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.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

The Future's Real Direction

Last November we had a series of messages that revolved around the The Needed Activist Judge Mindset Change message that included my published letter to the WSJ & highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court is supreme only over the Judicial Branch.  The other two branches are their equal and if anything the elected branches are higher in times of tension between the branches.  Eliminating the false supremacy of the Judicial Branch over the other two elected branches is just another mindset change that needs to be made in our country although in this instance the best chance we have of slowing down ObamaCare is with this Supreme Court case.  Win some lose most.

This is especially important to understand as three days of oral arguments before the Supreme Court begin on Monday re whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional. 

This case, seemingly about healthcare, is really not about healthcare or healthcare insurance @ all & it is not the Supreme Court who should decide whether it is constitutional to begin with based on our Founders' intentions.

If you start by putting yourself in the Founders' mindset you quickly realize that the Constitution & the Bill of Rights were both written explicitly to keep the government off the peoples' backs.  There is no massaging or spinning the language in these documents that change the founding principles of our country -  limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise.  None of the arguments for ObamaCare pay any respect @ all to these principles.

After this Supreme Court case is decided it will be magnified, whether the issue is healthcare or most likely something else, that all of the future High Court decisions are really focused on the direction of the country toward liberty or socialism rather than the specifics of the particular case.


  1. Doug,
    I don't entirely understand where you are going with this piece. Would you be upset if the Supreme Court were to decide that the individual mandate of the AHCA exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)? Or is your concern outcome determinative? The power of the Supreme Court works both ways.

    If there were no Supreme Court to make the call, there would be nothing to potentially put the brakes on the Executive and the Legislative branches, who have already made their call. Should Obama be re-elected, Congress will be unable to repeal the AHCA, and the cement that is abridging this aspect of individual liberty will solidify.

    It was unclear, when the the Constitution was first ratified, whether the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of a statute. But the Supreme Court has been exercising that power since Marshall.

    As you aptly pointed out in your letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President also has a remedy. The President can exercise his or her own veto power when the legislation comes to the Presidential Desk, and he or she has constitutional concerns.

  2. I pray the people arguing this case are capable to rebut every sparring word the opponents make. Am sure they can do better than me. God help them.