Democrats’ Peculiar Definition of ‘Settled Law’


1378856461_stretchNo major legislation has ever been passed like Obamacare — and I’m using the word “passed” pretty loosely.

It became law without both houses ever voting on the same bill. (Say, is the Constitution considered “settled law”?) Not one Republican voted for it — and a lot of Democrats immediately wished they hadn’t.

Historically, big laws have been enacted with large, bipartisan majorities. In 1935, President Roosevelt enacted Social Security with a 372-33 vote in the House and 77-6 in the Senate.

In 1965, Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and the House 307-116, with the vast majority of Democrats supporting this Ponzi scheme and Republicans roughly split.

Reagan’s magnificent tax cuts in 1981 — which Democrats now denounce as if they’d been appalled at the time — passed with a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and even 323-107 in the hostile Democratic House.

Even Bill Clinton’s signature legislative achievement — Midnight Basketball for the Homeless — received more bipartisan support than Obamacare.

No law, certainly not one that fundamentally alters the role of the government, has ever been passed like this.

But now, this greased-through, irregular law is relentlessly defended as “settled law” and “the law of the land”! (At least the parts that Obama hasn’t unconstitutionally waived — again, anybody know if the Constitution is “settled law”?)

Wow — Obamacare sounds fantastic! Not only does Congress refuse to live under it, but its proponents’ strongest argument is that it’s “settled law!”

The most hilarious part of the “settled law” argument is that it’s coming from the left, for whom nothing is ever “settled” until they get their way — as described in my new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican

Liberals seem to believe our founding fathers sought to create a country where the pushiest always win. (That’s why they’re the party of trial lawyers.) They want the nation’s policies to be determined by a never-ending co-op board meeting dominated by the most obnoxious shareholders.

As New Yorkers are about to discover if they elect Bill de Blasio mayor, for example, liberals will never abandon their plans to hamstring cops and spring criminals. For 30 years, New York City tried the Democrats’ approach to crime. The result was an explosion of murders, rapes, permanent disfigurements, robberies, car thefts and burglaries.

Then Rudy Giuliani came in and saved the city. The dramatic decrease in crime effected by Giuliani’s crime policies made commerce, tourism — life! — possible again in New York.

But liberals have been biding their time, waiting for people to forget, itching to get their hands on the levers of power so they can start releasing criminals again. (Or as Democrats refer to them, “our base.”)

Wasn’t “stop and frisk” “settled law”? Why yes, it was, upheld in 1996 by a New York appeals court in People v. Batista. But that settled law was recently overturned by a liberal judge in a case funded by George Soros.

Hey, does anyone know if the Second Amendment is “settled law”?

And how many dozens of states have expressly voted against gay marriage? Are we up to three dozen yet? But liberals consider repeated votes of the people merely an invitation to run to the courts to get the people’s will overturned.

California voters said “no” to gay marriage in a statewide initiative to amend their constitution. State courts upheld the amendment prohibiting gay marriage. You might say the No-Gay-Marriage amendment was — what’s the expression? — “settled law, upheld by the courts.”

Liberal groups appealed to the federal courts, where an activist judge, who happened to be gay, issued a PC ruling overturning the will of the people. His work done, the judge then resigned from the bench.

Oh — and how has the left treated “settled law” on race preferences? The fight against racial discrimination goes back to the Civil War, Reconstruction and a slew of Republican amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But Democrats refuse to give up discriminating on the basis of race. (They just switched which race gets screwed.) The triumph of a color-blind political system lasted for about six minutes before Democrats were at it again.

In 1996, the people of California voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit race discrimination by the state. Liberals sued and sued and sued to overturn a majority vote of the people that merely affirmed constitutional rights won by the Civil War nearly a century and a half ago.

They lost. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the amendment and the Supreme Court refused to review that ruling, making the anti-race discrimination amendment … the “law of the land”!

But liberals won’t stop.

Michigan voters approved a similar amendment to their state constitution in 2006. Guess what “settled law” is on its way to the Supreme Court? Again. Right now.

It’s been 17 years! (One-hundred and forty-eight years, if we’re counting from the end of the Civil War.)

Liberals will fight until they get their way — and, as soon as they do, they announce their one victory is “settled law.”

That’s what happened with Obamacare. Weren’t Americans reasonably clear about not wanting a hostile takeover of our health care system the last time Democrats tried it?

Hillarycare was so widely reviled that the majority Democratic Congress never held an up-or-down vote on it. In the very next election, the public punished Democrats for even thinking about nationalizing health care by voting in a Republican Congress for the first time in almost half a century.

Obamacare wasn’t passed because the nation changed its mind. We got Obamacare because, at a brief moment in time, the Democrats happened to have aberrationally large majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the presidency. It was quickly and unconstitutionally enacted on a strictly party-line vote.

In the very next election, the American people elected 63 new Republicans to the House of Representatives — the largest sweep of Congress for any party since 1948. Even liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican senator solely because of his vow to vote against Obamacare.

This is why the duly elected Republican majority in the House keeps funding the entire federal government — except Obamacare. Or except Congress’ exemption from Obamacare. Or except the individual mandate that Obama has already waived for his big-business friends.

“Settled law” has nothing to do with it. When Republicans won’t give up on an issue, it is because they are defending the will of the people, not pushing some harebrained scheme cooked up by a small group of zealots and imposed on the nation by an activist judge or freak Congress.

When Democrats refuse to give up on an issue, it’s against the will of the people with one party laughing, “Ha ha! We have 60 votes!”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Les

    In paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 Coulter just hammers liars with what a bill with bipartisan support really means.

  • ConcernedCitizen999

    “Settled Law” is just one dishonest trick from a whole bag of dirty tricks beloved of the Left.
    In the study of Mechanics, the ratchet is one of the fundamental machines, like the screw and the wheel and the lever and fulcrum.
    “Settled Law” is a political ratchet, when Republicans pass laws the Left doesn’t like, those laws are in dispute, when the Left passes laws they want, they become “Settled Law” and can never be changed.

    “Selective Enforcement” and “Universal Illegality” are tactics of the Left, just like “Settled Law”.
    When the Left passes laws that make everything illegal, or more often, when they pass laws like the tax laws that are so complicated that no one can comprehend them, (universal illegality), then basically everything is illegal and then when the government has the option to pick and choose, (selective enforcement), which rule law or regulation they will be enforcing that day, then they are basically operating as an arbitrary Dictatorship.

    “Political Jujitsu”, using the basically Christian charity and sympathy of “traditional America” to gin up support for a tidal wave of poor suffering illegal aliens and oppressed Muslim refugees that the Left is deliberately using to destroy “traditional America” is another favored tactic of the Left, one straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

    The list is long, but it helps to see a pattern, that the tactics of the Left are not fundamentally based on honesty and sincerity, but on deception and immorality.

  • Frosty_The_No_Man

    While Ann may be absolutely right I still want to know in precise, clear terms how the law was passed ‘unconstitutionally’ and I don’t ask this question as an Obama supporter. However, this claim is made over and over by both commenters (who, in general, have no credibility as far as I am concerned) and people who are actually qualified to provide such an opinion and analysis such as Ann. BTW, I like her and one of the her books which I read had an absolutely riveting chapter on the French Revolution, but I still would like an answer to my question.

    • Boots

      The only rational argument I’ve heard is that funding bills are required to originate in the House and the ACA originated in the Senate. They bypassed reconciliation rules and the House voted on the Senate bill. At least that’s the basis of the newest court challenge. I don’t know if it will fly or not. If someone has more accurate info I’d be interested.

      • Frosty_The_No_Man

        But it always seems as though there are so many rules and procedures which can be brought to bear to try and keep things on the ‘up and up’ or at least try to stir things as a true Democracy should; i.e. take into account a variety of viewpoints. If Ted Cruz can practically shut the country down using parliamentary rules then why were some rules circumvented to pass the ACA? However, you may be right. I only have so much time in the day to figure everything out and I still have yard work to do before the weather turns really bad!

        • Boots

          I admit what I don’t know… which is a lot and why I requested correction if someone has a better understanding of the events four years ago… but I wasn’t particularly political until 2009. We moved our business out of California a little over six years ago for tax and regulatory purposes. I feel your frustration because they don’t make this easy for us. With the ACA, they changed rules when Scott Brown won the “Kennedy seat” in Massachusetts. This is where I lose the nuts and bolts of the process but I think the Senate wrote the bill, sent it to the House before the Senate voted on it, the House passed it and reconciled it which can’t be filibustered by the Senate… thus it passed without the 60 votes needed. Normally a filibuster requires 60 votes to be broken and without a single Republican vote they couldn’t break it. I can’t remember exactly how they changed the rules. That said… I read blogs like this for education and sometimes entertainment and since I pretty much do what I want when my wife isn’t looking (just kidding about that) I do these discussions when I pass through the office, during lunch or when I check email in the morning.

          And just a BTW… I don’t object to Cruz going to the floor to make a statement for 21 hours. He’s within his rights by the rules and I’d feel the same if a Democrat did the same about something they feel passionate about. Kind of like the state legislator Wendy Davis from Texas who did the same thing regarding abortion at the state level. In any case take good care of that yard. My turn will come.

          • Frosty_The_No_Man

            I don’t object to Cruz acting within the rules per se but I’m just observing that his using the rules correctly enabled him to have some pretty drastic effects which is kind of ironic especially if Ann is correct about the ACA being passed unconstitutionally which means, somehow, that the rules were bypassed. In Texas and Wisconsin state legislators fled the state when faced with a legislative loss and the Dems mostly thought this was ok. Maybe the Republicans should’ve stayed out as well except maybe a quorum would’ve been in effect anyway.

          • Boots

            Ann is a lawyer and a wonkette and I figure she understands this stuff better than I do. Were the Republicans damaged? Maybe in the beltway where they live and breathe this stuff but very few of our employees or friends even cared because they saw no effect from the “shutdown”. All I know is when there isn’t gridlock they’re usually passing bills costing us more money so I personally love gridlock.

    • Smoking Hamster

      Basically everything except for the bill number originated in the Senate. They started with a totally unrelated bill and struck the entire bill and did healthcare reform by amendment. There are tons of revenue raising parts. I’m not sure if that is unconstitutional but it is definitely outside the original intention of the origination clause.

      Here is the source. What the original bill was designed to do.

      https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590#summary/houserepublicans

  • SFLBIB

    I didn’t think there was any such thing a settled law.

    • Well Done

      No, the word “settled” is being recycled from the “Climate Change Science is Settled” routine, since it has become useless there.

    • tagalog

      The most “settled” law I can think of is the constellation of laws (including the U.S. Constitution) in many lands that recognize the right of one person to own another person as his slave. Slavery was a legally recognized phenomenon for millennia all over the world. So the effort by the federal government of the United States to put an end to it in the United States, ending of course in the mass slaughter of the Civil War, must, by Democrat Party standards, be deemed to be a terrible overturning of the lawfully existing status quo.

      Black Americans, take note. Maybe joining the Republicans is the best thing for you to do for your own preservation as a race of free people.

  • Patriotliz

    Is Obamacare really Constitutional? There are lawsuits pending concerning the violation of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Obamacare really originated in the Senate and not the House.
    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/26/franks-repealing-obamacare-by-defending-the-consti/

  • mtnhikerdude

    It is “Settled” this administration is Detroiting America !