Worms: Can Of.

Larrery Anderson list the problems: Probable Constitutional Challenges to ObamaCare Read it all.

This is beyond it being budget bursting, corrupt, power hungry, care limiting, and self serving to Dem special interests. These are fundamental problems in regards to the core to US law.

At least now everyone in America will now know what us Second Amendment supporters have known for years, the political elite hold the Constitution, Limited Government, the Rule of Law, and you in contempt.

And that is the short list of possible constitutional challenges. Beware Democrats: if you pass ObamaCare, a constitutional hurricane is headed right for you.

There has to be one. We have to fight this, because Statism never stops. They'll keep pushing and controlling more and more. Look at how legislative process has been tortured to get ObamaCare nearly to the finish line.

Think they won't do the same for Cap and Trade, Amnesty, Assault Weapons Ban? Why wouldn't they?

Meh

More lies, more shady deals.

Why is it Slaughter House on steroids? This is a process that is generally used to make technical changes. This is a major substantive change and it's only being done to get around the 60 vote requirement in the Senate.

The thing is, even if he can get the House to pass the corrections bill there's no guarantee that it would pass in the Senate. The underlying Senate bill would still have passed the House without the Stupak language and be signed into law. It seems Stupak is really looking for a way to vote for the bill and save face on abortion.

...

Stupak is the most gullible man in the world if he thinks that Nancy is going to let a passed health care reform bill rot in her desk draw to keep her word to him.

Now for the politics...

Well, Nancy ain't got 216 if this is on the table.

It's a game of chicken, if this is what will happen on Sunday. Who will blink? The pro-life Stupak gang or the Pro-choicers who are saying screw this, we'll kill health care reform over it? But would the pro-choicers really do that? The odds of the 'corrections' bill passing the Senate are pretty slim. Are they really willing to kill this whole thing on a what? 30-40% chance chance the Senate will pass Stupack? I can't believe that.

I bet Stupack or enough of his gang cave before this happens but there's no way to know at this point.

Well have a better idea tomorrow morning after Stupak holds his press conference.

Profiles in Courage: The House Democrats hate the Senate bill with a passion (hence the Slaughter Solution to avoid soiling their hands by even voting on it). Problem is they have to and then hope the Senate agrees to the reconciliation bill. If the Senate doesn't follow through, then the Senate bill, Cornhusker Kickback and all becomes law.

The "silver lining" is that Pelosi et al wouldn't be this desperate if they had the votes. Unless they've got so used to insane deal making that they're reaching out to the Stupack group to shuffle votes around.

Constitution-Smonstitution.

Well, now everyone will get to experience what us Second Amendment folks have known for years.

The Constitution? They're just not that into it. Given how it limits goverment power and all.

A bridge too far?

This is a prudential consideration -- i.e., sure, this thing stinks on ice, but wouldn't it be worse for the Constitution if the Court stepped in and began micromanaging procedure in a coequal branch of government?

Such prudential concerns are important, but they do have their limits.

For example: Suppose that the the House passes a bill. But Nancy Pelosi doesn't like it, and substitutes her own version with some editing for the bill actually passed. She then presents this to the President for signature (after the Senate passes it).

Now, this is blatantly unconstitutional -- she just slipped a law to the President without a vote on it at all; it's merely what she alone wants -- but she's entrusted to do this presentation business and she claims it was passed.

Now if the House doesn't have some way to thwart her here -- if they cannot rouse some sort of vote to stop this -- is it really true that even in this case the Court would say "It is not for us to decide how the House manages its affairs?"

I doubt it. There is a limit to how much restraint prudence dictates you show in the face of constitutional lawlessness.

Now, in the present case, the situation is not quite as extreme. However, in the past, the self-executing "demonpass" dodge was used with regard to legislation that was going to pass anyway; Congress concocted itself a trivial dodge so they could say they hadn't voted to raise the debt ceiling. But if that dodge had not been available, they would have voted for it.

It'll certianly be challenged.


Meanwhile, Sad President is Sad.

Roger L. Simon ends:
What we may be watching is what happens when a man who has faced very little adversity in his life finally has to.

Stuart Williamson comments:

You call it unhappiness. I see it as anger, based on irritation and frustration.

“Change” wasn’t supposed to work out this way. HE won, the Right lost. Live with it! This was the man who was going to move mountains, cause oceans to subside, with the magic of his golden tongued oratory. Ruthless rulers would roll over at his bidding. His hubris is such that he truly believes that HealthCare, Cap and Trade, Educational reform – all his primary agenda – should be a slam dunk. It has not happened that way: he’s being shocked, blocked, stymied.

And he’s taking it personally and peevishly. This is a man without political skills, without diplomatic skills, without any instincts for governance. He doesn’t care about polls. He has no interest in what the electorate thinks.

The country is in the very best of hands!


And let's round out with Ramesh Ponnuru demolishing some Talking Points.

Talking point: The plan gives Americans, rather than government or health insurers, more control over their health insurance.

Reality: While you may want to go without insurance—especially once the government is done remaking it—the government will make you fork over cash to the insurance companies. If you want to buy a cheap catastrophic policy, the government will tell the insurance companies not to offer you one.

Talking point: The bill lets you keep your doctor and your insurance plan.

Reality: Unless you’re on Medicare Advantage, or your plan doesn’t meet the new regulatory standards, or the new law induces your employer to drop your coverage.

...

Talking point: “The American people deserve an up-or-down vote.”

Reality: Except in the House.

Of course!

So the Dems in the upper house passed one bill and a different bill got passed in the lower? How to solve this problem?

Instead of having a vote just *say* that the bill would have passed and move forward.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Yes, as if the kickbacks and deals weren't corrupt enough, now they're blatantly "avoiding votes".

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about their plans for Healthcare, and so willing to trust them.

Here's the basic civics.

Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.

It makes perfect sense that these people have contempt for the rule of law and limited goverment. They want their reformation and power and they want it now. Things like the law are like taxes and other rules, they're for the little people.

What do you expect from people who hold the First and Second amendments in contempt?

Something to read.

Via Joanna


Here's an enjoyable little story. Lucky Thirteen by Marko Kloos


My review, but really you should read it first

Very nice work.

Identifiable and steady voice for the narration. Good pacing and strong characterization.

Nice job at building the connection between Halley and Thirteen. A very enjoyable read and one that maintains the suspension of disbelief.

One problem is that it feels like part of a larger work. This is good and bad. It's good that it hints at a larger world and gets the reader into more, but it also feels a bit "lonely".

A bit more rounding out of the world could help. Though that is easy to overdo, and any infodump would detract from the central story.

Which does have a nice timeless nature, another positive.

February BlogMeet at Naked Chopstix

Been a while since I reviewed a sushi place.

Went to Naked Chopstix to meet this shady bunch.

Despite the trendy name and location it's a rather good sushi bar. Good quality selection of fish, fair selection. Okay enough prices. One thing that's nice is that it has a full bar for booze in addition to one for fish. Rather enjoyable place.

Good discussion and much fun by all. Also got one of Tam's free books.

Next, planning to do a little review of my Model Three.

And yes, I have the turtle.

The Question.

Anti-gun projection? Sure but there's more.

I've been in situations in other countries working where I'm glad I didn't have a gun. I've not sure I would've controlled myself.

Rep. Pete Jorgensen
D-Jackson
February 12, 2010

Joe Huffman retorts:

The question I have is if they don't think they can be trusted to have the power of a gun in their hands why should we trust them with the power of government in their hands?

And these are the same people that want the government to have more and more power.