate tax rate? This would be a terrible deal, sort of like a football team trading a great young quarterback for a 35-year old lineman. The VAT would give statists a money machine that they need to turn the United States into a French-style welfare state. This type of national sales tax would only be acceptable if the personal and corporate income taxes were abolished – and the Constitution was amended to make sure the federal government never again could tax what we earn and produce. But that’s not the deal Obama would offer. My fingers are crossed that Obama doesn’t offer to swap a lower corporate income tax for a VAT, particularly since we already know that some Republicans are susceptible to the VAT.
4. Regulatory imposition of global warming policy – This actually is an issue we needed to start worrying about before this year. The Obama Administration already is in the process of trying to use regulatory edicts to impose Kyoto-style restrictions on energy use, and 2011 may be a pivotal year for this issue. This issue is troubling because of the potential impact on economic growth, but it also represents an assault on the rule of law since the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are engaging in regulatory overreach because they did not have enough support to get so-called climate change legislation through Congress. The new GOP majority presumably will try to use the “power of the purse” to limit the EPA’s power grab, and the outcome of that fight could have dramatic implications for job creation and competitiveness.
5. U.N. control of the Internet – The Federal Communications Commission just engaged in an unprecedented power grab as part of its “Net Neutrality” initiative, so we already have bad news for both Internet consumers and America’s telecommunications industry. But it may get worse. The bureaucrats at the United Nations, conspiring with autocratic governments, have created an Internet Governance Forum in hopes of grabbing power over the online world. This has caused considerable angst, leading Vint Cerf, one of inventors of the Internet (sorry, Al Gore) to warn: “We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.” International bureaucracies are very skilled at incrementally increasing their authority, so this won’t be a one-year fight. Stopping this power grab will require persistent oversight and a willingness to reject compromises that inevitably give bureaucracies more power and simply set the stage for further demands.
Copyright © 2009 Big Government. All rights reserved.
Five Things We Should Worry about in 2011
By Dan Mitchell On January 3, 2011
The mid-term elections were a rejection of President Obama’s big-government agenda, but those results don’t necessarily mean better policy. We should not forget, after all, that Democrats rammed through Obamacare even after losing the special election to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts (much to my dismay, my prediction from last January was correct.
Similarly, GOP control of the House of Representatives does not automatically mean less government and more freedom. Heck, it doesn’t even guarantee that things won’t continue to move in the wrong direction. Here are five possible bad policies for 2011, most of which the Obama White House can implement by using executive power.
1. A back-door bailout of the states from the Federal Reserve – The new GOP Congress presumably wouldn’t be foolish enough to bail out profligate states such as California and Illinois, but that does not mean the battle is won. Ben Bernanke already has demonstrated that he is willing to curry favor with the White House by debasing the value of the dollar, so what’s to stop him from engineering a back-door bailout by having the Federal Reserve buy state bonds? The European Central Bank already is using this tactic to bail out Europe’s welfare states, so a precedent already exists for this type of misguided policy. To make matters worse, there’s nothing Congress can do – barring legislation that Obama presumably would veto – to stop the Fed from this awful policy.
2. A front-door bailout of Europe by the United States – Welfare states in Europe are teetering on the edge of insolvency. Decades of big government have crippled economic growth and generated mountains of debt. Ireland and Greece already have been bailed out, and Portugal and Spain are probably next on the list, to be followed by countries such as Italy and Belgium. So why should American taxpayers worry about European bailouts? The unfortunate answer is that American taxpayers will pick up a big chunk of the tab if the International Monetary Fund is involved. Indeed, this horse already has escaped the barn. The United States provides the largest amount of subsidies to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF took part in the bailouts of Greece and Ireland. The Senate did vote against having American taxpayers take part in the bailout of Greece, but that turned out to be a symbolic exercise. Sadly, that’s probably what we can expect if and when there are bailouts of the bigger European welfare states.
3. Republicans getting duped by Obama and supporting a VAT – The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama Administration is contemplating a reduction in the corporate income tax. This sounds like a great idea, particularly since America’s punitive corporate tax rate is undermining competitiveness and hindering job creation. But what happens if Obama demands that Congress approve a value-added tax to “pay for” the lower corporate tax rate? This would be a terrible deal, sort of like a football team trading a great young quarterback for a 35-year old lineman. The VAT would give statists a money machine that they need to turn the United States into a French-style welfare state. This type of national sales tax would only be acceptable if the personal and corporate income taxes were abolished – and the Constitution was amended to make sure the federal government never again could tax what we earn and produce. But that’s not the deal Obama would offer. My fingers are crossed that Obama doesn’t offer to swap a lower corporate income tax for a VAT, particularly since we already know that some Republicans are susceptible to the VAT.
4. Regulatory imposition of global warming policy – This actually is an issue we needed to start worrying about before this year. The Obama Administration already is in the process of trying to use regulatory edicts to impose Kyoto-style restrictions on energy use, and 2011 may be a pivotal year for this issue. This issue is troubling because of the potential impact on economic growth, but it also represents an assault on the rule of law since the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are engaging in regulatory overreach because they did not have enough support to get so-called climate change legislation through Congress. The new GOP majority presumably will try to use the “power of the purse” to limit the EPA’s power grab, and the outcome of that fight could have dramatic implications for job creation and competitiveness.
5. U.N. control of the Internet – The Federal Communications Commission just engaged in an unprecedented power grab as part of its “Net Neutrality” initiative, so we already have bad news for both Internet consumers and America’s telecommunications industry. But it may get worse. The bureaucrats at the United Nations, conspiring with autocratic governments, have created an Internet Governance Forum in hopes of grabbing power over the online world. This has caused considerable angst, leading Vint Cerf, one of inventors of the Internet (sorry, Al Gore) to warn: “We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.” International bureaucracies are very skilled at incrementally increasing their authority, so this won’t be a one-year fight. Stopping this power grab will require persistent oversight and a willingness to reject compromises that inevitably give bureaucracies more power and simply set the stage for further demands.
Copyright © 2009 Big Government. All rights reserved.
N.C. Tea Party Targets Education Reform
Carolina Journal Exclusives
Tea Party leader Gardner wants activists to push lawmakers on charters
By Jim Stegall
January 04, 2011
RALEIGH — Charter school advocates have picked up a significant ally in their fight to reform the state’s laws governing charter schools in the upcoming legislative session. Leaders of North Carolina’s Tea Party movement are showing increased interest in charter schools, and plan to be at the table when lawmakers consider changes to the charter school law.
A leader of this effort in North Carolina is Waynesville resident and retired retail manager Bruce Gardner, a leader of the group Tea Party Western North Carolina. The connections between Tea Party activists and school choice go far beyond the state’s borders. “We are working with Tea Party leaders throughout the country on moving forward legislation that helps to reform our public school system,” Gardner said in a recent interview. “We must get our education system back [to being] student-centered.”
For Gardner, charter school activism is a natural outgrowth of core Tea Party philosophy. “One of the three major tenets of the Tea Party is free markets,” he said, “and one emphasis of the Tea Party nationally is education. The most basic free market should be in education.”
Gardner sees charter schools as one part of a broader solution to the nation’s education woes. The solution also includes vouchers and scholarships to enable parents to send their children to private and parochial schools, he said. In his view, education funding should follow the child to a school of the parents’ choosing.
““We feel that parents should be able to choose to send their child to a public charter, or a private school, even [providing tax credits] for homeschoolers,” he said. “If that taxpayer has paid to educate the child, they shouldn’t have to pay twice.”
The Tea Party’s interest in charter schools comes at the time a strongly pro-charter Republican Party is set to take control of the General Assembly for the first time in more than a century. Republicans ran on a platform calling for the elimination of the state’s cap of 100 charter schools. Many who won legislative races received significant backing from local Tea Party affiliates.
Tea Party Western North Carolina endorsed two victorious Republican challengers in the last election, helping swing the state Senate into Republican hands. Community college administrator Ralph Hise defeated incumbent Democrat Joe Sam Queen in District 47, and dentist Jim Davis edged out incumbent Democrat John Snow in District 50.
Gardner says that activists put out voter guides, staffed polling places, and held events for these and other favored candidates. And now that they’ve won, Tea Party activists will be pressing them for action on issues like charter schools.
He’s urging Tea Party activists to call their legislators “to not only support school choice legislation but to sponsor the bills.” Noting that Tea Party activists tend to be “fiercely independent,” he says he’ll be asking them “to become personally involved with their state senators and state representatives.”
Gardner says Tea Party groups are “working with several people to try to help design formal legislation. The intellectual work is pretty well done. The problem is that none of it has ever gotten any traction because there has never been a grass-roots movement like the Tea Party,” he said. “There haven’t been any boots on the ground to carry these concepts, these models forward. The difference now is that we have millions of Tea Party people in the country, thousands of Tea Party organizations, and these people right now are carrying an awful lot of political influence as we head towards 2012.”
Eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools is an obvious first step, Gardner says, “But simply getting rid of the cap is only part one.” He called for “comprehensive reform” of the state’s charter school law, adding, “we would like to suggest that the body that oversees the chartering and provides the oversight and monitoring of the charter schools be put under an independent appointed commission, rather than under the Department of Public Instruction. We think it should be independent of those departments.”
That move could pose difficulties should the General Assembly address it. Some observers within the charter community have questioned whether an independent oversight commission would run afoul of the state’s constitution, which gives the State Board of Education authority over all public schools, including charters.
Article IX, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution states that the board “shall supervise and administer the free public school system ... and shall make all needed rules and regulations in relation thereto, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly.” Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson has said she believes that section gives the state board oversight authority of charter schools.
Atkinson has experience dealing with constitutional issues in education — she waged a successful court battle to restore the constitutional powers of her office after the General Assembly had reduced the superintendent’s position to little more than figurehead status.
Another area of concern for Gardner is charter schools’ access to funding for facilities. Under current law, charter schools receive no public funds for construction, and counties (which provide the bulk of the funding for district schools’ building needs) are forbidden to give money to charter schools for buildings.
Gardner says that ought to change. “Charter schools need the ability to issue bonds for the construction of facilities,” he said.
Like many Tea Party activists, Gardner became involved seriously in politics only recently. The retired retail manager living in Waynesville says he got interested in the “9-12 Project” touted by Fox News commentator Glen Beck, primarily as a result of the federal stimulus bill passed in the early days of the Obama administration.
Gardner recently formed a group called Tea for Education and is working with activists in the Carolinas and Georgia to establish similar groups. If his efforts are successful, he plans to take the group national.
Jim Stegall is a contributor to Carolina Journal.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=7233
Tea Party leader Gardner wants activists to push lawmakers on charters
By Jim Stegall
January 04, 2011
RALEIGH — Charter school advocates have picked up a significant ally in their fight to reform the state’s laws governing charter schools in the upcoming legislative session. Leaders of North Carolina’s Tea Party movement are showing increased interest in charter schools, and plan to be at the table when lawmakers consider changes to the charter school law.
A leader of this effort in North Carolina is Waynesville resident and retired retail manager Bruce Gardner, a leader of the group Tea Party Western North Carolina. The connections between Tea Party activists and school choice go far beyond the state’s borders. “We are working with Tea Party leaders throughout the country on moving forward legislation that helps to reform our public school system,” Gardner said in a recent interview. “We must get our education system back [to being] student-centered.”
For Gardner, charter school activism is a natural outgrowth of core Tea Party philosophy. “One of the three major tenets of the Tea Party is free markets,” he said, “and one emphasis of the Tea Party nationally is education. The most basic free market should be in education.”
Gardner sees charter schools as one part of a broader solution to the nation’s education woes. The solution also includes vouchers and scholarships to enable parents to send their children to private and parochial schools, he said. In his view, education funding should follow the child to a school of the parents’ choosing.
““We feel that parents should be able to choose to send their child to a public charter, or a private school, even [providing tax credits] for homeschoolers,” he said. “If that taxpayer has paid to educate the child, they shouldn’t have to pay twice.”
The Tea Party’s interest in charter schools comes at the time a strongly pro-charter Republican Party is set to take control of the General Assembly for the first time in more than a century. Republicans ran on a platform calling for the elimination of the state’s cap of 100 charter schools. Many who won legislative races received significant backing from local Tea Party affiliates.
Tea Party Western North Carolina endorsed two victorious Republican challengers in the last election, helping swing the state Senate into Republican hands. Community college administrator Ralph Hise defeated incumbent Democrat Joe Sam Queen in District 47, and dentist Jim Davis edged out incumbent Democrat John Snow in District 50.
Gardner says that activists put out voter guides, staffed polling places, and held events for these and other favored candidates. And now that they’ve won, Tea Party activists will be pressing them for action on issues like charter schools.
He’s urging Tea Party activists to call their legislators “to not only support school choice legislation but to sponsor the bills.” Noting that Tea Party activists tend to be “fiercely independent,” he says he’ll be asking them “to become personally involved with their state senators and state representatives.”
Gardner says Tea Party groups are “working with several people to try to help design formal legislation. The intellectual work is pretty well done. The problem is that none of it has ever gotten any traction because there has never been a grass-roots movement like the Tea Party,” he said. “There haven’t been any boots on the ground to carry these concepts, these models forward. The difference now is that we have millions of Tea Party people in the country, thousands of Tea Party organizations, and these people right now are carrying an awful lot of political influence as we head towards 2012.”
Eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools is an obvious first step, Gardner says, “But simply getting rid of the cap is only part one.” He called for “comprehensive reform” of the state’s charter school law, adding, “we would like to suggest that the body that oversees the chartering and provides the oversight and monitoring of the charter schools be put under an independent appointed commission, rather than under the Department of Public Instruction. We think it should be independent of those departments.”
That move could pose difficulties should the General Assembly address it. Some observers within the charter community have questioned whether an independent oversight commission would run afoul of the state’s constitution, which gives the State Board of Education authority over all public schools, including charters.
Article IX, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution states that the board “shall supervise and administer the free public school system ... and shall make all needed rules and regulations in relation thereto, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly.” Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson has said she believes that section gives the state board oversight authority of charter schools.
Atkinson has experience dealing with constitutional issues in education — she waged a successful court battle to restore the constitutional powers of her office after the General Assembly had reduced the superintendent’s position to little more than figurehead status.
Another area of concern for Gardner is charter schools’ access to funding for facilities. Under current law, charter schools receive no public funds for construction, and counties (which provide the bulk of the funding for district schools’ building needs) are forbidden to give money to charter schools for buildings.
Gardner says that ought to change. “Charter schools need the ability to issue bonds for the construction of facilities,” he said.
Like many Tea Party activists, Gardner became involved seriously in politics only recently. The retired retail manager living in Waynesville says he got interested in the “9-12 Project” touted by Fox News commentator Glen Beck, primarily as a result of the federal stimulus bill passed in the early days of the Obama administration.
Gardner recently formed a group called Tea for Education and is working with activists in the Carolinas and Georgia to establish similar groups. If his efforts are successful, he plans to take the group national.
Jim Stegall is a contributor to Carolina Journal.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=7233
Understanding the Parental Rights Amendment
SUPPORT THIS MUCH NEEDED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT!http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BDE675888-E60A-4219-8A5E-000083244D13%7D&DE=
January 4, 2010
PROPOSED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
SECTION 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2: Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Parental Rights: Why Now Is the Time to Act
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B70D1F5F-97FF-499A-A123-16CAE9385046}
4 Resolutions You Can Make to Preserve Parental Rights
Welcome to 2011! As this exciting year begins, many of you have made resolutions regarding how you will live differently this year. Here are four more commitments you can make to preserve parental rights in 2011 and beyond:
1. Resolve to show “The Child” to at least 20 people.
“The Child” documentary is an excellent tool for sharing the need for the Parental Rights Amendment. So gather your friends, family, congregation, or colleagues and use this film to share with them why you are so concerned about protecting the role of parents in America. (For some, 20 people might be too easy a goal – so resolve to show it to 100 or more!)
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={58D0E1F1-4EA2-45BA-9B40-941D71ED987F}
2. Resolve to call your lawmakers regularly.
America is supposed to be governed by The People through our duly-elected representatives, but too often we just vote and then leave them alone. They need to hear from you. Throughout this year, we will let you know when we need you to call your congressmen, senators, or state lawmakers to support the Parental Rights Amendment. Instead of waiting until you get the email to decide what you will do, why not resolve now to make those calls and be part of the solution? Your first call might make you nervous, but every call is empowering and important!
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={32683D71-2778-4842-AB94-4BE6581810E9}
3. Resolve to stay plugged in.
Of course, you won’t know when to call if we can’t reach you with that email. Think about it this way: the strength of ParentalRights.org is not in the names on our petition, but in the number of calls we can generate to Congress and state legislatures. It’s not your name, but your voice that matters. So resolve now to keep getting our emails this year. Let us know of any email address changes, keep us among your safe senders, and generally help us keep you up-to-date. Then, when your congressman needs a gentle nudge – or a loud shout – you will know about it and can take action. AND SIGN THE PETITION!
http://parentalrights.org/
4. Resolve to support ParentalRights.org as much as you can.
Our organization has done a remarkable amount on precious little, but things are ramping up in 2011. When we push the Amendment through the U.S. House, it is going to cost us. The added attention to our mutual cause will prompt opponents to publish misinformation we will need to refute. All in all, the effort from here on is going to get more expensive, and we need your help. Even if you can give just $5 or $10 each month, resolve to help fund us so we can continue to be a resource to you in the ongoing protection of parental rights. http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1BC4FCCD-7A39-4990-BE36-8FFD88003D5F}
January 4, 2010
PROPOSED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
SECTION 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2: Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Parental Rights: Why Now Is the Time to Act
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B70D1F5F-97FF-499A-A123-16CAE9385046}
4 Resolutions You Can Make to Preserve Parental Rights
Welcome to 2011! As this exciting year begins, many of you have made resolutions regarding how you will live differently this year. Here are four more commitments you can make to preserve parental rights in 2011 and beyond:
1. Resolve to show “The Child” to at least 20 people.
“The Child” documentary is an excellent tool for sharing the need for the Parental Rights Amendment. So gather your friends, family, congregation, or colleagues and use this film to share with them why you are so concerned about protecting the role of parents in America. (For some, 20 people might be too easy a goal – so resolve to show it to 100 or more!)
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={58D0E1F1-4EA2-45BA-9B40-941D71ED987F}
2. Resolve to call your lawmakers regularly.
America is supposed to be governed by The People through our duly-elected representatives, but too often we just vote and then leave them alone. They need to hear from you. Throughout this year, we will let you know when we need you to call your congressmen, senators, or state lawmakers to support the Parental Rights Amendment. Instead of waiting until you get the email to decide what you will do, why not resolve now to make those calls and be part of the solution? Your first call might make you nervous, but every call is empowering and important!
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={32683D71-2778-4842-AB94-4BE6581810E9}
3. Resolve to stay plugged in.
Of course, you won’t know when to call if we can’t reach you with that email. Think about it this way: the strength of ParentalRights.org is not in the names on our petition, but in the number of calls we can generate to Congress and state legislatures. It’s not your name, but your voice that matters. So resolve now to keep getting our emails this year. Let us know of any email address changes, keep us among your safe senders, and generally help us keep you up-to-date. Then, when your congressman needs a gentle nudge – or a loud shout – you will know about it and can take action. AND SIGN THE PETITION!
http://parentalrights.org/
4. Resolve to support ParentalRights.org as much as you can.
Our organization has done a remarkable amount on precious little, but things are ramping up in 2011. When we push the Amendment through the U.S. House, it is going to cost us. The added attention to our mutual cause will prompt opponents to publish misinformation we will need to refute. All in all, the effort from here on is going to get more expensive, and we need your help. Even if you can give just $5 or $10 each month, resolve to help fund us so we can continue to be a resource to you in the ongoing protection of parental rights. http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1BC4FCCD-7A39-4990-BE36-8FFD88003D5F}
Monday, January 3, 2011
Thomas Jefferson: what you may not know
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he-himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
QUOTES FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. ---Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.----Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. ----Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ----Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. ----Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.----Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.----Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.---Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.----Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property--until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he-himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
QUOTES FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. ---Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.----Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. ----Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ----Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. ----Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.----Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.----Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.---Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.----Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property--until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Mon, January 3, 2011: CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing: Ignore the House for a Minute
Today In Washington
THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Neither is in session until Wednesday, when both will convene at noon for the start of the 112th Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE: Obama is on the final full day of his Hawaiian vacation. He’s expected back in Washington tomorrow afternoon.
OPENING CEREMONIES: The first days of the year, on both sides of the Capitol, are shaping up to be much more about political tone-setting than about launching grand legislative drives.
Most of the attention, naturally enough, is being paid to how the Republicans are stage-managing their return to power in the House, from the subdued tone Boehner is setting for his ascent to the Speakership to the stately pace and modest expectations that his leadership team is setting for the party’s agenda. (The first spending cut the House will approve this week will be a drop-in-the-bucket $25 million, which will be marketed instead as a bold 5 percent reductions in the office budgets of all House members.)
What’s not gotten much attention, yet, is the potential for an opening day Senate showdown on filibuster rules. The Latin-infused rhetoric and parliamentary maneuvering will sound like a lot of insider mumbo jumbo to much of the nation. But making it more difficult for the minority party to block bills and nominees has the potential to narrow the partisan chasm and alter the way Congress does business much more than an annual recitation of the Constitution’s text on the House floor, which is being arranged by the GOP as a shout-out to the tea party faithful.
In the past two years, Reid had to spend an extraordinary amount of time honing his skill at breaking filibusters, which in the end he was able to do more often than any majority leader before him. But for more than a year now many of his fellow Democrats — mostly first-termers led by Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and New Mexico’s Tom Udall — have been mulling over what’s their highest-percentage shot at a rules change that would weaken the filibuster. They have not yet shown their cards, but they’re expected to make their move this week in the belief that precedent should allow them to get whatever change they want with a simple majority vote (in other words, the GOP won’t be able to block them) if they act right at the start of the new Congress.
Slightly reducing the supermajority of 60 required to invoke cloture, doing away with the power to mount a filibuster on the motion to begin debating a bill, or maybe just requiring senators to make good on their filibusters the old-fashioned way — by standing in the well and talking all night — would all tend to force the weakened minority to be more willing to compromise on legislation. It would not, however, do anything to speed the ratification of treaties, which will still need a two-thirds vote.
SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT: Republicans already are conceding that they will be unable to make good on their highest-profile aspiration, repealing the new health care law, because there’s no way the Senate will go along even if there’s a veto-proof majority for doing so in the House. (Michigan’s Fred Upton, the new Energy and Commerce chairman, yesterday predicted at least a two-third majority for total repeal and said the House vote would come before the State of the Union address, which Obama is likely to deliver Jan. 25.)
Absent outright repeal, the GOP strategy is to pick away at the health overhaul’s most contentious provisions through a combination of hearings, narrow legislation and — probably most effective of all — single-line amendments to spending bills that prevent the spending of any money to carry out a narrow provisions of law, or the regulations to carry it out.
One of the first efforts will be to try to prevent Medicare bureaucrats from spending money on their new regulation designed to promote discussions about end-of-life issues between doctors and patients — the sort of talks that were going to be written into the law, but got dropped, after Sarah Palin famously derided the idea as leading to the creation of government “death panels.”
THE FIELD NARROWS: Only four of the people who want to replace Michael Steele as the Republican Party’s national chairman will be debating him at the National Press Club at lunchtime. That’s because the fifth would-be challenger — Gentry Collins, who stepped down as RNC political director just after the election — dropped out of the race overnight.
The front-runner is clearly anybody but Steele, whose support has been sagging in the runup to Friday’s voting at the party bosses’ annual winter meeting. The man to beat has been Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus, but his star has faded the longer people ponder that he was once Steele’s general counsel. (Two of the chairman’s current top aides, chief of staff Mike Leavitt and spokesman Doug Heye, are on their way out of GOP headquarters even if their boss scores an upset win for a second term.) The remaining candidates for party chairman are former Missouri party chief Ann Wagner, onetime GOP convention chief executive Maria Cino, and former Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis.
TAMPA TICK-TOCK: The new year signals the unfettered, unambiguous start to the 2012 presidential campaign — with almost all the attention focused on maneuvering by the Republicans who could form a potentially enormous and fractious field of would-be Obama challenges. (One of them will be nominated on Florida’s Gulf Coast fully 20 months from now.)
The big New Year’s weekend coup went to Mitt Romney, who secured the endorsement of the senior senator from a crucial early primary state: South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, as he prepares to seek a third term in his own right next year, apparently has concluded he’s not going to go out of his way to curry favor with the tea party crowd by endorsing someone more overtly and reliably conservative. Someone like, for example, the state’s other senator, Jim DeMint, who is among the huge GOP crowd still toying with the idea of a White House run.
As for Sarah Palin — whose own intentions continue to mystify GOP professionals — she continued to get attention for intensifying her connection to a state in the Lower 48. A week after word that her daughter Bristol paid $172,000 for a five-bedroom house in the hard-hit-by-foreclosures Phoenix suburb of Maricopa, a Palin acolyte has been named chief of staff to one of Arizona’s three new Republican congressmen: Paul Gosar of Flagstaff. The new top aide, Rob Robinson, has been a dentist just like his new boss. It was Robinson who introduced Gosar to the former Alaska governor, who ended up giving him a pivotal endorsement.
— David Hawkings, editor
Become a Facebook fan at facebook.com/DavidHawkingsDC. Or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/davidhawkings.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Neither is in session until Wednesday, when both will convene at noon for the start of the 112th Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE: Obama is on the final full day of his Hawaiian vacation. He’s expected back in Washington tomorrow afternoon.
OPENING CEREMONIES: The first days of the year, on both sides of the Capitol, are shaping up to be much more about political tone-setting than about launching grand legislative drives.
Most of the attention, naturally enough, is being paid to how the Republicans are stage-managing their return to power in the House, from the subdued tone Boehner is setting for his ascent to the Speakership to the stately pace and modest expectations that his leadership team is setting for the party’s agenda. (The first spending cut the House will approve this week will be a drop-in-the-bucket $25 million, which will be marketed instead as a bold 5 percent reductions in the office budgets of all House members.)
What’s not gotten much attention, yet, is the potential for an opening day Senate showdown on filibuster rules. The Latin-infused rhetoric and parliamentary maneuvering will sound like a lot of insider mumbo jumbo to much of the nation. But making it more difficult for the minority party to block bills and nominees has the potential to narrow the partisan chasm and alter the way Congress does business much more than an annual recitation of the Constitution’s text on the House floor, which is being arranged by the GOP as a shout-out to the tea party faithful.
In the past two years, Reid had to spend an extraordinary amount of time honing his skill at breaking filibusters, which in the end he was able to do more often than any majority leader before him. But for more than a year now many of his fellow Democrats — mostly first-termers led by Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and New Mexico’s Tom Udall — have been mulling over what’s their highest-percentage shot at a rules change that would weaken the filibuster. They have not yet shown their cards, but they’re expected to make their move this week in the belief that precedent should allow them to get whatever change they want with a simple majority vote (in other words, the GOP won’t be able to block them) if they act right at the start of the new Congress.
Slightly reducing the supermajority of 60 required to invoke cloture, doing away with the power to mount a filibuster on the motion to begin debating a bill, or maybe just requiring senators to make good on their filibusters the old-fashioned way — by standing in the well and talking all night — would all tend to force the weakened minority to be more willing to compromise on legislation. It would not, however, do anything to speed the ratification of treaties, which will still need a two-thirds vote.
SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT: Republicans already are conceding that they will be unable to make good on their highest-profile aspiration, repealing the new health care law, because there’s no way the Senate will go along even if there’s a veto-proof majority for doing so in the House. (Michigan’s Fred Upton, the new Energy and Commerce chairman, yesterday predicted at least a two-third majority for total repeal and said the House vote would come before the State of the Union address, which Obama is likely to deliver Jan. 25.)
Absent outright repeal, the GOP strategy is to pick away at the health overhaul’s most contentious provisions through a combination of hearings, narrow legislation and — probably most effective of all — single-line amendments to spending bills that prevent the spending of any money to carry out a narrow provisions of law, or the regulations to carry it out.
One of the first efforts will be to try to prevent Medicare bureaucrats from spending money on their new regulation designed to promote discussions about end-of-life issues between doctors and patients — the sort of talks that were going to be written into the law, but got dropped, after Sarah Palin famously derided the idea as leading to the creation of government “death panels.”
THE FIELD NARROWS: Only four of the people who want to replace Michael Steele as the Republican Party’s national chairman will be debating him at the National Press Club at lunchtime. That’s because the fifth would-be challenger — Gentry Collins, who stepped down as RNC political director just after the election — dropped out of the race overnight.
The front-runner is clearly anybody but Steele, whose support has been sagging in the runup to Friday’s voting at the party bosses’ annual winter meeting. The man to beat has been Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus, but his star has faded the longer people ponder that he was once Steele’s general counsel. (Two of the chairman’s current top aides, chief of staff Mike Leavitt and spokesman Doug Heye, are on their way out of GOP headquarters even if their boss scores an upset win for a second term.) The remaining candidates for party chairman are former Missouri party chief Ann Wagner, onetime GOP convention chief executive Maria Cino, and former Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis.
TAMPA TICK-TOCK: The new year signals the unfettered, unambiguous start to the 2012 presidential campaign — with almost all the attention focused on maneuvering by the Republicans who could form a potentially enormous and fractious field of would-be Obama challenges. (One of them will be nominated on Florida’s Gulf Coast fully 20 months from now.)
The big New Year’s weekend coup went to Mitt Romney, who secured the endorsement of the senior senator from a crucial early primary state: South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, as he prepares to seek a third term in his own right next year, apparently has concluded he’s not going to go out of his way to curry favor with the tea party crowd by endorsing someone more overtly and reliably conservative. Someone like, for example, the state’s other senator, Jim DeMint, who is among the huge GOP crowd still toying with the idea of a White House run.
As for Sarah Palin — whose own intentions continue to mystify GOP professionals — she continued to get attention for intensifying her connection to a state in the Lower 48. A week after word that her daughter Bristol paid $172,000 for a five-bedroom house in the hard-hit-by-foreclosures Phoenix suburb of Maricopa, a Palin acolyte has been named chief of staff to one of Arizona’s three new Republican congressmen: Paul Gosar of Flagstaff. The new top aide, Rob Robinson, has been a dentist just like his new boss. It was Robinson who introduced Gosar to the former Alaska governor, who ended up giving him a pivotal endorsement.
— David Hawkings, editor
Become a Facebook fan at facebook.com/DavidHawkingsDC. Or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/davidhawkings.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
American Thinker
Rule of Law in the Age of Obama
January 02, 2011
By Scott Strzelczyk
Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise. A general misconception is a law is constitutional if Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality. Not only is this wrong, but it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of man's natural rights and liberty.
The Rule of Law is defined as follows: "Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals" [i]. In other words, nobody is above the law, nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men). Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.
Supremacy of Law
Supremacy of Law requires both citizens and government to be subject to known and standing laws. By subjugating government to a set of known and standing laws, the Rule of Law constrains government bureaucrats and political rulers' arbitrary power over the citizenry. Today, political expediency and ideology result in a myriad of laws subjugating citizens to political will, which ultimately violates the Rule of Law.
People conflate the supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, with Supremacy of Law. Many people believe the supremacy clause states that the federal government is supreme in all matters of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such wishful thinking is the rational basis used to usurp power otherwise not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The key provision of the supremacy clause is "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."
Limitations on arbitrary power were incorporated into the Constitution under Article I, Section VIII. This section enumerated the powers ceded by the several states to the federal government. The Constitution established a federal government with limited powers. The several states created the Constitution, ratified the Constitution, and are the ultimate authority required to amend the Constitution.
After years of despotic rule under the British Crown and fighting a war of independence, it is inconceivable that the framers would create and establish a system of government under the Constitution which granted unlimited power and authority to the federal government. For the federal government to be supreme in all matters of law raises the following questions:
Why did the framers labor to define and enumerate the powers ceded to Congress under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution?
By default, all acts of Congress would be supreme, therefore rendering most of the Constitution meaningless. There would be absolutely no limits on congressional power and authority. Why would the colonies fight a war of independence to establish a new system of government capable of subjugating the people to laws under a new tyrant?
Supremacy of Law doesn't support any conclusion as to whether the federal government is supreme over state governments or vice-versa. The proper interpretation is that those powers reserved to the states and those powers delegated to the federal government must be adhered to because it is stated in the Constitution, and the Rule of Law embodies supremacy of law.
Likewise, the supremacy clause is applicable only to those powers ceded to the federal government. If Congress passes an act within the limited powers ceded to it, then the law is binding and supreme over any state law or state constitution. This is what "shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means. Otherwise, the law is not binding and, therefore, not supreme law.
Justice
Justice is another indispensable characteristic of the Rule of Law. In the state of nature, man possesses certain rights as a matter of being -- the right to associate, to contract, to self-defense, etc. These are referred to as natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, natural rights are stated as certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness conferred upon man by his Creator. These natural rights cannot be conferred by man unto man. That is, government does not confer natural rights, nor can government deny or abridge natural rights. The Constitution protects man's natural rights and liberty from government.
In a state of nature, a formal justice system doesn't exist. One man steals property from another man, and the aggrieved man seeks retribution for his loss of property. The aggrieved man enacts his own form of justice to compensate for his loss. That retribution may be excessive or unjustly applied in the mind of a disinterested third party. For instance, a man steals food from another man. The aggrieved man seeks retribution and kills the man that stole from him. Most would conclude that the aggrieved man's action was excessively unjust.
One of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. To ensure that government treats citizens fairly when resolving conflicts, certain protections are necessary to preclude government's arbitrarily taking action against its citizens.
Personal liberty must be protected. That is, man must be safe and secure in knowing he cannot be arrested without cause, and his private belongings and things cannot be seized or searched without probable cause. Man must violate the law for the government to justify encroaching upon his personal liberty.
Lastly, due process under the law is paramount to the protection of personal liberty, natural rights, and private property. Laws regarding procedural and evidentiary rules, jury trials, and the presumption of innocence are necessary safeguards under the Rule of Law.
A quick glance at the constitutional amendments illustrates the importance of justice under the Rule of Law, particularly on the limitation of arbitrary and discretionary government powers. Amendments IV through VIII all deal with some aspect of justice. The fourteenth amendment is frequently referenced in regards to justice and due process under the law. Amendments I, II, IX, and X are restrictions on government infringing upon man's rights and liberty.
Coercive Government
Whenever government violates the Rule of Law, government becomes coercive. Regardless of the government's rationale, citizens' popular opinion, or intended outcomes, any government action which violates the Rule of Law is coercive, unconstitutional, and unjust. The Rule of Law and coercive government are of utmost concern to the survival of our constitutional republic.
In many cases, elected officials or government bureaucrats use humanitarian reasons to justify their actions. We are doing this for the children. We are doing this to protect you from some harm. We are compassionate and must help those who are disadvantaged. All are attempts to justify the use of arbitrary power to achieve political or ideological outcomes that often abridge individual rights, property rights, or liberty.
How does government usurp powers and act arbitrarily in violation of the Rule of Law?
First and foremost, the federal government usurps powers that were intended to be reserved by the states. Consider a traditional power like local police. If Congress were to pass a bill taking control of all local police powers, the president to sign the bill into law, and the Supreme Court to rule that the law is constitutional, then state powers would be usurped by the federal government [ii].
The Supreme Court has presumed powers not otherwise granted to it by the Constitution and established itself as the final and ultimate word on all constitutional matters. The framers did not intend to vest the Supreme Court with this ultimate authority. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Furthermore, constitutional interpretation exacerbates the problem of authority, as it affords judges the opportunity to institute distributive and social justice rather than commutative and legal justice. The framers did not intend to vest nine people in black robes with the power to change the meaning of the Constitution [iii]. Only a properly ratified constitutional amendment can change the Constitution.
Congress established numerous federal agencies and programs administered by the executive branch. Legislation often grants agencies broad general powers to implement and regulate programs. Unelected government bureaucrats establish rules and regulations which are considered equivalent to statutory law. These rules and regulations may run afoul of the Constitution, be used to redistribute private property, take control of private industries, or further an administration's political ideology. Dozens of czars were appointed without the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence states, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Regulations are another method used by government to arbitrarily exercise power over the citizenry.
Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are stating that they will uphold the Rule of Law. In the next breath, the same people say the Constitution is a living and breathing document, the Constitution is stale and doesn't reflect modern realities, or the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants under the Constitution.
Expansive views and interpretations of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, etc. are referenced by elected officials as their constitutional authority to enact legislation, institute rules and regulations, and usurp powers otherwise reserved to the states.
These are arguments of tyrants and ideologues. A person either reveres the Rule of Law or rejects the Rule of Law. There is no middle ground. There is no cafeteria plan where certain aspects of the Rule of Law can be followed or ignored as one pleases.
Those who revere the Rule of Law understand it is meant to constrain government against arbitrary use of power. Those who reject the Rule of Law use government power arbitrarily to constrain the people.
The founding fathers and framers revered the Rule of Law. The Tea Party and the 2010 elections are about the Rule of Law. The next two election cycles are critical to the country's future and the Rule of Law. Nothing less than our constitutional republic is at stake.
[i] Several definitions exist for the rule of law. The definition I chose for this article is here.
[ii] Federalism was established under the Constitution. All powers originated as states' powers, and certain limited powers were ceded to the federal government by the states. James Madison addresses the question of state and federal powers in Federalist 45. The second and third paragraphs from the end of the paper encapsulate the framers' thinking regarding state and federal powers.
[iii] The current Supreme Court has nine judges. This has varied over time from as few as six to as many as ten. The Supreme Court has remained at nine judges since 1869.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/rule_of_law_in_the_age_of_obam.html at January 02, 2011 - 05:51:25 PM CST
January 02, 2011
By Scott Strzelczyk
Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise. A general misconception is a law is constitutional if Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality. Not only is this wrong, but it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of man's natural rights and liberty.
The Rule of Law is defined as follows: "Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals" [i]. In other words, nobody is above the law, nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men). Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.
Supremacy of Law
Supremacy of Law requires both citizens and government to be subject to known and standing laws. By subjugating government to a set of known and standing laws, the Rule of Law constrains government bureaucrats and political rulers' arbitrary power over the citizenry. Today, political expediency and ideology result in a myriad of laws subjugating citizens to political will, which ultimately violates the Rule of Law.
People conflate the supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, with Supremacy of Law. Many people believe the supremacy clause states that the federal government is supreme in all matters of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such wishful thinking is the rational basis used to usurp power otherwise not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The key provision of the supremacy clause is "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."
Limitations on arbitrary power were incorporated into the Constitution under Article I, Section VIII. This section enumerated the powers ceded by the several states to the federal government. The Constitution established a federal government with limited powers. The several states created the Constitution, ratified the Constitution, and are the ultimate authority required to amend the Constitution.
After years of despotic rule under the British Crown and fighting a war of independence, it is inconceivable that the framers would create and establish a system of government under the Constitution which granted unlimited power and authority to the federal government. For the federal government to be supreme in all matters of law raises the following questions:
Why did the framers labor to define and enumerate the powers ceded to Congress under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution?
By default, all acts of Congress would be supreme, therefore rendering most of the Constitution meaningless. There would be absolutely no limits on congressional power and authority. Why would the colonies fight a war of independence to establish a new system of government capable of subjugating the people to laws under a new tyrant?
Supremacy of Law doesn't support any conclusion as to whether the federal government is supreme over state governments or vice-versa. The proper interpretation is that those powers reserved to the states and those powers delegated to the federal government must be adhered to because it is stated in the Constitution, and the Rule of Law embodies supremacy of law.
Likewise, the supremacy clause is applicable only to those powers ceded to the federal government. If Congress passes an act within the limited powers ceded to it, then the law is binding and supreme over any state law or state constitution. This is what "shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means. Otherwise, the law is not binding and, therefore, not supreme law.
Justice
Justice is another indispensable characteristic of the Rule of Law. In the state of nature, man possesses certain rights as a matter of being -- the right to associate, to contract, to self-defense, etc. These are referred to as natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, natural rights are stated as certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness conferred upon man by his Creator. These natural rights cannot be conferred by man unto man. That is, government does not confer natural rights, nor can government deny or abridge natural rights. The Constitution protects man's natural rights and liberty from government.
In a state of nature, a formal justice system doesn't exist. One man steals property from another man, and the aggrieved man seeks retribution for his loss of property. The aggrieved man enacts his own form of justice to compensate for his loss. That retribution may be excessive or unjustly applied in the mind of a disinterested third party. For instance, a man steals food from another man. The aggrieved man seeks retribution and kills the man that stole from him. Most would conclude that the aggrieved man's action was excessively unjust.
One of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. To ensure that government treats citizens fairly when resolving conflicts, certain protections are necessary to preclude government's arbitrarily taking action against its citizens.
Personal liberty must be protected. That is, man must be safe and secure in knowing he cannot be arrested without cause, and his private belongings and things cannot be seized or searched without probable cause. Man must violate the law for the government to justify encroaching upon his personal liberty.
Lastly, due process under the law is paramount to the protection of personal liberty, natural rights, and private property. Laws regarding procedural and evidentiary rules, jury trials, and the presumption of innocence are necessary safeguards under the Rule of Law.
A quick glance at the constitutional amendments illustrates the importance of justice under the Rule of Law, particularly on the limitation of arbitrary and discretionary government powers. Amendments IV through VIII all deal with some aspect of justice. The fourteenth amendment is frequently referenced in regards to justice and due process under the law. Amendments I, II, IX, and X are restrictions on government infringing upon man's rights and liberty.
Coercive Government
Whenever government violates the Rule of Law, government becomes coercive. Regardless of the government's rationale, citizens' popular opinion, or intended outcomes, any government action which violates the Rule of Law is coercive, unconstitutional, and unjust. The Rule of Law and coercive government are of utmost concern to the survival of our constitutional republic.
In many cases, elected officials or government bureaucrats use humanitarian reasons to justify their actions. We are doing this for the children. We are doing this to protect you from some harm. We are compassionate and must help those who are disadvantaged. All are attempts to justify the use of arbitrary power to achieve political or ideological outcomes that often abridge individual rights, property rights, or liberty.
How does government usurp powers and act arbitrarily in violation of the Rule of Law?
First and foremost, the federal government usurps powers that were intended to be reserved by the states. Consider a traditional power like local police. If Congress were to pass a bill taking control of all local police powers, the president to sign the bill into law, and the Supreme Court to rule that the law is constitutional, then state powers would be usurped by the federal government [ii].
The Supreme Court has presumed powers not otherwise granted to it by the Constitution and established itself as the final and ultimate word on all constitutional matters. The framers did not intend to vest the Supreme Court with this ultimate authority. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Furthermore, constitutional interpretation exacerbates the problem of authority, as it affords judges the opportunity to institute distributive and social justice rather than commutative and legal justice. The framers did not intend to vest nine people in black robes with the power to change the meaning of the Constitution [iii]. Only a properly ratified constitutional amendment can change the Constitution.
Congress established numerous federal agencies and programs administered by the executive branch. Legislation often grants agencies broad general powers to implement and regulate programs. Unelected government bureaucrats establish rules and regulations which are considered equivalent to statutory law. These rules and regulations may run afoul of the Constitution, be used to redistribute private property, take control of private industries, or further an administration's political ideology. Dozens of czars were appointed without the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence states, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Regulations are another method used by government to arbitrarily exercise power over the citizenry.
Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are stating that they will uphold the Rule of Law. In the next breath, the same people say the Constitution is a living and breathing document, the Constitution is stale and doesn't reflect modern realities, or the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants under the Constitution.
Expansive views and interpretations of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, etc. are referenced by elected officials as their constitutional authority to enact legislation, institute rules and regulations, and usurp powers otherwise reserved to the states.
These are arguments of tyrants and ideologues. A person either reveres the Rule of Law or rejects the Rule of Law. There is no middle ground. There is no cafeteria plan where certain aspects of the Rule of Law can be followed or ignored as one pleases.
Those who revere the Rule of Law understand it is meant to constrain government against arbitrary use of power. Those who reject the Rule of Law use government power arbitrarily to constrain the people.
The founding fathers and framers revered the Rule of Law. The Tea Party and the 2010 elections are about the Rule of Law. The next two election cycles are critical to the country's future and the Rule of Law. Nothing less than our constitutional republic is at stake.
[i] Several definitions exist for the rule of law. The definition I chose for this article is here.
[ii] Federalism was established under the Constitution. All powers originated as states' powers, and certain limited powers were ceded to the federal government by the states. James Madison addresses the question of state and federal powers in Federalist 45. The second and third paragraphs from the end of the paper encapsulate the framers' thinking regarding state and federal powers.
[iii] The current Supreme Court has nine judges. This has varied over time from as few as six to as many as ten. The Supreme Court has remained at nine judges since 1869.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/rule_of_law_in_the_age_of_obam.html at January 02, 2011 - 05:51:25 PM CST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
