Mar 19 2010
Demon Rule Slaughters Constitution
Sorry for the lack of posting but I have had to tend to business on my day job to keep us all employed for the next few years. But now that wave has passed (and I am exhausted, but optimistic the pipeline is full of opportunities).
Which simply brings me back to the week America dies. The liberals in DC are stark raving mad. Apparently the democrats have passed the Demon Rule (Deeming rule) so that there will be no legal vote on Obamacare. And the President went on Fox News to claim he sees no reason to submit to the rule of law in enacting his ego-stroking monolith to liberal arrogance. As the latest Gallup Polls show this step down the slippery slope is too much for America, who is learning a harsh lesson about propaganda, false promises and looking for easy answers:
Obama has succeeded in this mad quest to finally break the hope of the people who once supported him. Now more people oppose him than support him, and this is just the beginning of the slide into historical oblivion. Congress has also reached historic lows:
What has become apparent is the nation is about ready to rise up against the liberals in DC. States are beginning to flex their muscle, with the support of the voters. The constitutional crisis is upon us – driven the by insane brinkmanship of liberals willing to go to any level to prove they are not the rejects they are. (Update: Pew Poll and Fox Poll showing the rising tide of rejection).
I predict the bill will pass, unless some house members go to the US Supreme Court to get an immediate determination that the Slaughter-House rule is unconstitutional in this instance. When the bill passes, the states and the private sector will begin the revolt. A revolt that will only begin in November.
Liberals are daring Americans to stop them, and America is ready to take that challenge. The question is will the liberals, facing sure political annihilation, take this to the next level? Will they resist the will of the people which will be expressed through the courts, state legislators and the voting booth?
The republic is now in real danger. The liberals are grabbing illegal power and not even pretending well to hide their arrogance. The states and people of the republic will resist. Will the liberals in DC go to marshall law in order to retain their Holy Grail? Is controlling health care more important than this nation? It does not have to come to that – but the liberals have to admit defeat in order to avoid the cataclysm that is about to wrench this nation apart.
I hope we do not reach that point. When the people and the states act they will begin to dismantle the federal government and shrink it back to what the founders envisioned. Right now the left is demanding they control everyone else, and everyone else is saying” hell no!” Either the liberals and Democrats step back from the brink this week, or we head into one of the most volatile periods this nation has experienced in decades.
Addendum: And for those too naive to think process doesn’t matter, let me remind them of a simple example. Everyone wishes to become wealthy, but doing so by stealing or killing is not legal. There are boundaries where people, in their self centered zeal, go too far. And they always think they have ‘right’ on their side.
Update: IRS as the modern SS? H/T Reader SBD.
Update: And guess what, you can’t keep your current insurance and the premiums will go up to replace it.
Update: President Obama is now in politically poisonous waters with his refusal to listen to the people. The Rasmussen poll comparing strong approval vs strong disapproval is inching back to a critical tipping point – where twice as many people strongly disapprove than approve:
It is also getting to the point where 50% of the nation STRONGLY disapproves. Congress is in even worse shape. If/when this debacle passes, these numbers will jump into the red zone, and they will not come back down for 2 more years – at least. When 50% of this company is up in arms in opposition, the political tsunami has reached a level not seen since the civil war.
AJ,
Obamacare’s passage by the Slaughter rule is creating an inevitable grass roots tax revolt.
The consent of the governed is the cornerstone of American governance. All the legitimacy of American Federal, state and local government is based upon that compact between the people and the government. This concept is DNA hard coded into the institutions of American government to include the voluntary compliance system built into the American tax code. Woe to any American government that abuses the public’s belief in the legitimacy of the laws, regulations and rules passed to govern them, because the voluntary nature of the US tax code means rogue American governments are highly vulnerable to tax revolts.
The bottom line up front:
Use of the Slaughter rule to pass Obamacare would create great disrespect for the law and thereby imperil the American voluntary income tax system.
As Andrew McCarthy at NRO’s Corner has pointed out, the “consent of the governed†is exactly what is at stake here with Obamacare:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzFjYTQxODU3MGUyZDUyNjY2N2U2NmVmMWExYTU4NjE=
“This is what is happening to the legislative process. Sure, we don’t make lawmakers dot every “i†and cross every “t†every time. But that doesn’t mean we’ve abandoned the right to make them play it by the book when it comes to a controversial matter. When there’s a real dispute, they have to pass the bill the regular, constitutionally mandated way: Both houses on the exact same text, with every legislator accountable for his vote.
If, instead, the legislative process becomes a farce that departs from the constitutional procedures we are entitled to enforce, then it no longer represents the consent of the governed. It is the first American principle that government derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed, and when it takes on a form that becomes destructive of the fundamental rights of the governed, it is no longer legitimate.â€
House Speaker Pelosi’s attempt to enact Obamacare, without a straight up or down vote in the House per article one, section seven of the US Constitution risks a major crisis of government legitimacy that will tube Federal tax receipts.
Pelosi & Obama Democrats assume that Americans are going to be “obedient subjects,†aka Europeans, who will do what they are told. (More fools they, even European “subjects†know European laws are just vehicles for elites to express identity issues, not something to really be obeyed. Just look at the European Union.) Americans are not wired that way.
Legitimacy is the American people’s version of “The Mandate of Heaven.†Most Americans obey the law, most of the time, when they see that law as legitimate.
When they don’t, they won’t, as in:
“I ain’t gonna, and you can’t make me. And even if you can make _me_, you can’t make _all_of_us_.â€
This has been true from the pre-colonial stamp tax, to the Boston Tea Party, to the Post-Revolution Whiskey Rebellion, to the fugitive slave laws, alcohol prohibition, Federal court ordered public school desegregation/busing, California’s Proposition 13 Property tax revolt and now things like systematic vandalism of stop light ticket cameras.
The idea of a full-bore tax revolt over use of the Slaughter rule is occurring to a lot of people. See Glenn Reynolds here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/95795/
“March 16, 2010
IF CONGRESS CAN “DEEM†THE HEALTH CARE BILL PASSED WITHOUT ACTUALLY VOTING, perhaps taxpayers should “deem†their taxes to be considered paid without actually sending a check this year.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 6:37 pmâ€
This idea also seems to have occurred to the Congressional Democrats since this Obamacare legislation also adds 12,000 new IRS agents to enforce their health care taxes & mandates.
The problem with that thought is it won’t work.
The California State Controller knows that such “Pack, not a herd†tactics are already in operation. This has grave implications for Federal government cash flow.
See the following from a California Court trial and motions attorney I know, Tom Holsinger, on how legitimacy and consent of the governed problems are hitting California state government tax receipts:
California State Controller John Chiang insisted that the State pay all state income tax refunds on time this year because he knew that another year of delaying payment would get too many Californians to underpay their income taxes so as to ensure that they wouldn’t have any refunds for the State to hold up. This can be done by taxpayers claiming additional exemptions from withholding.
But, as Chiang knew, such tactics if widespread would tube the State’s on-going tax revenues such that it would have to borrow more money during the year in anticipation of a spike of payments around April 15. He ordered prompt refund payments, despite California’s desperate financial problems, to save the state’s voluntary tax system.
But all Americans can do the same (claim lots of exemptions so no income taxes are withheld) with their federal income taxes. Once the federal government is perceived as illegitimate, and particularly when it demands that healthy young uninsureds pay medical insurance taxes, it risks a tax revolt using the present voluntary tax system as a vehicle.
The Democrats assume that Americans are obedient subjects, aka Europeans, who will do what they are told. Some terrorists found out otherwise on 9/11. Glenn Reynolds’ term for this American trait is “A pack, not a herd.â€
A tax revolt against ObamaCare would be a disaster for everyone, save America’s freedom.
All the IRS agents in the world cannot stop the horrid effect on Federal tax receipt cash flows if the top 10 million income tax payers in America — who pay over 60% of Federal income taxes — decide all at once to make the Federal government legally wait for their taxes until April 15th.
This would kill America’s AAA sovereign debt credit rating with huge interest payment implications for future years.
The aftermath of such a tax revolt fight would see the legitimacy of big government in general and the Federal government in particular, as the biggest casualty.
This would kill the power of the Democratic Party’s ruling leftist faction for a very long time, because the bureaucratic government institutions they are parasitic on are the ones that would be killed by a tax revenue collapse.
By the way, the Obamacare bill adds a 3.7% capital gains tax rate jump in 2011 on top of the scheduled tax increase from the expiration of the Bush tax rate cuts.
The Senate Obamacare bill also treats all part time jobs as fractional full time jobs for healthcare tax coverage.
Taken together, it means small businesses are going to dump their part time work force in 2011 to avoid the costs of those taxes.
We are going to see unemployment rates jump 40%.
“unless some house members go to the US Supreme Court to get an immediate determination that the Slaughter-House rule is unconstitutional in this instance.”
Can’t be done -advisory opinions are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. SCOTUS is only allowed to rule on something after it’s been passed. That may seem strange, but that’s the rule.
“Obama has succeeded in this mad quest to finally break the hope of the people who once supported him.”
I never had one ounce of hope in him – I knew, and I have written, that we had elected the first President that was dedicated to the destruction of this country as we know it. Deep down, Obama despises America and always has. What’s happening now is just the results of Obama putting those views into action.
The “Deeming” rule sounds like voting “Present”. A new way to not have to take responsibility for your position. And you get to do what you want to anyway.
This must be part of the “fundamental change” that President Obama promised. He is correct: This is fundamental change alright.
NOTE * Our President and his allies can possibly get away with this type of B.S. with our own country, but it will earn us all a punch in the nose if he attempts it with our enemies overseas.
So, if he doesn’t get enough electoral votes 2012 can he just ‘deem’ that he did?
WWS,
“Can’t be done -advisory opinions are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. SCOTUS is only allowed to rule on something after it’s been passed. That may seem strange, but that’s the rule.”
you are absolutely INcorrect. One of the 3 basic functions of the US Supreme Court is Judicial Review. That is ensuring that laws that are passed by the Congress are legal. It is a primary function.
One of the other basic functions is to review cases of lower courts, But as I said, that’s only one of their functions. Oh, and another basic function of SCOTUS is to ensure that the Executive Power is not abused.
Well, I guess you’re saying that they won’t advise congress ‘before’ they pass it, that’s probably correct, but they can NOT ALLOW it to be implemented and they DON’T have to WAIT for someone to BRING it to them.
To clarify on what the SCOTUS can and cannot do – although the “Slaughter House Rule” was passed, the Court would never rule on that specifically; the House and Senate are allowed to handle their own internal rules however they see fit, and both separation of powers and political question doctrines would preclude the Court acting specifically on this rule.
*However*, a rule which may be allowed internally to the House may still be found unconstitutional if they attempt to apply it to the whole country, and if the SCOTUS wishes they could find that any law passed under this agreement does not pass constitutional muster. However, they could also use the political question doctrine to decline to interfere.
Either way, the health care bill would have to be passed and become law before the SCOTUS ruled on it, a process that could take years. Judicial time is kind of like God’s time; things happen when they get around to it, and not before.
If you subscribe to the socio-political analyis of Walter Russell Mead, the four “schools of thought” within the US are Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian & Jacksonian.
I think we are seeing the Jacksonian, Jeffersonian and large part of the Hamiltonian schools of though rising in alliance against the Wilsonian (and some Hamiltonian elements) school.
It’s going to get ugly between now and the political bloodletting in November. The battle will not be with arms, but with the pen, keyboard and microphone. The Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians will lead with the political and economic messages with the Jacksonians providing the socio-economic muscle.
It’s going to be a politico-war that the rest of the world will watched with dazed confusion. They just don’t understand how the US operates. Obamacare is just a battle, the politico-war will rage until post 2012, but forces have been mobilized and the battle has been joined. This is not a Republican v. Democrat issue, this is deeper than any political party.
The future of the Republic is at stake.
A little background . . .
Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn’t seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is “there’s no substitute for victory” – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it’s “Don’t Tread On Me!” Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. “Economic well-being” to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.
Jacksonians also have an “honor code”, if one breaks the code, the the violator will be met with fierce blowback until the violator surrenders. Mead claims this as a result of the Scots-Irish tradition of the original western settlers. An example that Mead provides, and I will paraphrase him, was the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was viewed by the Jacksonians as a “sneak attack” therefore the response would be their fully fury until unconditional surrender was achieved.
RedTeam, the relevant section is Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution, and the legal doctrine has come to be known as the “Case or Controversy Rule.”
once it’s passed, yes, they could then rule on it but the more likely method would be to let a Federal Judge issue an injunction (or decline to) and then let it work through the Appeals Courts for a year or two. That’s just how they work.
From a website with as good a summary as any,
“The Supreme Court first considered Article III’s “case or controversy” limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party. Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help (the President had said he would be “much relieved” if the Court answered his questions). Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy–it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law. (Note that this limitation on the judicial power is not shared by many state supreme courts, which often do issue advisory opinions.) ”
more at the link, especially on the vexing question of standing:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm
As I understand it, the legal case against the Slaughter Rule is Article I, Section 7. In passing a law, it reads:
“… But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively….”
This implies a vote. Not a “deeming”, a vote. And given that Obama just picked a fight with the Chief Justice, I think SCOTUS will not be terribly impressed. A challenge in court arguing that the legislation was not properly passed might work.
And there is the thermonuclear option. Article V allows two-thirds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention. That’s 34 state legislatures. This is dangerous, as nobody is quite sure what would come out of it, but it’s an option.
AJ,
Monty Pelerin over at the American Thinker (see link) has a very good point about how the lack of tax receipts is hitting state, county & municipal government.
It makes my point about the coming “Slaughter Rule Tax Revolt” all the more powererful.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/is_government_at_all_levels_fa.html
March 19, 2010
Is government at all levels falling apart?
Monty Pelerin
The profligate madness of our politicians has finally come home to roost. The government Ponzi scheme is unraveling. It is speeding up as the money and options runs out. At some point, there may be an implosion that renders governments inoperative for some period of time.
While all of this happens in the governmental sector, the private sector, at best, putters along at a low level. At worst, it will decline from here to Great Depression levels. Either scenario will be plagued by continuing high levels of unemployment. The private sector will not expand or hire given the uncertainties created by government actions.
The public sector has used up all its bullets. The next wave of unemployment will be government employees. The links below are the beginnings of headlines you will be seeing and hearing for the next several years. Only the frequency and intensity of such headlines will increase. There is no level of government that is not dead broke! The mess is so big that there is no “bail out” of governments. Every government boat is taking on water at a faster rate than it can be removed.
Really massive government employee lay offs and furloughs at state and local levels are going to hit this summer, just in time for the Fall 2010 Federal Elections.
Blue states like California, Ill., NY & NJ will be hit hardest, but no state without “rainy day funds” (oil states like Alaska, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma) are going to suffer.
AJ,
See this Michael Barone post about healthcare reform:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The–88445542.html
Former Bush White House and Trent Lott staffer Keith Hennessey points out that the reconciliation health care measure being pushed by House Democrats includes billions of dollars in fiscal stimulus for 17 states and the District of Columbia.
This is like the 60’s all over again except the radicals are in charge, they know no bounds, no restraint, they know for the rest of us what is right and wrong, they hate Emily Post, normal decorum, the rich who stole their way to wealth, and love to punish. Like in the 60’s they have never thought through the consequences of their hate, only that the objects of their hate must be destroyed because they are on the right side of right. So now we will, and they will see the consequences of ripping apart the fabric of America. It should be interesting to see how far we will let those dope smoking, berkenstock wearing, hate mongers go in tearing apart this country from top to bottom. Just remember that they are tantrum the throwing, righteous 20’s someones, who were made to go to war when all they wanted to do is stay home and wipe out the establishment. Power to the flower children!
I forgot to add, that the 60’s was also the era of abortion on demand. The disrespecting of life, my body is my own and I will do with it as I please. How do you think this thinking will play out with the old as well as those yet to be born? How will our new “Health Care” care for those who have trouble caring for themselves?
Yes, kathie, I agree totally re: the 60’s radicals being in charge. Thought that all along when obama announced his candidacy.
And from RedTeam,”Oh, and another basic function of SCOTUS is to ensure that the Executive Power is not abused.”
Imho, obama is getting ready to seriously abuse the Executive Power which is why he is preemptively attacking John Roberts and the Supreme Court…trying to establish an animus in the Court against the Presidency. And to turn public opinion against the Court.
The radicals have gone “full in”. Their base is happy. Seventy percent of the country IS NOT.
Ah…finally, I found a party whose platform fits my ideology…the Jacksonian Party!
There is talk of self-employeds keeping their taxes and writing in as “deemed paid to the government”. If that is the case, then can the non self-employeds declare the minimum deduction on their W-2 form in order to keep most of its taxes and write the following year on the income form “deemed paid in full to the government”?
Certainly, that will get all of us in trouble, huh?
Obama’s pre-emption over SCOTUS is exactly what FDR did to his SCOTUS by replacing the constitutionalist judges with activist judges.
Trent, re: Monty Pelerin’s article, Obama is going to want the Fed to increase its monetizing of debts and borrowing more from China to keep his government employees employed. But then, will he bail out all of these states that are forced to lay off their government employees, union members or not!
Geesch!