Did you hear the one about the Supreme Court?
I mean we are of a day when it seems that the world Democrat legal “experts” are living in doesn’t really exist. I am now seated listening some to Akhil Amar, a Constitutional Law Professor of Yale Law School, and other members of a panel on healthcare oral argument preview replaying now on CSPAN.
We have a new world order, much of these arguments went out with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
There is no basis for Professor Amar’s claim that state now are incapable of fixing or sufficiently policing his “spill-over” constructs. It is an argument that was of the pre Jobian Tablets decades when Senator Ted Kennedy might have been justified himself with such. There are many other ways to address such concern now and experts that could move laterally from comstats for community policing to a new web based community county wide system using technology to police his spill-over.
What got me back to social media tonight after some livestreaming of healthcare debates also today but as part of Social Media Week was some absurd “commerce” or other attempt to justify Obamacare as written.
We have a new world order, dangerously now a bio-threat may be more real since Obama inauguration, but that is not a good reason to say his failures in world wide diplomacy, justify a mandate due to a new greater threat.
It is hard to see where the world some of these Democrat defenders of Obamacare over-reaching actually exists. I may have had more issue with Neal Katyal’s legal constructs and as well for seeming removed in time and place from defense of our Constitutional purpose and especially import of our Bill of Rights.
I don’t know about you all but I did grow up in a neighborhood with a Christian Science Monitor (?) place of worship and all the neighborhood polite whispers to guide concerned that such was a house of worship that didn’t believe in medical interverence or interruption in their existence and their beliefs. This was my New Haven of my youth - such building is in new hands and has been built out and enhanced into a state of the art new New Haven Public School - a new Hooker School. Representative Rosa DeLauro knows it well - she must - she has lived a block away for decades. For me it was a neighborhood parking lot that could be a play ground and with a wall good at times as a tennis backboard.
Professor Amar misses that we are in a new world order - a different State order since the days Senator Kennedy started on such path. We have now that keeping radical changes attempted by Democrats to our otherwise “general Welfare” ambling ways may put at more at risk as a nation not less at risk. He can mention bio-threats as causal for mandate as if forcing citizens to possess guns but if the act of establishing such a Constitutional variation from our norms makes us that of a greater danger we should pause and wonder.
The changes they are arguing for in defense of Obama’s over-reaching are a fundamental Constitutional shift and a pre-emption from a mass of other alternatives at least available to fight or stem burden risk of “spill-over” mentioned already. We haven’t ever at least tried to deal with “spill-over” as we did the once over centralized and near bunker mentality that had become our policing standard pre 1990s. We now only have more options and many that could use mass of Jobian Tablets currently available as well as medical bracelets with computer memory to otherwise make record as portable as “need” suggested some by Obamacare.
I heard a lot about “limiting principles” and yet Obamacare defenders seemed to suggest that recent remarks by Chief of Staff Lew as of “Obama’s principles” weren’t admissible for their positions - that “principles” so mentioned by Lew would muck up their assertions of “limiting principles” since Lew’s comments force flush theirs for both offer a relevance of “principles” and in a contrariness. There cannot really be a place where their defense that “principles” aren’t needed or relevant and where Obama is asserted to have the “Principles” established that defend such.
When the United States of America became a sole superpower we became of a different necessary Constitutional interpretation about federalism and state(s) versus State rights. We became of a time where we should become safer globally by becoming renewed to a more original regionalism. That said, still if defenders of Obamacare cannot argue how a county wide reformed system could work then they shouldn’t be able to assert that they have an argument of understanding for a centralization starting instead much too far away or maybe above county wide to country wide. We have that you can say it needs a national fix and yet not be saying truthfully that a nationalized fix with centralization is needed.
I don’t know where in the known world these Democrat Obamacare legal “experts” actually exists. We have that our Bill of Rights give all citizens the right to protect themselves and their property with ten that preserve them a Right to thwart those against them acting against the Ten Commandments. Our Bill of Rights preserve the Power of citizens to protect themselves from others braking faith with the Ten Commandments. As per healthcare reform it cannot be like requiring a citizen to possess a weapon for it is more like requiring them to refrain from a defense with them, and as a domestic threat. We don’t have to be believers of a church where their faith prohibits medical care to see that some hold in their faith that some illness comes from crossing barriers of society or community around establish sins.
It is extraordinary for sure that Obamacare may actually change our American ways Constitutional so much that it could set us to a higher national risk level to the very type of attacks it wants to defend us from. We have that they attempted to start at the top with a grand ideological centralizing when the problems they claim make it necessary actually now still are a new frontier of possibilities to enhance not strangle our reputation and freedom. We have that Obamacare healthcare reforms have yet hardly had an alternative of many now possible and plausible even tried yet in New York State - even attempted by NY to compete with MASS. We have all of the Clintons’ 8 and then their New York Senate power projection days all to wonder on - all as evidence that goal must have been to avoid finding local and community more county based alternatives.
Before the new world order came in with America standing as a sole superpower we had State over state(s) in ways that since have not necessarily been wise or economically prudent or attractive. We have that Obamacare may be of an economic suppression actually causal partly to our down economy. We have that they are too many commercial and county or state based possibilities that haven’t been attempted yet, though now plausible with internet age. We have that “spill-over” is where we should start - that we have at least county based problems effecting costs that are not impossible and insurmountable and so justifying of a new nationalism.
How can this be allowable under our Commerce clause if it ideologically asks for a bias that depends on us not looking at all the commercial alternatives actually still available, and at least before a permanent change made to our Constitutional foundation here to fore up held within our national security conditions and priorities?
I don’t know how Clintons’ New York hasn’t yet offered a regional alternative - to have avoided such still only adds to a foreign perspective of America that if the National government rushes to over-take their states with such over-reaching it must as well therefor think it should be dictating to their sovereign states as well, where ever. Only by embracing that this era allows us near a renaissance in regionalism within current Constitutional interpretation can we show the world that we aren’t all thinking our Washington based “New Nationalism” isn’t meant to be an “imperialism.”
The new world order with us left standing as a sole superpower suggested we would be safer and better to be ourselves more, with a renewed regionalism to show that we still weren’t an imperial nation by design - weren’t a neo-colonialist conglomerate egomaniacal soulless mass looking to spread a forced assimilation, still.
And as I considered much of this just the same in early 90s and around days of IBM struggling with PC marketing now I do for Jobian Tablets again with same commerce concerns that Democrats have to be checked from their hopes that such computer hook-up are better towards assimilation than a renewal or renaissance in originality and free expression.
We have an economy of the Democrats now - we have that Republicans seemed to accept that the best defense was to let the Democrats defeat themselves - to let them have their unreal vacuum and see if such wouldn’t actually just fail and fail as of their pure design - their worked out applications of their ideological bias.
We have the Chief of Staff Lew implied President Obama already has “Principles” that can explain all of this and even so to cover all “limiting principles” restraints.
I don’t - I don’t know that the world Democrats seem to be living in actually exists anywhere, anywhere in the world as we know it. I do know that Obamacare attempts to prevent and preclude so many commercial alternative still possible and plausible and yet still not yet attempted and yet still being discussed by Americans interested in national resolving without such being nationalized option.
The grandest fallacy heard by Yale Constitutional Law Professor Amar regarding his “spill-over” justification is that Obamacare was passed before we solved our national border and immigration big issues, and so isn’t actually offering to prevent “spill-over” just move it more grandly with out sufficient forethought to a new big national issue, with healthcare reform a great big carrot now to encourage and attract more illegal spilling across our borders.