RULE OF LAW? WHAT RULE OF LAW?

The Supreme Court just demonstrated we no longer have three separate branches of government, nor a Constitutional Rule of Law. We no longer have any checks and balances. There is no separation of the branches. We are now to be ruled by whoever has the power to tell you what the law is and the guns to enforce it. We can no longer say, you can’t do that because it’s against the law. The law is now whatever they say it is.

Chief Justice Roberts said the law didn’t mean what it said. YES, IT DID! The law says nine times that the state exchanges are the only ones that can give subsidies. Our friend (sarcasm) Jonathan Gruber explained, very clearly, that they wrote the bill to force states to set up exchanges. He explained that their citizens would be paying the tax but if their state didn’t set up exchanges they wouldn’t get the subsidies. They would be paying to help other citizens but not themselves. Gruber was counting on the stupidity of the citizens to pressure their states into setting up the exchanges. Nothing could be clearer that they did, IN FACT, mean what the bill said. So, now the Supreme Court is making law not enforcing it. They just threw out statutory law saying it didn’t mean what it said. Apparently, it is now the job of the Supreme Court to find a way to uphold whatever laws Congress passes, Constitutional or not. What the Court should have done was send the bill back to Congress to amend.

I’m certainly not an expert on the Supreme Court but I don’t believe this has ever happened before. I don’t believe the Court has ever claimed the language of the law didn’t mean what it said. Roberts suggested overturning this portion of the law would cause chaos. That is a very disingenuous argument, considering they are about to overturn Common Law (the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God) as well by ruling in favor of same sex marriage, which will bring more chaos than this country has ever seen.

The “fundamental transformation” Obama promised us is moving faster and faster. Michelle’s promise to change our conversations, our traditions and our history is moving even faster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f2j_a_7XkE

I’ve listened to Michelle’s speech numerous times and wondered why no one asked why. We are still (for now) a White majority country. Why wouldn’t our traditions be the dominant ones? Why would we want to “change our history”? What happened in the past……happened. Not teaching it, doesn’t change that it happened. And, as we all know, if you don’t know history, you are destined to repeat it. So, why would anyone want to “change our history”? Why would we want to repeat the mistakes of the past? The only reason I can think of is that they don’t want people to understand the value of our Bill of Rights and Constitution. They don’t want people to understand the value of individual liberty and limited government.

The people who are cheering this ruling, clearly don’t know history or understand the significance of the Rule of Law. We have been a country of Laws, not men. This is a Republic, not a democracy. It was designed to protect our form of government from the low information majority. When people discover they can vote to take money from others, they will.

This administration is bringing in immigrants and refugees from countries that have never known individual liberty and not teaching them the value of our system. This is on purpose. This is how they change our conversation, traditions and history.

This is a very sad day in our history. And, sadly, I suspect tomorrow will be even sadder.

Advertisements

About madderthanhell

Retired casting director. Mother of two daughters. Grandmother of twin boys and two step grandsons. Lived in California all my life. Co-organizer of two Tea Parties. Past member of Republican Central Committee.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to RULE OF LAW? WHAT RULE OF LAW?

  1. Larry Scholnick says:

    The so-called Chaos that would have occurred had the Supreme Court ruled that “the law (Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare) meant what it said” is a direct result of the Obama Administration directing the IRS to mis-interpret the law during its implementation.

    You see, the IRS (everyone’s favorite agency) has as its official duty to implement the tax policies that have been passed by Congress and signed by the President. Congress did (by hook or by crook) pass Obamacare. A diligent and literal-minded IRS would have issued regulations that conformed to the law, and subsidies for the Federal Exchange would not have been issued.

    Someone in the Obama Administration (my best guess is that this came from within the Dept. of Health and Human Services, specifically CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) directed the IRS to ignore the language of the statute and issue regulations that allowed for subsidies for ALL (both Federal and State) exchanges rather than for State exchanges only, per the statute. They wanted a year of subsidies to already be in the hands of (undeserving) taxpayers and wanted to dare the courts to take the money away from people, especially knowing that doing so would have meant that these people would be no longer able to afford this “Affordable Care”..

    And it worked, spectacularly. The Supreme Court could not bring itself to enforce the law as written, and they knew that they couldn’t get Congress to amend the law, so they turned logic on its head and concocted the ruling that they did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s