Did He Really Say That?

You’re undoubtedly heard the hub-bub over the remarks of President  Obama’s two weeks ago that  people are successful because they have help from the rest of us.  It was as if the President was suggesting that there’s nothing special about financial success.  It’s just good luck.  [So, of course, they should pay more taxes.] 

Naturally, the Obama people are claiming that he was quoted out of context.  Read the relevant sections yourself.

          “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me that you didn’t get there on your own. 

              I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

          If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet. 

           The point is, that when we succeed we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together.”

No, we don’t live in a state of nature.  We all are able to benefit from services, infrastructure, and education.  Call it the floor of civilization.  We all should – as able – pay for its cost.

But some rise further off the floor than others.  Why is that?  Sure, some are brought into this world with more advantages.  That may be health, wealth, muscle and brain power.  But what you do with your advantages -- and about your disadvantages -- is largely up to you, isn’t it?  Luck usually plays but a small role, if any.

The plain truth is that most of us are not smart enough, aren’t willing to work hard enough, aren’t committed enough to attain success.  But some  are.    

That America is a land of opportunity is more than a hollow cliché.  For those who doubt that, ask someone who wasn’t born here.  So why does President Obama say what he does about success and his supporters clap loudly their approval? 

Because they truly don’t understand the not-so-secret keys to success.  Know what you want, learn what you need to know, work hard for it and use your head in its pursuit. 

So the question implicitly posed by Barack Obama is:  If you attain financial success, should you pay a special penalty (tax) assessed against those in your category (top one, five or ten percent)? 

Of course you should, says the president.  He has made it clear that just because you’re smart and hard working bestows no special credit to you for your success. 

Yes, he credits individual initiative as a contributor to one’s success, but adds that “we do things together.”  And don’t forget “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

So what can he mean other than this: we should all share in the successful person’s bounty since we all made it possible?

Is it any wonder that conservatives ask whether President Obama is inclined toward socialism?

Aurora Massacre: Why? Is a Senseless Question

Why do so many people have a need to speculate on the reasons behind evil acts, as if psychology, alienation or upbringing are satisfactory explanations?

Because we like to think that if there is a reason for the conduct which health professionals can treat, we can limit (if not prevent) future occurrences. 

That is a fruitless quest.  I suggest that the explanation for the doing of evil acts, less satisfying though the answer may be, is the existence of evil people.

We may shy from affixing that label to the Aurora killer and call him mad, deranged or crazy.  But why?  We don’t search for reasons to explain Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.  Their evil acts defined them.

Conservatives know human nature.  Evil exists.  There is no cure for it.  And there is nothing we can do to make it disappear.

Is Barack Obama Faithful to his Oath as President?

Not recently.

On January 20, 2009, President Obama recited the oath required by the U.S. Constitution of all incoming chief executives.  “I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution further requires that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

 So how can President Obama be faithful to his oath when his Administration announces that certain classes of illegal-aliens will, unilaterally, be exempted from federal immigration laws.  Note that the language reads “shall [not may] take care” that laws are executed.

 As for who originates the law, our nation’s charter specifies that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

Simply put, the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress, as the legislative branch, passes laws and the President, as head of the executive branch, implements them.

The President has no right to enforce those who likes and ignore those he doesn’t.  A cynic (or realist) might say that our President, a former Constitutional Law instructor, is well aware of the document’s language but it certainly can’t be allowed to stymie a more important concern – namely, his reelection.  After all, the President will need every Latino and Latina vote his immigration law posture may attract. 

But there is a far more troubling observation to make:  The President’s policy preference (the so-called Dream Act) was not approved by Congress so he chose to make national policy by fiat.  Is that mere audacity or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?

Did the Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Obamacare Make Legal Sense?

Chief Justice John Roberts, on behalf of a 5 - 4 majority, ruled that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was constitutional under the “taxing” but not “commerce” clause of the Constitution.

Is that a distinction without a difference?  In my view as a lawyer, it is.  The Court’s opinion is flawed. 

Article One, Section Eight, of the U.S. Constitution, recites eighteen distinct powers of Congress including:  “…power to lay and collect taxes… to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

And

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and amongst the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Whether either of these clauses could support the individual mandate (compelling the purchase of health insurance) was the question Justice Roberts sought to answer: 

“Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority.  Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance.  Congress’ use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new.”

Here’s the problem with that analysis.

If the Constitution confers limited powers and the Commerce Clause accordingly does not grant unlimited authority to Congress, why isn’t the Federal government’s taxing power similarly restricted?

On its face, the Federal taxing clause is about raising revenue for designated purposes.  There is no mention in its text about using taxation to “encourage” people to do anything.

Anyway, a tax applies to something one has or does (think assets, income or purchases).  To call something a “tax” because a charge is imposed on economic inactivity (choosing not to buy health insurance, for instance) doesn’t change its essence:  a penalty is a penalty no matter what it’s called.

But if the tax clause can be used for such purposes – and the Roberts Court plainly said so – would Congress be exceeding its Constitutional authority if it imposed a tax on McDonald’s customers who decide not to order orange juice with their Egg McMuffin?  (Isn’t Vitamin C necessary for good health?)

To proponents of the Nanny State, people should be penalized (sorry, taxed) for not doing what they should.

Is that the legal principle which the formerly-known Conservative jurist sought to establish?

If Constitutional authority can be founded on semantics (tax instead of commerce), is any substance left in the concept of “limited government.”?

Is Chief Justice Roberts a Traitor to the Conservative Cause?

Without question, Chief Justice John Roberts has upset those on the right, myself included, by a Supreme Court Ruling upholding Obamacare.

The surprise is generated by two considerations.  First, the fact that it was he, and not the usual “swing man” Anthony Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote that secured the liberal victory.  Secondly, Roberts, a former member of Reagan’s White House and a Bush appointee, had a reputation as a staunch conservative voice on the Court. 

Understandably, Justice Roberts has drawn the ire of conservatives and other Americans because the result of his vote was to uphold a law which we oppose.  On the left, positive qualities, heretofore unnoticed, in the Chief Justice are trumpeted because their policy choice prevailed.

But as conservatives, don’t we believe in the rule of law even when the law is not of our preference?  Remember the catch phrase “a nation of laws not of men”?

Liberals don’t really endorse that sentiment.  Rather, laws and constitutions aren’t viewed as permanent.  They are construed to be in accord with their policy choices.  In an ironic sense, those on the left who view the constitution as a “living document” actually consider it as a dead letter.  Desired policy is not to be trumped by what was penned in 1787.

That’s not our perspective.  The “law of the land” is not a meaningless cliché to conservatives.

Thus, when a highly regarded jurist on the right makes a ruling, he is entitled to the presumption that it is based on his understanding of the Constitution and not as a conversion to the political views of the liberal brethren on the Court. 

In his controversial opinion upholding Obamacare as a constitutional exercise of Congressional power, Justice Roberts wrote:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.  Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.  It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”