Midknight Review is dedicated to the over throw of the current government. American Thinker outlines the first serious battle of the New Revolution.

While Midknight Review (sadly) does not believe this piece of legislation will be overturned by the Supremes, we certainly agree with the thinking behind the legal charge to rescind this bit of Marxist idiocy, especially as it (the legal charge) relates to a challenge to the Commerce statute that has been used as a plague against the Federalist foundation of this nation's original intent of national unity. "Federalism" as it applies to this country, is an union of self-governing units or, states. This editor identifies himself as a "federalist conservative" and believes that the phrase, "the United States of America" is, in and of itself, a clear and precise declaration of our federalist roots and national function. The key to the continuation of this foundational purpose is the Tenth Amendment. We now know there is not a single elected Democrat [on the National scene] who believes in the Tenth Amendment and the implicit principles attached to its single sentence statement. Certainly, the 10th is still around but it is has effectively begin kicked to the curb by the evolution of the Commerce clause. Have we conservatives waited too long to get "in the game?" Midknight Review does not know. There is really nothing left to do but to find out, is there? While we admit to the fantasy of this American Thinker article, we do know that fantasies have evolved into dreams and dreams into reality. As you read, give some thought as to what you can do in specific terms to accomplish the overthrow of the current Marxist Regime. We have years of elections to win and a whole population of citizens to educate. Know that this Review and the hundreds represented by Midknight Review are in the game to stay -- we [all] are playing for "keeps." Some of this game can be published, other aspects cannot. This editor has served notice to his family that come 2012, if huge gains have not be made, he will be leaving California to reappear in a state that supports the Tenth Amendment and is willing to fight for the total defeat of the current government. Our first line of action is, of course, the coming national election. There have been four national "skirmishes" (Virginia, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and NY23). We won the first three and lost the fourth in a close vote. Get ready for the Battle of Gettysburg !!! As you read, pray that the words of the author are not simply wishful thinking --- thanks to David G for the heads up on this article ---- jds.
.

March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

Is ObamaCare Headed for a Supreme Court Smackdown?

Michael Filozof
Now that the House Democrats have rammed ObamaCare down the throats of the nation by a vote of 219-212, the situation is indeed bleak. But Conservatives and Tea Partiers despondent over the fact that liberal Democrats just passed a massive encroachment on our liberties over their massive protests should take hope. James Madison saw this coming, and his forethought will give opponents of ObamaCare one last shot at killing it.

In Federalist #10, Madison wrote "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." (Boy, did he ever get THAT right.)

Knowing that the nation's future leaders would include usurpers and potential tyrants, Madison sought a way to preserve individual liberty despite their efforts. He thus devised the system of the separation of powers. "[E]ssential to the preservation of liberty..." he wrote in Federalist #51, "it is evident that each department should have a will of its own" and "members of each department should be as little dependent as possible" on the other branches.

Passage of legislation by Congress and the signature of the President are not enough. The next step is judicial review by the Supreme Court, an independent and co-equal branch of government. (Already the states of Idaho and Virginia have vowed to sue the Federal government over ObamaCare, and the passage of the legislation will doubtless spawn hundreds of other lawsuits as well).

Madison was a brilliant enough thinker to understand that the separation of powers relied on more than each branch having the "necessary constitutional means" to resist the others. The separation of powers provided each branch with the "personal motives" to "resist the encroachments of others."

"Ambition," wrote Madison, "must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the [branch]."

Thankfully, the Court has an axe to grind with Obama.

Remember the State of the Union Address? In January, Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court's courageous decision in the Citizens United case, upholding free speech and overturning key provisions of the "McCain-Feingold" law. Congressional Democrats whooped and jeered at the Court like obnoxious schoolboys. The Court was humiliated. Justice Alito shook his head in disgust and muttered that the President's remarks were "not true." In March, Chief Justice Roberts told an audience at the University of Alabama that the behavior of the President and the Congressional Democrats was "very troubling," and questioned why the Supreme Court should even bother to attend a "political pep rally." Roberts' remarks caused the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to issue a snarky rebuttal, again condemning the Court's decision.

It is quite likely that the "individual mandate" in ObamaCare requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance against their will is unconstitutional. But after the State of the Union dust-up, the Court has more than just technical legal motives to take up the case. Madison lamented that reliance on personal motives and ambitions "should be necessary to control the abuses of government" but understood that this was a "reflection on human nature."

I'm hoping that Madison's understanding of human nature was correct, and that Justices Alito and Roberts are chomping at the bit for the chance to get back at Obama and his Congressional goons for the humiliation they inflicted on the Court. A decision striking down ObamaCare, authored by Justice Alito, would be the ultimate smackdown
.