Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Dec 15 2009

At the present time I don’t believe I can improve upon last year’s Christmas Day post so it is linked here as the offering for Christmas Eve 2009.

Christmas, December 25th, 2008

And of course, Merry Christmas to all from Stanford Matthews of MoreWhat.com

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch. The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself. The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined. It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review. Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.

“The Constitution of the United States,” said Woodrow Wilson, “was not made to fit us like a strait jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” The often-praised wisdom of the authors of the Constitution consisted largely of their restraint. They resisted the temptation to write too many specifics into the basic document. They contented themselves with establishing a framework of government that included safeguards against the abuse of power. When the Marshall decision Marbury v. Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.

(The order bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. )

(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents in the National Archives [Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 23-24.)

In honor of the current debate on ‘health reform’ this post is presented. It is hoped that if all else fails and the White House and Congress continue to ignore the public on this contrived issue SCOTUS will rise to the occasion and strike it down as, you guessed it, ‘repugnant to the Constitution’. And yes, we have activist judges who legislate from the bench, etc., but perhaps eventually we will return to sanity.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(this post continues a theme previously initiated here called Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy)

Better late than never.  At the end of the Festival of Lights I extend warm wishes to those who celebrate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

The 2009 National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony The ceremony is a time-honored holiday tradition which includes the illumination of the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse just south of the White House. Nationally known entertainers and the United States Marine Corps Band add to the celebratory evening in which the President is invited to bring a message of peace to the nation and the world. With the White House as the back drop, in what becomes the “Christmas Pathway of Peace”, the National Christmas Tree and 56 smaller trees - one for each state, five territories, and the District of Columbia - serve as the event focal point.

The first National Christmas Tree was placed on the Ellipse south of the White House in December 1923. The tree was a 48-foot Balsam fir donated by the President of Middlebury College in Vermont. At 5 p.m. on Christmas Eve, President Calvin Coolidge walked from the White House to the Ellipse to light the tree from his native state. The tree was decorated with 2,500 electric bulbs in red, white and green, donated by the Electric League of Washington. Music for this first lighting ceremony was provided by a local choir and a “quartet” from the U.S. Marine Band.

Merry Christmas

from Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

To Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell…..

OUTSTANDING!!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cutting through the manufactured Obama mystique, presenting a signature historic comparison as well as a succinct review of the politics in Washington and a telling GOP victory in Kentucky state politics George F Will presents a scenario to warm the hearts of conservatives everywhere this Christmas season.

Today there are more independents than Democrats, more independents than Republicans, and according to a recent Gallup poll, independents’ approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress (14 percent) is lower than Republicans’ approval (17 percent). This is partly a function of the majority party’s health-care monomania. Consider what happened recently in Kentucky.

There a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican, by 12 points, won a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington — against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their health-care legislation.

Make no mistake. Independents are the fastest growing and some reports suggest the largest voter group currently in the US. Of course the public is overwhelmingly annoyed by Congress and the White House. Both major political parties have angered citizens for years. But the tide may be turning for the GOP and that opinion has been discussed widely. George Will’s column referenced above supports the notion. His current contribution on the topic and others may serve as evidence on a related topic.

An underlying debate on politics in the US includes the renewal of an old idea. We need a third party. The rebuttal to that notion in conservative circles suggests it is a mistake. Following references to Reagan it is suggested that would be folly and it is wiser to fix the current GOP. Given the rise in those identifying themselves as independent voters the third party may already be here.

Swing states and the increasing significance of independent voters in recent elections suggest neither ‘major’ political party in the US has the strength they once did. If the independent voter trends are in fact true in an age of digital everything and instant information the need for the traditional idea of a third party may be dead. For voters have new weapons and may be awakening to the idea of the power of their vote. POLS will ignore this phenomena at their own peril. Witness the tea parties many choose to dismiss. The third party is here.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Shamnesty for illegal immigrants is rearing its ugly head again. A new bill introduced by Rep Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) brings to mind two items immediately. Gutierrez is from Illinois and the Chicago political machine as is President Obama. And the word ‘caucus’ suggests, go figure, special interest. Wordnet defines ‘caucus’ as follows:

meet to select a candidate or promote a policy
a closed political meeting

Gutierrez describes his bill in the quote below.

My bill will promote fair immigration proceedings, humane treatment of immigration detainees, and policies that respect the tenet of community policing. No more raids in our community, no more separation of our families. Now, none of this works without a strong commitment to America’s labor force. None of it works without a strong commitment. So one of the tenets of our bill will be comprehensive immigration reform, has to mean—has to mean—to protecting all workers.

A press release from Gutierrez is presented below. If not simply liberals the co-sponsors of his bill belong to one caucus (special interest) or another or are Hispanic.(one special interest as regards shamnesty). What ever happened to being American and not allowing one’s self to pursue agendas contrary to the rule of law and founding principles? To honor one’s responsibility as a citizen of the United States includes adhering to the rule of law. That also includes requiring those here illegally to, at the very least, return to their country of origin and get in line for legal entry to this country. Any argument to the contrary does not meet the smell test. Allowing illegal immigrants to thwart the rule of law as their first action as a prospective immigrant defies reason as well as indicates a willingness to do as one pleases rather than demonstrate characteristics of good citizenship. To be blunt, Mr Gutierrez’ legislative proposal is a crock. As is the sentiment of those who support it.

Looks like the shamnesty monster has returned as everyone expected. Time to defend this nation again from those who would destroy it by ignoring its founding.

Other related posts on this blog

Send immigration views to Congress (click here)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

the press release…..
Comprehensive Immigration Reform to be Introduced December 15
December 11, 2009
Rebecca Dreilinger (202) 225-8203

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Washington D.C.) On Tuesday, December 15, Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) will introduce new legislation, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), to the U.S. House of Representatives. Gutierrez will be joined by members of many different faiths and backgrounds, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus and Progressive Caucus.

Who:
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-4), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force

Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-12), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11), Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus

Rep. Mike Honda (CA-15), Chair of Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX-16), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Rep. Joe Baca (CA-43)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Rep. Judy Chu (CA-32)

Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY-7)

Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20)

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)

Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-38)

Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (TX-27)

Rep. Pedro R. Pierluisi (PR-At large)

Rep. Jared Polis (CO-2)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)

Rep. Jose E. Serrano (NY-16)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9)

Other Members of Congress

What:
Introduction of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

When:
12:30 pm, Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Where:
Room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building

“We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and our President,” said Rep. Gutierrez. “The time for waiting is over. This bill will be presented before Congress recesses for the holidays so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year. It is the product of months of collaboration with civil rights advocates, labor organizations, and members of Congress. It is an answer to too many years of pain —mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border— all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system. This bill says ‘enough,’ and presents a solution to our broken system that we as a nation of immigrants can be proud of.”

Press should confirm their attendance with Rebecca Dreilinger at 202-225-8203 or via email at Rebecca.Dreilinger@mail.house.gov.

###

Amazing how so many Illinois POLS have links to irregularities in real estate. Mr Gutierrez is no exception.

In October 2008, Gutiérrez became subject to federal scrutiny as a result of a $200,000 loan he received from a campaign contributor on whose behalf he personally lobbied the mayor of Chicago to back a real estate development.

related:

Culture of corruption: Cory Voorhis, Denver ICE & the Voorhis prosecution (Michelle Malkin)