Tag Archives: law

“The lawlessness of Obamacare, root and branch.”

“The lawlessness of Obamacare, root and branch.”

The author details one by one the numerous lawless aspects of this law and the administration that created it, illustrating bluntly that, as damaging as Obamacare is to the health insurance industry, it has been far more harmful to the rule of law and the American system of justice and Constitutional government.

Weep for our country if Obamacare stands.

The four best legal arguments against Obamacare.

The four best legal arguments against Obamacare.

The fourth is probably the most devastating to Obamacare. No contract can be enforced if you are forced to sign it.

American contract law rests on the principle of mutual assent. If I hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract, no court of law will honor that document since I coerced you into signing it. Mutual assent must be present in order for a contract to be valid and binding.

Once again, we are skirting around that forgotten word called freedom. Obamacare has nothing to do with freedom. It requires participation, something that is fundamentally hostile to this country’s culture and law.

For the fourth year in a row, President Obama has defied a law that demands he take action on Medicare.

The law is such an inconvenient thing: For the fourth year in a row, President Obama has defied a law that demands he take action on Medicare.

This paragraph sums up why Obama has been so negligent:

Why won’t Barack Obama put forth a Medicare proposal? Simple. If he does, Democrats lose the opportunity to demagogue the issue in the run-up to the 2012 election.

The only politicians to propose any reasonable plan to make Medicare solvent have been the Republicans, led by Paul Ryan. I don’t like all the details in Ryan’s plan, but at least he’s proposed something. All Obama and the Democrats have been doing is fiddling while Rome burns, while blaming others for the fire.

White House officials held talks with China over technology, despite a law banning such talks

The law is such an inconvenient thing: White House officials held technology talks with China, despite a law banning such talks.

In [a General Accountability Office (GAO)] letter, Gibson said OSTP officials violated U.S. law by participating in May in bilateral discussions with Chinese officials in spite of a language included in a 2011 spending bill enacted in April that specifically prohibited such talks. GAO concluded that OSTP officials violated the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits U.S. government employees from spending money that Congress has not appropriated. “If Congress specifically prohibits a particular use of appropriated funds, any obligation for that purpose is in excess of the amount available,” Gibson wrote in the Oct. 11 letter. In May, OSTP officials spent approximately $3,500 to participate in discussions and a dinner with Chinese government officials, according to the GAO letter.

[Congressman Frank] Wolf (R-Virginia), a vocal critic of China’s human rights policies who also testified at the hearing, inserted the language in the 2011 spending bill barring OSTP and NASA from participating in any bilateral activities with China. “Following the law is not voluntary for administration officials,” Wolf said. [emphasis mine]

Sadly, it appears that this administration does not agree with Wolf, and instead considers the law to be nothing more than vague advice they can ignore at will.

Jaywalking mom gets probation but opts for new trial

The jaywalking mom whose daughter was killed by a drunk driverr, after being sentenced to one year probation, has also been given the option of a new trial.

Though I am glad for the mother, I wonder how it was possible for the judge, Katherine Tanksley, to award a new trial. First she sentenced the mother to one year of probation, then offered her the option of a new trial. If the first trial was faulty for some reason, how could she pass sentence? And if it wasn’t faulty, on what grounds could she allow another trial?

“Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.”

From the head of union representing agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): “Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.” And if you still have doubts about the unwillingness of the Obama administration to enforce the law, there’s also this quote:

Our officers are already under orders not to make arrests or even talk to foreign nationals in most cases unless another agency has already arrested them; you won’t find that written in any public ICE policy.

Why public sector unions are losing – and can’t stop it if they tried

Why public sector unions are losing – and can’t stop it if they tried. Key quote:

This is why the Wisconsin Democratic Senators were in the minority in the first place. There is no reason for ninety percent of the population to rally for benefits that accrue to only ten percent of the workforce when they themselves are cut out of those benefits. So Wisconsin Democrats found themselves a powerless minority, whose only recourse was to run and…hope that tomorrow a new world would dawn. Such hopes are foolishness. And the Wisconsin Republican Senators showed them exactly why that is so. [emphasis in original]

Man who advocated jury nullification indicted for doing so

Freedom of speech alert! A man who would stand on the steps of a courthouse and hand out pamphlets advocating jury nullification has been indicted for doing so. Key quote:

Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood there and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience. That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates the law against jury tampering. He was arraigned on Friday in a somewhat contentious hearing before Judge Kimba M. Wood, who entered a not guilty plea on his behalf when he refused to say how he would plead. During the proceeding, he railed at the judge and the government, and called the indictment “a tissue of lies.”

Mr. Heicklen insists that he never tries to influence specific jurors or cases, and instead gives his brochures to passers-by, hoping that jurors are among them.

Federal judge lowers the boom on the Obama administration on drilling permits

The law is for everyone: A federal judge has lowered the boom on the Obama administration over its refusal to issue permits for drilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Key quote:

In issuing the directive to the government, Feldman, who sits on the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisian, noted that “it is undisputed that before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, permits were processed, on average, in two weeks’ time. In stark contrast, the five permits at issue have been pending from four to some nine months.”

Los Angeles gets tough with political protesters

Los Angeles gets tough with political protesters who break the law.

Understand that I do not consider this action by LA to be an attack on free speech, since the prosecutions all focus on illegal disruptive protests, such as blocking traffic for hours. Protest in a free society must be encouraged, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others. These protests did.

Are Health-Care Waivers Unconstitutional?

Are the more than 700 waivers to Obamacare that the Obama administration has handed out unconstitutional? The final paragraph sums it up well:

Waivers can be used for good purposes. But since the time of Matthew Paris [around 1251], they have been recognized as a power above the law — a power used by government to co-opt powerful constituencies by freeing them from the law. Like old English kings, the current administration is claiming such a power to decide that some people do not have to follow the law. This is dangerous, above the law, and unauthorized by the Constitution.

1 2