Is a Convention of States a good idea?

art credit: redmillenial.com 

The three decisions made this week (on Obamacare, gay marriage, and the Texas "disparate impact" case) by the Supreme Court of the United States have left many of us depressed and wondering what can be done. Can anything be done?

My own e-mailbox brings a daily flow of messages from organizations, political groups, and politicians, most of which are looking for money, most of which offer conservative talking points, and most of which propose solutions based on conservative talking points. Yet we have all become aware that conservative talking points are the stock-in-trade of not only groups, but also – and especially – politicians who have no intention of voting on the basis of conservative values once they are in office. That goes for politicians in Ohio and in DC.

One suggestion that has been gathering support from politicians such as Tom Coburn and Sarah Palin, is the Article V Convention of States. Mark Levin wrote a book about it entitled The Liberty Amendments in which he lays out a case for eleven Constitutional amendments to "restore the Constitution’s moribund chief components: federalism, republicanism, and limited government." 

It all sounds good and promising. But I don’t think it is going to make any difference, and the project is already diverting time, energy, and resources away from everybody’s backyard.

Back in December 2013, someone writing under the name of Suzanne Hamner wrote a piece, “Convention of the States – Good or Bad?,” for her website, Freedom Outpost, and here are two points that got my attention [emphases added]:

Our current government is operating so far outside the Constitution, ignoring basic tenets of the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility, enumerated powers, and restrictions placed on it, that another amendment is just more words for them to ignore.

. . .

It boils down to one thing and one thing only; there is no way to legislate values and principles. Yes, the Constitution provides a remedy for our current situation in Article V; however, every tenet of government is so corrupted with the atmosphere of “the flavor of the month” causes that the risk of further damage outweighs the benefit until the people reclaim their local and state governments, then work up to the federal level. That is, if we can at this point.

Read the whole thing here.

An Article V Convention of States can pass all the Amendments it wants. They will be no substitute for citizens taking daily action in their community.

# # #

New word of the day: SCOTUScare

Art credit: Tenthamendmentcenter.com

So the SCOTUS validates Obamacare in a 6-3 vote, leaving the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) as the best available protection for Ohioans; see CTPP’s earlier blog here and scroll to the bottom for details on Columbus lawmakers.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has posted much of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent. Here are some key passages:

"Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” …. [at 2, italics in original]

"Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:

“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [at 2-3]

"Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”:

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]

"Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).

The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. 

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]

"The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy:

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

Call or email representatives in Columbus (scroll down here). 

# # #

It is Time for Ohioans to be in Control of our own Health Care

With the uncertainty of Obamacare in the courts, the outcome of any ruling, even if in our favor, will not completely rid Ohio citizens from the chains of Obamacare & the federal government.

US Senator John Cornyn & US Senator James Lankford explain in this op-ed how through the Health Care Compact, we have an opportunity at a second chance to get health care right in our country.

 At the federal level, Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia filed the Health Care Compact in the U.S. House of Representatives. Once Congress passes the legislation, the nine (and counting!) states that have joined the Compact would be able to take back control of health care from the federal government.

Looking to become the 10th member state of the Health Care Compact, the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) has passed out of State Government Committee and is eligible to be put on the Floor for a House vote.

The House Rules & Reference Committee sets the schedule for House votes.

Please contact the below GOP members of the House Rules & Reference Committee and respectfully request that they support the Health Care Compact (HB 34) and put Ohioans in charge of their own health care destiny.

With your support and immediate action, we can move one step closer to achieving our goal of true health care freedom for all Ohio citizens and remove ourselves from under Governor Kasich's Medicaid expansion!

Rules & Reference Committee

GOP Members

Rep. Ron Amstutz / Chair
Phone: (614) 466-1474
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Cliff Rosenberger / Vice-Chair
Phone: (614) 466-3506
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Andrew Brenner
Phone: (614) 644-6711
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Bill Hayes
Phone: (614) 466-2500
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Ron Hood
Phone: (614) 466-1464
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Stephanie Kunze
Phone: (614) 466-8012
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Dorothy Pelanda
Phone: (614) 466-8147
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Scott Ryan
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Contact: Click Here

Please call your OH House member and tell them to support the Health Care Compact - Click for OH House Directory.

Trans-Pacific Partnership : House passes the bill

Art credit: Radix

UPDATE Thurs. From Breitbart Big Government:

Obamatrade is alive.

One week after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected Obamatrade by voting against a key provision of it — Trade Adjustment Assistance — GOP establishment lawmakers resuscitated Trade Promotion Authority and rammed it through Thursday afternoon. The final tally was 218-208. . . .

. . . Because the Senate passed TAA and TPA together, the individual House version will now have to go back to the Senate for approval, where it may face a filibuster. It’s unclear how many senators would support TPA without TAA, a measure to aid workers who lose their jobs because of trade policy.

# # #

According to The Hill, the House will vote Thursday [tomorrow] on a stand-alone measure to grant President Obama fast-track trade authority.

Phyllis Schlafly explains how bad the bills are:

On Friday, Congress disrupted President Obama’s plan for a sweeping transfer of U.S. sovereignty to an unaccountable group of foreign busybodies. Hurray for the stalwart Americans who resisted the demands of Obama, the Republican leadership and the big-donor claque – but Speaker Boehner plans to give Congress another chance this week to make this dangerous mistake.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would turn over to globalists the power to issue regulations about U.S. trade, immigration, the environment, labor and commerce. It’s called a “living agreement,” which means the globalists can amend and change the text of the so-called agreement after it has gone into effect.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has frankly warned about this giveaway of U.S. sovereignty. Not only would Congress give up its powers to negotiate and write the terms of a treaty, but Congress also gives up its power to debate and amend the deal, to apply a cloture vote in the Senate, and to require a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

. . .

TPP puts us in a new political and economic union before a single private citizen is told about it and with public opinion running five to one against it. Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what is in it?

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., warns, “TPP calls for the formation of a permanent political and economic union known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which will have power to issue regulations impacting not only trade but immigration, the environment, labor and commerce.” He added, Congress “will have surrendered its legislative prerogatives. Before a word, line, paragraph, or page of this plan is made public, Congress will have even agreed to give up its treaty powers.”

. . .

Sessions continued: “Congress would be pre-clearing a political and economic union before a word of that arrangement has been made available to a single private citizen. This has the earmarks of a nascent European Union,” and Americans certainly don’t want to belong to a European union (that’s why we fought the American Revolution).

Rep. Hunter also warns that the new global governance institution would be “authorized to issue policies and regulations affecting our economy, our manufacturers, our workers, our immigration procedures, as well as current, labor and environmental practices.”

TPP is separating us from the U.S. Constitution and from national sovereignty and replacing both with a global governance superstructure. TPP has wrapped its audacious global governance plan in the mantle called “free trade,” which is a misnomer if there ever were one.

Read the rest here.

And here’s an update from today’s Politico:  

House Speaker John Boehner and Republican leaders are moving to revive President Barack Obama’s beleaguered trade agenda with an elaborate procedural workaround that was quickly greeted with skepticism among some Democrats.

Under the emerging plan, the House would vote on a bill that would give Obama fast-track authority to negotiate a sweeping trade deal with Pacific Rim countries, sending it to the Senate for final approval. To alleviate Democratic concerns, the Senate then would amend a separate bill on trade preferences to include Trade Adjustment Assistance, a worker aid program that Republicans oppose but that House Democrats have blocked to gain leverage in the negotiations over fast-track.

NationalReview Online reports:

When a group of House conservatives voted last week to kill a trade bill favored by President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders who support the measure steamed. Representative Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.) celebrated the revolt as a coming-of-age moment for rebel backbenchers. “Yesterday will be the day that we look back at as the day that conservatives finally started getting organized in the House,” he wrote in a note to the Spartanburg Tea Party. 

Led by Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), a platoon of conservatives demanded that Boehner agree to a series of concessions in exchange for their support for so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), legislation that would give President Obama wider latitude to negotiate free-trade agreements. When GOP leadership ignored them, Jordan and his allies tried to kill the bill on a procedural vote — a rare step made more surprising by the lawmakers’ general support for free trade. It was the boldest attempt yet from the recently formed House Freedom Caucus, which Jordan chairs, to counteract Boehner’s perceived tendency to wilt in the face of Democratic pressure.

Read more here. 

Find your Representative here.   The Congressional switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

Here are details for Ohio Senators:

Sen. Sherrod Brown

Phone: 202-224-2315

Fax: 202-228-6321

Sen.Rob Portman 

Phone: 202-224-3353

# # #

Reminder: End Obamacare Exemption on Weds. noon

Reminder:

End Obamacare Exemption : on June 17 [this coming Weds.] at noon, patriots across the country will visit and call their representatives to demand that they no longer enjoy an exemption from Obamacare. For far too long, the "Ruling Class" politicians have lived above the law while the American people suffer. Help end that special Obamacare exemption. Find the office of your representative at this map. Plan to visit or call.

See our earlier blog here. 

# # #

Drudge: Republicans Plan New Obamatrade Push

 Sen. Jeff Sessions Comments On Continuing Push To Grant Obama New Executive Powers (h/t Breitbart): 

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement today [June 12] regarding the vote to give President Obama expanded fast-track executive authorities:

“It appears there will be another attempt by Tuesday to force through new executive powers for President Obama. A vote for TAA next week is a vote to send fast-track to the President’s desk and to grant him these broad new executive authorities. If that happens, it will empower the President to form a Pacific Union encompassing 40 percent of the world’s economy and 12 nations—each with one equal vote. Once the union is formed, foreign bureaucrats will be required to meet regularly to write the Commission’s rules, regulations, and directives—impacting Americans’ jobs, wages, and sovereignty. The union is chartered with a “Living Agreement,” and there is no doubt it will seek to expand its membership and reach over time.

Fast-track will not only apply to the Pacific Union, but can expedite an unlimited number of yet-unseen international compacts for six years. There are already plans to advance through fast-track the Trade in Services Agreement, the goal of which includes labor mobility among more than 50 nations, further eroding the ability of the American people to control their own affairs.

Americans do not want this, did not ask for it, and are pleading from their hearts for their lawmakers to stop it.

The same people projecting the benefits of leaping into a colossal new economic union could not even accurately predict the impact of a standalone agreement with South Korea. The latter deal, which promised to boost our exports to them $10 billion, instead only budged them less than $1 billion, while South Korea’s imports to us increased more than $12 billion, nearly doubling our trading deficit. This new agreement will only further increase our trading deficit: opening our markets to foreign imports while allowing our trading partners to continue their non-tariff barriers that close their markets to ours.

If we want a new trade deal with Japan, or with Vietnam, then they should be negotiated bilaterally and sent to Congress under regular order. Under no circumstances should the House authorize, through fast-track, the formation of a new international commission that will regulate not only trade, but immigration, labor, environmental, and all manner of commercial policy.

What American went to the polls in 2014 to vote for fast-track and a new global union? Can anyone honestly say that Congress is trying to ram this deal through because they think their constituents want it?

While elites dream of a world without borders, voters dream of a world where the politicians they elect put this country’s own citizens first.

The movement among Americans toward a decent, honest populism—toward a refocusing on the needs of American citizens and American interests—grows stronger by the day. Every vote to come before Congress, beginning with the next fast-track push, will face this test: does your plan strengthen or weaken the social and economic position of the loyal, everyday working American?”

Permalink: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/6/sessions-comments-on-continuing-push-to-grant-obama-new-executive-powers

Michelle Malkin has more sobering comments here. 

Ted Cruz has come out in support of the bill. 

Why would Congress pass (let alone rush to pass ~ without reading) a bill that further compromises the sovereignty of the United States? 

# # #

Historical (and historic) votes

A mini-history lesson via the Mama Grizzly : 

Do your friends and family know any of this?

# # #