About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Non Relationship Between Healthcare & The Constitution

Thanks to our mid-west member for passing along this video of the great libertarian Judge Andrew Nopolitana speaking about the non relationship of healthcare & the Constitution. The Judge is a constitutional expert. In this video he explains, among other things, the Founders' meaning of the Commerce Clause that has been used by Congress exactly the opposite of its original intent - namely to regulate anything & everything they please under the guise of regulating commerce per the Constitution. In the case of BO's currently seemingly stalled healthcare insurance reform, relying on the Commerce Clause is once again the plan to ward off the constitutional challenge of 13 State Attorneys General presented on this blog last month.

Now BO's invitation for the Republicans for the first time to join the healthcare reform negotiations starting on February 25 is just the latest ruse that will end with the Senate using the parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" that does away with the long standing Senate rule that requires 60 votes to bring a bill's deliberations to cloture. Only a simple majority of the Senate is required under "reconciliation." Of course "reconciliation" will not be needed if the Republicans capitulate which is highly possible. BO, Pelosi, & maybe Reid consider using "reconciliation" despite the Massachusetts victory of Senator Scott "41" Brown.

Betsy McCaughey sums up this chance of a generation for the statists - "Obama defends the current Democratic health bills, claiming they will reduce the deficit. That's a shell game. These bills are paid for with $500 billion in new taxes over ten years. A vast expansion of government is not deficit reduction. It's freedom reduction." And that is exactly BO's intention.


  1. Reconciliation, however, was a friend of “W” – I think he thought that was normal operation mode. My dad and I were talking about Bush and his use of reconciliation which is how he passed his tax cuts.

    Here are the Bush samples of reconciliation use: The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01], The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03], Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06], The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05

    Probably better known as:

    Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
    Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
    The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
    Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

  2. With regard to reconciliation Bush's use of it was correct - Reconciliation is a legislative process in the U.S. Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the U.S. House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.

    I looked up the bills you listed & all of them were budget bills - I copied & pasted the following right from the Senate vote page for each of them.

    A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002

    To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

    A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

    An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

    So you are correct that Bush did use reconciliation but he did it per the rules & above definition provided by Wikipedia. I draw the distinction between BO planning to use reconciliation to pass healthcare insurance reform which is not per the current rules & is not a budget bill.