Obama '08?

A Church of Christ preacher dies and goes to Heaven. Peter is showing him the different rooms.

They come to one room where people are jumping up and down, praising God. The COC preacher asks Peter, “What room is this?” Peter answers, “This is the Pentecostal Room.”

They go to another room where a non-stop collection is taking place. Millions and millions of dollars are being collected. The COC preacher asks, “Which room is this?” Peter answers, “This is the Baptist Room.”

They go to another room where everyone is quiet and reverant. Again, the COC preachers asks, “What is this room.” Peter answers, “Shhh!!! This is the COC Room. They think they’re the only ones here.”

Professor Natelson says that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because:
“1. It is not based on any enumerated power of Congress, not even on a very expansive reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce.
2. It relies on Excessive Delegation of the type held unconstitutional in Schechter Poultry.
3. It violates Substantive Due Process, and interferes with doctor-patient medical decisions to a vastly greater extent than did the laws declared unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade.
4. It violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments.”
(However, commenters in response to Professor Natel’s post argue that by the time any challenge to ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court, Obama will have packed the court with liberal justices who are unsympathetic to such arguments).
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has criticized the racial preferences in the health-care bill backed by Obama, saying that they are likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, which subjected race-based affirmative action to “strict scrutiny” and barred federal racial preferences absent evidence that they are needed to remedy intentional past discrimination by the government. (In cases like Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense and the Western States Paving case, the courts have sometimes struck down federal affirmative-action plans sponsored by liberal lawmakers, citing the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision. ObamaCare goes even further in mandating the use of race than past affirmative action plans.)
Fact checkers say Obama is lying about health care. ObamaCare will cost far more than its predicted trillion-dollar price tag.
One of Obama’s own advisers says the Obama Administration’s health-care plan will harm people with insurance while raising their taxes. Obamacare will take away 5 important freedoms, notes a CNN commentary. It will also destroy many affordable health-care plans while breaking Obama’s campaign promises.

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?
Written by Rob Natelson on 17 August 2009
During the Bush administration, many within the dominant culture expressed concern about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo.
Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, many express doubt about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors.
But those voices have been mostly silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.
In fact, the constitutional difficulties are profound. This is certainly so for those who believe the Constitution means what our Founders understood it to mean. But it is even true for those interested only in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Following are some of the ways in which current health care proposals potentially clash with our nation’s Basic Law:
Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.
To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.
The greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a “pretext” for assuming an unauthorized power, “it would become the painful duty” of the Court “to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” But health care bills such as the Obama-favored HB 3200 do not even offer a pretext. The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a severability clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional. HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power.
Excessive Delegation. The Constitution “vests” legislative authority in Congress. Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch. This is another realm in which the modern Supreme Court has been lenient, while affirming that there are limits. Thus, in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), a unanimous court struck down a delegation of authority that looked much like the delegations in some current health care proposals.
Substantive Due Process. The Substantive Due Process doctrine was not contemplated by the Founders, but the courts have engrafted onto constitutional jurisprudence. The courts employ this doctrine to invalidate laws they think are unacceptably intrusive of personal liberty or privacy. The most famous modern Substantive Due Process case is Roe v. Wade, which struck down state abortion laws that intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB 3200. “Global budgeting” and “single-payer” plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.
Tenth Amendment. Technically, the Tenth Amendment is merely a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the modern Supreme Court has cited the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress may not “commandeer” state decision making in the service of federal goals.
It is permissible for Congress to condition grants of funds to the states, if the conditions are related to the funding program and are not “coercive.” Thus, in 1986 the Court ruled that Congress may, because of highway safety issues, reduce highway grants by five percent to states refusing to raise their drinking ages to 21. But the mandates that some health care plans would impose on states certainly could be found “coercive,” both because they are excessive (HB 3200, for instance, would withdraw all Public Health Service Act money from non-cooperating states) and because they are unrelated to the program.
A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties. Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.” The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.

All of that of who really grew up on a farm is just down right silly. The point is that conservatives don't have a market on God, country and freedom.

Dear Policy Patriots -
Are Friends of Obama Being Exempted from the Regulations of the New Health Law? A growing number of labor unions and politically well-connected entities are receiving preferential treatment from the Obama Administration. Already 111 labor unions and Administration-approved businesses - such as Asbestos Workers Local 53, Local 25 SEIU, CIGNA, Jack in the Box, and Denny's - have received waivers which exempt them from ObamaCare's worst provisions. The vast majority of small businesses, of course, won't get such a sweet deal.
Is Small Business Going to Be Left Out? Complying with ObamaCare's regulations is expensive. For small businesses without political connections, the options are painful: either pay for ObamaCare's costly mandates or be penalized and a pay a tax for not paying for ObamaCare's mandates.
Waivers are Arbitrary and Unfair. ObamaCare's waivers allow some taxpayers and employers to avoid costly mandates while compelling other no-less-deserving firms and employees to bear the burden and cost of ObamaCare.
Fight Back! ObamaCare constitutes a massive disruption in the U.S. economy. If its most onerous provisions aren't repealed, the American people can expect more of these kinds of expensive and arbitrary effects. You deserve better. Fight for the health reform you need.
We Need Your Support! You can help us in a variety of ways. Here are just a few:
• Forward This Letter to Your Friends. If you value the Weekly Policy Patriot Letter, your friends and family will, too. Forward this letter and encourage them to sign up.
• Order What Does Health Reform Mean for You? Educate your friends and family! Make sure they have the information they need by giving them the NCPA's What Does Health Reform Mean for You? Order your copy today at http://www.policypatriots.org.
• Donate to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Without your help, the NCPA can't produce the cutting-edge health policy recommendations that improve the lives of millions every day! Our ability to advise policymakers, the public and Policy Patriots depends on your contributions. You can donate online or mail a check to:
National Center for Policy Analysis
P.O. Box 650098
Dallas, Texas 75265-0098
Thanks for your support!
Warm regards,
Richard W. Walker
National Center for Policy Analysis

All of that of who really grew up on a farm is just down right silly.

Lets look at the barn description...

Why would Ohio State do that if there were no 2 story cow barns?

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
JW Election Day Poll: Voters Repudiate Bailouts, Bailout Secrecy and Warn Republicans
The balance of power shifted in dramatic fashion on Capitol Hill on November 2, as Republicans rode the Tea Party wave, seizing control of the House of Representatives and earning significant gains in the U.S. Senate.
Of course the spin from Obama/Pelosi/Reid on their historic thrashing was that voters were simply frustrated by the pace of the economic recovery. And there’s no doubt the state of the economy was top in the minds of voters as they took to the polls on Tuesday.
But according to an Election Day poll we conducted in partnership with the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend, the liberal spin on the election results doesn’t even begin to tell the full story.
Here’s the takeaway from our poll: The American people think the government is too big, too secret and too corrupt. And they do not want any more government bailouts, ever. Make no mistake. This was a complete repudiation of the Obama Big Government agenda and the corrupt manner in which this agenda has been implemented.
Here are some of the other highlights from the poll which we pulled from an excellent summary prepared by our polling partners:
1. Nearly two in three actual voters surveyed (63%) said the new Congress should “never” authorize using taxpayer funds to bailout or to buyout privately-owned businesses. Only 10% of voters support bailing out companies “too big to fail.”
2. 68% of actual voters surveyed said corruption played a major role in the financial crisis, with 47% saying corruption played a “very major role.”
3. 67% of actual voters said they believe the records regarding how the Treasury Department has spent bailout funds should “definitely be made available” to the public, while only 13% of voters said the records should “definitely be kept secret” — a ratio of 5:1.
4. 82% of actual voters said they believed the level of government corruption in Washington has either increased (43%) or stayed the same (39%) over the last two years. 68% of actual voters said they believe the level of government corruption in Washington will either increase (24%) or stay the same (44%) over the next two years.
5. A total of 50 points separated those voters who say the average American has too little information about how their tax dollars are spent, and those who say such access to this information is “about right” (71%-21%).
6. By a 2-to-1 ratio, respondents believed that major legislation from the last two years (healthcare, economic stimulus and bailouts) made it more difficult to make the government account for the use of taxpayer dollars — (62%-28%).
7. Nearly 80% of actual voters who participated in the 2010 elections sensed that government grew larger during the first two years of the Obama administration, a development that a 51%-majority of viewed negatively.
See any ambiguity here? I don’t. The American people, by astonishingly large majorities, rejected the corruption, the secrecy and the massive expansion of government that has taken place under Obama/Pelosi/Reid. The American people want it to stop now.
But, before Republicans get too comfortable with their new status on Capitol Hill, they should pay attention to our voter poll numbers that show little hope that corruption will be curtailed in the next two years.
Clearly Republicans have major work to do — even their own supporters don’t believe Washington will get any less corrupt on their watch. This poll is a warning to Republicans (and Democrats) in the new Congress that they had better shrink the size of government, make it more transparent, end bailouts and rein in corruption.
But will they? Will the new Congress embrace the Judicial Watch/Tea Party mainstream values of smaller, cleaner, more accountable government? This can only happen if new Members of Congress do not repeat the mistakes of the recent past.

On the GM stock offer:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45194.html

Agreed!