Woe to the Republic: SCOTUS Betrays America

When I was a child, I had no doubts what so ever that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would always make the correct decision, a decision that balanced the rights of the individual American citizen with the principles and Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Until recently, I still believed in the wisdom and guidance of the SCOTUS. But that belief and support was heavily eroded by decision that curtailed individual property rights in favor of corporate controlled politicians, of declaring corporations not only equal to an individual person but by their decision gave de facto greater rights to corporations over that of the common man, and the destructive and corruptive Citizen’s United decision. 

The Supreme Court has betrayed America. Today the SCOTUS made a decision that has ended my belief that the Justices make decisions based on preserving U.S. citizens rights and preserving the Constitution. Today, the SCOTUS said the individual mandate in ObamaCare will stand. In other words, Americans are property– slaves to the whims of the corrupt, vindictive, and greedy politicians and bureaucrats of the U.S. government.

That’s right my fellow citizens, we’ve returned to bad old days of slavery except this time it’s not limited to one race or area of the country, it’s all of us. Worse, this new incarnation of slavery is codified in law and approved by the very Court that is supposed to help prevent the rise of dictatorship in our government. With this ruling, the SCOTUS has said the government can force any American to buy a product by including a “tax”, as the SCOTUS so quaintly justified their traitorous decision, as punishment for refusal to partake in what ever commerce they demand of you.

Is this the America you want? The next time a corporation or bank has financial trouble, do you really want the government to be able to order you to buy that corporation’s or bank’s product? Well, that’s exactly the dangerous precedent the SCOTUS  made today. In the yes of the government, you are not a citizen, or an individual, you are property. And believe me, there are plenty of wanna-be dictators in our government who will look to use this decision to strip away Americans of their rights and freedoms. All one need do to see evidence of this is to look at the previously mentioned curtailments of property rights and granting supremacy of corporate personhood over the individual to see the path to a dictatorship in this country is fast approaching.

The question is this: will Americans stand for this or fight back against the forces within our nation that want to destroy it for their personal wealth and power? A part of me wants to give up and leave the country as it looks less and less like the nation of opportunity, change, and freedom of my youth. But a bigger part of me wants to fight back and reclaim my country and turn it back to a beacon of freedom and liberty and individuality. I for one, will fight, be it at the ballot box, in the courts, or, if it comes to this terrible last resort, in the streets against the rise of dictatorship in this nation. Despite the corruption of our government, I think America is still worth fighting for.

What will you do, my fellow Americans?

The only good thing about the decision by the SCOTUS: it revealed Obama’s blatant lie that the individual mandate was not a tax. The SCOTUS clearly stated it mandate was (even though they ignore basic economic principle that you are a not a participant in an economic activity if you chose not to partake in said activity). That makes Obama, Pelosi and Reid LIARS! Seems that Representative who called Obama a liar was absolutely correct.

Woe to the Republic!

SCOTUS Strikes Down MT 100 Year Old Anti-Corruption Law

A bad decision by the SCOTUS occured to day, though many have missed it given the Court’s decision on Arizona’s SB1070.

The SCOTUS struck down Montana’s century old law, the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, limiting corporate political spending, arguing that the Citizen’s United ruling applies to the Montana law. Sadly this decision was made in the face of overwhelming historical evidence of Montana’s position that the independent expenditures corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.

It still boggles my mind that the SCOTUS says corporations have free speech or even accept the notion of corporate personhood when by their very definition a corporation is not a person but a legal construct of an organization form with government approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business or other activities. On several counts by definition makes it clear that a corporation is not a person.

I still have to wonder what is going on in the Supreme Court with ridiculous rulings over the past decade giving more and more rights and powers to corporations while eroding the rights of the citizens of the United States. Sure I’ve been warning people to be alert for growing corporate hegemony (and often laughed at for these claims) yet here we are with more and more rulings asserting the right of corporate supremacy over that of the citizen and individual.

SCOTUS Ruling on AZ SB1070

The United States Supreme Court made what can only really be called a split decision over Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law. Some see it as a win for the state of Arizona, others as a win for Federal supremacy. I did laugh at the range of headlines form assorted newspapers and internet sites in response to ruling as it became evident what political stripe said groups were in based on their choice of headline. Perhaps the most amusing was HuffPuff’s (aka Huffington Post) use of the term “gutted”
 in their headline, when the ruling was actually quite the opposite.

What was upheld:

  1. Allowing local law enforcement officers to attempt to verify the immigration
    status of a person who has been stopped or detained for violating other laws,
    including moving vehicle violations.

This was one of the hot button issues involved with the law and one most often criticized as an overreach by the state of Arizona into Federal powers. With this ruling, the SCOTUS has made it clear that enforcement of immigration law for non-immigration related issues is lawful and appropriate.

What was struck down:

  1. A crime for illegals to be in Arizona.
  2. A crime for illegals to seek employment in Arizona.
  3. Authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they believed had made a deportable offense.

I could see why these three were struck down. They could be seen as violating an array of laws and civil rights such as double jeopardy and protections from illegal search seizure to name but two.

Ultimately it is what it is: a split decision of which neither side can claim
complete victory. Already the pro-illegal supporters claim victory while
the anti-illegal supporters also do so. Overall, I’d say the decision was an minor victory for Arizona as the SCOTUS kept a key provision that the Federal government argued was their purview alone. That alone was a slap at the current administration’s dictatorial attitude and arrogant self righteousness of the Department of Justice towards the States.  I also see the decision as a push by the SCOTUS against the Federal government to start enforcing existing U.S. immigration law and working on genuine reform, not just pandering and declarative amnesty by politicians looking to be re-elected to office.

Regardless of the decision, it still does not address keys issues that needs to be resolved by the United States: immigration reform and illegal immigrants. Obama simply can not “wave his hand” and claim so called “Dreamers” effectively a free pass and not bring on the ire of many American citizens and legal immigrants, especially in states that bore the brunt of illegals eating up local services, who are tired of government policies that give the perception (rightly or wrongly) of favoring illegals and law breakers over those are citizens, legal residents, and law abiding. Solve the immigration policies and problems and you’ll solve much of the debate and concern over illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, given the issues surrounding illegals has been around since long before I was born and we have self serving politicians more interested in their party and their greed than the well being of the nation I don’t see any resolution coming in the near future. All I see is pandering and promises to Hispanics in vain attempts to get votes, not workable solutions.

Obama’s Supreme Court Comments

I’ve been considering President Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court potentially overturning ObamaCare deciding if he was serious or making the usual political hay politicians are wont to do when they think a ruling bu the judiciary will not be to their benefit. I’ve come to the conclusion it was  a bit of both. The fact that it was a bit of both only reaffirms my belief that Obama does not understand how the U.S. Constitution and the government derived from it works.

President Obama claimed that it was unprecedented for the SCOTUS to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Obviously the President has conveniently forgotten that last two hundred years or so in which the SCOTUS has acted as a judicial review of laws that may infringe upon, if not outright counter, the framework of the Constitutional government and Bill of Rights all Americans live under. That hardly makes the SCOTUS overruling laws passed by a majority of Congress unprecedented.

Disturbingly, President Obama tried to imply that the number of votes that passed ObamaCare somehow makes it exempt from challenge or judicial review; that the Legislature and Executive branches of the Federal Government were above any and all judicial process. That is the mindset of would be dictators, not democratically minded politicians. The President clearly does not understand that the United States is a Federal Republic in which democracy exists, but the “mob rule” is not allowed to trample those that were in the minority of a vote. This attitude is a primary reason the Founders established our three-part government: to establish checks and balances that prevent any part of the triad from being able to usurp control of the nation for their own ends and rule without restraint.

So I am left wondering:

  1. Was Obama playing politics, trying to stoke up furor amongst his base and the radical left?
  2. Does Obama truly believe the Executive and Legislative branch can make laws without allowing for redress by the public via judicial challenges and review?

As to playing politics, I have no doubt that is exactly what Obama was doing. Unfortunately all he did was harden both sides and perhaps alienated those on the fence concerned that this was an indicator for Obama’s nascent desire for greater power via larger government and perhaps even attempting to intimidate the SCOTUS into submission to his policies.

Does Obama believe the Executive and Legislative branch can rule without public redress? I believe he does. He’s always been a man who supports expansive overarching government.

However, in his support for big government, he has forgotten that since pretty much the founding of the United States the public has always had the right to challenge laws thought to be unfair, discriminatory, or otherwise detrimental to individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. The President forgot something important about the founding of this nation: the Revolution was in part response to the rulers (King George and his court) refusing to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of their subjects in the Colonies.

Curiously, Obama has no complaints about prior “judicial activism” of the SCOTUS. Perhaps he needs a reminder of just a few  important decisions resulting from SCOTUS rulings:

  1. Miranda rights.
  2. Abortion rights.
  3. Contraceptive rights.
  4. Desegregation.
  5. Ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. (I.e. Allowing marriage between races)

While I feel the SCOTUS has made several severely flawed decisions, especially of late, and no longer believe they always make the correct, let alone truly constitutional decision, I’ll take the opinions of the Justices musings over that of a blow-hard politician, even if he is the President, any day of the week.

Commentary: SCOTUS Starts Review of ObamaCare

Today begins the first day of the Supreme Court’s review of the challenges to ObamaCare, specifically related to the individual mandate. Once, I would have implicitly trusted that Justices of the SCOTUS to make the correct decision with regard to Constitutional matters. Recent decisions by the court such as granting corporate personhood and stripping away property rights using eminent domain for business development to name but two issues make that impossible for me now. For me the challenge to ObamaCare is not just about the personal freedom of American citizens to choose to partake (or not) in commerce but whether the Court itself is still legitimate.

Anyone who’s read this blog knows I oppose ObamaCare on a number of grounds, namely those that infringe upon personal choices, taxes, and discriminatory policies, fees, and taxes in the law that have a detrimental impact toward the poor, those with long term medical conditions, the disabled, small businesses, the self employed and contractors, the elderly, and existing government entitlement programs. However, my greatest opposition comes from the so-called mandate that requires an individual to buy health insurance or face a penalty or prison time. This brings to mind some terrifying notions and a frightening image of the law’s creator’s mindset. One, the law if it were to stand, implies that the government in the future could require any American citizen to make a purchase of a product (whether needed/wanted or not) or face legal harassment and/or punishment. Given the United State’s poor history when the government has too much power we are led to a disturbing possibility: the law effectively re-establishes the horrific and reprehensible notion that people are in fact the property of the state and said state (the Federal Government) can dictate any aspect of the “property” as it sees fit.

Overstatement? Hysterical hyperbole? Hardly. Simply look back over the past one hundred years of history alone to see how dangerous it is to allow an overarching government too much say in people’s lives, let alone healthcare. Does anyone really want to see a return to the bad old days of discrimination and marginalization of whoever the government deems unworthy? Especially with a government that has a history of favoring certain classes above all others. Perhaps I’m too independent minded and my personal experiences have made me eternally skeptical and cynical towards the Federal Government’s motives especially when they start making claims about benefiting society.

My hope is the SCOTUS will partially redeem itself (at least to me) by striking down the mandate, but we’ll simply have to wait and see. While there is much laudable about ObamaCare, there is much that is harmful. If the mandate stands, individual freedom and liberty in America will have its death knell.

Protect Voters’ Right Investigated

Group that funded DiCiccio recall attempt investigated

“The fact that PVR formed at or around the same time as Save Phoenix Taxpayers and was the largest contributor to the political committee does not mean PVR is a sham entity or that it violated the law,” Desai wrote in a letter to the Secretary of State.

No, but it is highly suspicious if it is also true that all but about $100 dollars of Save Phoenix Taxpayers DiCiccio recall campaign was funded by Scott Phelps’ Protect Voters’ Rights (PVR) organization. That sounds sounds worthy of investigating given the Supreme Court of the United States’ questionable ruling:

Groups like Protect Voters’ Rights have become more prevalent after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections as long as they don’t coordinate with a campaign or give directly to a candidate.

The question, and investigation, is over whether PVR illegally coordinated a political campaign effort by created a sham company. All groups such as these, regardless of political stripe, should be investigated and if found to be violating the law prosecuted and punished so that elections don’t become any more corrupt than  they have already have thanks to the SCOTUS’s poor decision.

As to Save Phoenix Taxpayers, I figured the group was a sham anyway. I was approached three separate times to support the recall effort. In each instance when I asked them to give me legitimate, non-politically motivated reasons (i.e. illegal activity, failure to perform the duties of their office, etc.) to have DiCiccio recalled none could do so. The worst was the third individual who claimed he was only collecting signatures for a paycheck and had no interest in the recall effort what so ever. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the organization there.

Woe to the Republic: SCOTUS Undermines Democracy

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections – latimes.com

I wish I could say I am surprised that the Supreme Court made this decision, but I am not. Once again the Supreme Court of the United States undermines American citizens and democracy in favor of corporate hegemony. The last anti-civil rights agenda supported by the Supreme Court was approving eminent domain being used to steal property from citizens so that land could be given to corporations. See the trend?

The notion that entities like corporations and unions have the same rights and often times accorded more rights than citizens is ludicrous. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS now appears to be firmly in the belief that the “rights” of corporations supersede the rights of the citizenry.

Another defeat for American democracy at the hands of those who are supposed to uphold said democracy. Democracy by it’s very definition is for the people, not corporations. Too bad those on the Supreme Court who approved this undermining of democracy have forgotten this simple concept. When corporations and government combine you have fascism.

Woe to the Republic!

Since entities like corporations and unions have all the money and influence to counteract said money and influence I propose new laws be implementing requiring both corporations, unions, and other entities covered by this decision as well as lawmakers be required to reveal their supporters to the public (including monetary amounts) via newsletters, radio ads, commercials, et al., in advance of any vote. Additionally, make a mandatory spending limit for those seeking elections. Remove the hegemonists their paths of influence and we’ll be on the path to regaining control of democracy.