What Would the Founders Think of Defunding Obamacare?

the constitutionA few days ago CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, speaking about the Republican House bill defunding Obamacare, commented, “Certainly not the way the Founding Fathers maybe drew this thing up.” It’s certainly a surprise to hear an anchor on CNN, an organization biased in favor of progressives, appealing to the authority of the Constitution. For a century the progressives have been telling us that the Constitution is an outmoded document from a different age, and needs to be “modernized” to meet the challenges of a new world.

Listen to Woodrow Wilson in his 1913 book The New Freedom. “I am . . . forced to be a progressive, if for no other reason, because we have not kept up with our changes of conditions, either in the economic or the political field.” A bit later he is more specific about the “political field,” arguing against the Constitution’s central mechanism of checks and balances. “The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life . . . Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop . . . All that progressives ask or desire is permission . . . to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

This view of the Constitution has been consistent among progressives, and explains much of Barack Obama’s behavior as President. And it directly contradicts the philosophical assumptions behind the Constitution, which are that the defects of human nature, the peoples’ “passions and interests,” as James Madison said, are as constant over space and time as the laws of gravity or motion. Since they can never be eliminated, they can only be balanced and checked by other passions and interests through the institutional structures of the Constitution.

If we probe Baldwin’s appeal to constitutional authority to buttress her attack on the House bill, then, we can see that she knows little or nothing about why the Founders “drew this thing up” the way they did. The key issue is Article 1.7.1.: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” We need to understand the reasons why the Framers gave the House this responsibility.

To do that, we have to remember that the Constitution is in many ways an antidemocratic document. For many Framers, the example of ancient Athenian democracy and its excesses, and the disorder caused by the overly democratic state governments in the decade between the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, made them wary of giving too much direct power to the volatile, uninformed masses. This fear is explicit in the convention debates. Typical are the comments of Virginia governor Edmund Randolph: “Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our [state] constitutions. It is a maxim which I hold incontrovertible, that the power of government exercised by the people swallows up the other branches. None of the [state] constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy.” The Framers’ solution would be the “mixed government” in which the branch directly elected by the people, the House of Representatives, would be balanced and checked by the Senate, indirectly elected through the state legislatures; the President, indirectly elected through the Electoral College chosen by the states; and the federal judiciary, appointed by the President with the Senate’s approval.

Many of the delegates, however, feared the greater powers of the other branches, and their lack of direct accountability to the people. In compensation, they proposed among other powers that money bills should originate in the House, which as Elbridge Gerry said, “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.” The House Representatives, as James Madison would say later, “were chosen by the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests, and ability.” This idea, moreover, was not just compensation for the “democracy deficit” in the rest of the Constitution. Giving the House the “power of the purse” would act as a check on the more powerful Senate. George Mason, arguing against the idea that the Senate should originate money bills, said, “Should the [Senate] have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “It was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it was disposed of.”

We should remember that the Founders’ distrust of human nature extended also to elites that monopolized power, as well as to the masses. Hence “elites” in the government had to be “checked and balanced” as much as the masses. Against those continuing to argue for giving the Senate the power of the purse, George Mason countered, “An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. ––The purse strings should never be put into its hands.” As a compromise to placate the smaller states, the Senate was given the power to add amendments to the money bills originating in the House.

More important are the comments made in The Federalist essays, as these were public, in contrast to the minutes of the debates, and so were meant to convince the average voter. On the issue of originating money bills, James Madison in 58 argued for that power as being a necessary check on the less democratic branches of the government. “The house of representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument . . . This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” Clearly, for the Framers the “power of the purse” was intended to be the peoples’ constitutional WMD for checking the other branches when they passed laws or instituted policies contrary to the will of the people.

Contrary to Baldwin, then, the House bill to defund Obamacare is consistent with the intent of the Founders. The law is unpopular, with 52% of the people opposing it. Its exceptions and exemptions doled out to political favorites are unjust, its constitutional violations blatant, and its incompetent construction, confused rollout, and unforeseen future costs dangerous for the public fisc and our exploding debt. If ever there was a “grievance” needing “redress,” Obamacare is it. Defunding Obamacare may or not be a wise tactic politically for Republicans, but its consistency with the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders is not in question.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • wildjew

    I agree with the author, defunding Obamacare is consistent with America’s Founders’ ideal but we’ve got a more fundamental problem.

    Moses wrote: “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one FROM AMONG YOUR COUNTRYMEN (emphasis mine) you shall set as king over yourselves; you may NOT PUT A FOREIGNER over yourselves who is not your countryman.

    I fear our Founders, I fear, made a mistake by defining eligibility for president in Article II; the “natural born citizen” clause. We have an un-American enemy within who “speaks in accents familiar to his victims, he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” (Cicero)

    Indeed, Americans set a “foreigner” over us. I am not talking about citizenship. Often my Christian neighbors argue that America’s founding documents are solidly rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage. If they are, why did our Founders err at such a fundamental level.

    • Ilovemykids

      Natural born citizenship was a safeguard for the office of the presidency. You must not have a true understanding of what the term means. Obama does not meet the requirements of natural born status. If anything, he had dual citizenship at birth. Like everything else, we are losing our constitutional principles. We have been had on this one. Deceit and trickery are the name of the game. Look at the effort to hide ALL of his records.

      • wildjew

        Many Constitutional scholars disagree with you. I have read enough American history to understand this country’s Founders were cognizant that this nation had / has a Judeo-Christian, European basis.

        Let me ask you a question. Let us say for example, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a natural born American citizen and he met all the requirements for the office. (Al-Awlaki was an American citizen before Obama dispatched him via drone.)

        If, like Barack Hussein Obama, he was able to convince the American people that he was sincere man who wanted to accomplish hope and change for America, would he be fit for office in your estimation?

        • Smoking Hamster

          Exactly, ideology is more important than birth location.

          Bibi has a much more Judeo-Christian, American perspective on things than Obama does by far.

  • Lanna

    If you listen to a number of stations talk about the bad healthare legislation, The number one fact is that the healthcare industry is being taken over by the government, and is unconstitutional to force the people to buy anything, look how the bill was passed, (not even read and under false pretenses that you could keep your healthcare provider and doctor, and it wouldn’t cost you a dime more, (not true) Everyone’s premiums have went up, and people forced to part time jobs, and the government wants to eliminate all competition so they are the sole provider of healthcare. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to establish a public healthcare system like the UK or Canada. Its up to the people to start the ball rolling and uphold the Constitution. Representatives were strong armed and bribed to pass the bill without knowing what was in it, and that is another reason this healthcare bill should be null and void. Congressman Bart Stupac was told that tax payer funded abortion wouldn’t be in the bill either and even a document signed to that effect by the president, and that is happening anyway. If members of Congress don’t uphold the laws, then they should be voted out, because that is their job to work for the people, so now we have government based on lies, change we cannot believe in.

    • WW4

      Conservatives have LONG been in favor of the individual mandate, aka “forcing people to buy something.” From Romney, who got it from Newt, who got it from the Heritage Foundation (which is now semi-fatuously pretending their idea was not “Obamacare”). The mandate of EMTALA was passed by Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate. Funny–the constitutionality of these things was never a concern–until the Great Enemy of American Freedom was enthroned–suddenly Republicans did a 180, and had to pretend that “Obamacare” wasn’t a thoroughly Republican idea.

      • wildjew

        I think you are talking about the Heritage Foundation’s support for an individual mandate at one time; support for which the organization later repudiated. Yet it is continually brought up by the left, as you’ve done here. I think there is reason to be skeptical of Heritage and those who were duped by the organization, including people I have voted for.

        • Guy Fromage

          Never mind also, that the Heritage Foundation’s now repudiated idea, prescribed tax credits equal to the premium expense. It was a win-win. More self-determination for the individual and family, and less money sent to government coffers to be wasted.

          • WW4

            The ACA prescribes tax credits as well. What people have to worry about is if they change jobs/lose jobs/get a significant raise, these things will affect the credits. So where once you might naturally worry about “OK, now what will I do for insurance?” because your job situation changed, now you will have to “remember” that your income situation changed.

          • Guy Fromage

            Please don’t take my comment on the very different Heritage Foundation plan as an endorsement. Forcing the purchase of a good or service is wrong. People claim they know what 0bamacare is, but evidence says otherwise. For example, people are surprised to learn their plans which covered they families, only cover themselves. That’s another on of 0bamacare’s gifts.

            FDR introduced a huge distortion into the healthcare marketplace, but driving businesses to offer health insurance as a fringe benefit, and the situation is made catastrophically worse by over-regulation of the market.

            0bamacare throws gas on a fire.

          • WW4

            Maybe FDR did distort everything that way. It’s a fair point, but it was accepted for the better part of a century. Now, you’re right–it’s a big change. Yes, people will need to get educated on all the new choices. It’s obviously a step AWAY from FDR’s model in many respects. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to call this plan “very different” from the Heritage plan when the mechanism is the same. Sure, there’s some difference: if you make the case before the public that people should be turned down for insurance because of pre-existing conditions, be my guest.

            Same with objections to an individual mandate, which conservatives suddenly began to dislike because they’re not in office. People say “It’s nothing like mandatory car insurance–buying a car is voluntary.” But having a body is universal. Requiring care is universal. I’d rather make people responsible for their own care and be able to track those costs than “make up for them” in nebulous inflation.

          • WW4

            By the way, Guy Frommage, my main concern with Obamacare is its effect on businesses, specifically those with just over 50 employees. I am also concerned with smaller businesses being able to be competitive hiring when they only offer a stipend for health care.

            But I think those are problems that can work out when the market settles, routine sets in, and prices start coming down.

            It does make you wonder about single payer: if the burden of providing health care were completely lifted off business–what happens to the economy when you can make those purchases or add those positions?

          • Guy Fromage

            It was excepted, because the government forced businesses and employees into a corner. We see this phenomenon again with 0bamacare forcing employers to drop coverage for the family members of their employees, in order to retain some semblance of their previous health care (cue echos of the 0bama’s lie that you will be able to keep your doctor).

            The two plans were very different. One was a pamphlet. The other, 4x the size of the Bible. Discussion of the Heritage Plan is a red herring, anyway, because it was abandoned, and rightly so. Any plan forcing the purchase of a good or service, or paying a penalty, is not only wrong, it is evil.

            The penalty is directly akin to the Jizya non-muslims are made to pay, in order to be permitted to live under muslim hegemony. Meanwhile, the regime passes out indulgences (they’re called waivers, now) to political cronies (and conveniently, themselves), exempting the powerful and politically connected. I’ve even read that muslim may apply for exemptions, which would bring the analogy full circle!

            The difference between individual mandate vis-a-vis cars and your own person is absolutely correct. When you take on a privilege such as operating a motor vehicle, you agree to the rules associated with its use. Drive without insurance, and eventually your license, and perhaps your car, will be taken away.

            Now, refuse to pay the Jizya of the individual mandate. What will the government take away from you, then?

          • WW4

            I know–it’s rough, having everyone responsible for their insurance. Why, it’s positively totalitarian! It’s almost like having to pay taxes or insure your property!

            It does amuse me how you guys dodge and rationalize the main point: conservatives were ALL FOR mandates and exchanges–until democrats were. Then, as you say, it was “abandoned.” Gee, wonder why.

          • Guy Fromage

            You dodge the issue the same way Hussein dodges higher taxation, when he refers to it as a “contribution.” Both you and he evade the reality of the force involved.

            But feel free to caste about by using other moot analogies, when the car insurance one peters out. Just as one voluntarily owns and operates a car, one may also voluntarily secure a mortgage, which sensibly stipulates insurance to protect the lender’s stake.

            I suppose one may claim that people “voluntarily” live, that is, until the Death Panel makes its decision, but it’s odd that supposed liberals would argue that a person should be taxed simply to exist, which is, in essence, what you are arguing for.

            And no, not all conservatives were for mandates. That’s a bald-faced lie, and you know it. It was an idea floated by a conservative organization at one time, and ultimately abandoned, and rightly so. There’s no need to wonder why: it’s a bad idea. The Heritage Foundation is a great organization, but it’s not perfect.

        • WW4

          I don’t think so, because the EMTALA may be part of the reasons costs have gone up to two to four times the costs of similar nations; we are paying for the uninsured through inflated, and nebulous costs. I’d rather have those uninsured documented and personally responsible for the acquisition of their insurance.

          The Heritage Foundation is repudiating the mandate and insurance exchanges for one reason, only–Congress adopted their idea. They championed exactly these ideas for over a decade. And you have to remember, it’s not just the Heritage–these are ideas that have been floated in conservative circles for a long time.

          • JamesJ

            Paying for one’s own healthcare, food, children,etc….what a bizarre concept?

          • wildjew

            I’ve been paying for my own healthcare and catastrophic insurance – which is greatly increasing since Obamacare was passed. It’s a struggle and a sacrifice but I feel better being independent than WHOLLY dependent on government. That is what America’s Founders envisioned. That is what makes Barack Obama SO anti-American, isn’t it?

          • WW4

            Premiums are going up partly because insurance companies are getting in one last gouge before the full implementation. But mainly they are also going up because the reality of the costs we incur has become unavoidable. That issue of costs is really at the root of what the whole thing is all about. One could argue that insurance companies eat a lot of those dollars simply as middleman administrators (they don’t produce anything, they ration care, and are providing increasingly less service). And because there was this third party, and an employer to buffet you from the costs, hospitals, drug companies, and medical manufacturers can charge sometimes outrageous fees. Now, that is not to say they are “to blame,” but they are facets of the problem. The end result being some people who work full time and have insurance still can get bankrupted by disease. Well, that’s not “freedom,” either. So something had to be done.

          • wildjew

            I keep hearing your rationalization from Obama supporters. Namely, I am being gouged by my insurance company. What can I do about it? Blue Cross B. Shield tells me it is largely because of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act to insure pre-existing illnesses (that is NOT insurance) and to insure children up to an age certain.

            I think that justification is a cop-out for a very dangerous, if not incompetent president, who has no idea how to create wealth and prosperity, or worse, he is intentionally harming this country because, like his late father and grandfather, he hates the “neocolonialist” United States.

          • WW4

            And yet your BCBS has turned over $1 BILLION in profits in the last few years (and probably closer to $2 billion). Think about that.

          • wildjew

            I believe government has “some” role regulating big business, insurance companies, etc.

            I believe in health insurance savings accounts that we could start contributing to at an early age. Since I was in my late teens, my father convinced me to buy medical insurance. How much better would it be had all that money been invested in a medical savings account and it would be mine or yours?

            I think Congressman Phil Roe, a doctor, has some good ideas. Roe proposes creating a 10-year, $25 billion fund to lower costs for Americans afflicted with pre-existing conditions such as cancer. Roe’s “budget-neutral bill would provide $20,000 in tax deductions to families and a $7,500 deduction to individuals, so they can buy insurance from vendors in any state. It would allow Americans to keep the money they save by picking lower-cost providers.

            Congressman Roe’s “bill transfers authority from Obamacare’s regulators to citizens.” Instead of tax credits or subsidies, the bill affords a straight deduction [from taxable income] giving “people more of an incentive to shop around.”

            I think these are good ideas. Better than Obamacare, don’t you?

          • WW4

            I think it’s a good idea, but I think mandatory coverage is really the key to any nation’s health care.

            I don’t want a “government takeover” of health care either but that said I am a fan of the Swiss and Singapore models. Mandatory coverage, basic services mandated, private companies provide the insurance. They are not allowed to profit on those basic services. However, after that provision they can compete to offer you “boutique” coverage, so you can pick and choose what works for you. Their costs are literally half our costs.

          • wildjew

            As a conservative, I cannot agree with you that mandatory coverage is the key but I will not argue with you. I have a friend living in Israel who says, but for their national health care scheme, he would not be alive today because he does not have the money to pay for the kind life-saving surgery he had. But he is in Israel. Jews have a long tradition of communal responsibility. I cannot say it is God’s ideal in the Torah but it has more or less worked for the Jews over the centuries.

            But we are talking about Barack Obama and America here; not Israel. I have NO faith in Obama or his intentions. I do not think Obamacare will be a success. I believe it will be a costly failure. We shall see.

          • James Keir Baughman

            Well said, my friend. But, the words “dangerous” and “incompetent” may be the under statements of the century.

          • wildjew

            Do you think costs have gone up more so because illegals are covered under it?

          • WW4

            Yes, that is certainly part of it.

      • Juaniita

        Individual mandate is crossing the line. What will the fed’s mandate next? What kind of house you have, what kind of car you can buy< oh wait I know, it will mandate you to not speak ill of uncle Sam.

        • WW4

          If it is so over the line, why was it a fixture of conservative health care philosophy for almost two decades? Why did Ronald Reagan impose mandated care?

      • Lanna

        None of the Republicans voted for Obamacare, I checked out their votes online. They weren’t part of having to pass the bill to know whats in it like Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats own this monstrosity, lock, stock, and barrel!

        • WW4

          And why weren’t they for it, Lanna? Why doesn’t anyone ever give you specifics?

          Because it came from the democrats, this time, and because the specifics are so darn close to their own proposals.

          Republicans were all about individually mandated health care bought through insurance exchanges–until Obama got elected.

          In 1993, Republicans sponsored a bill that had an Individual Mandate. It was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, and 12 other Republicans.

          “Subtitle F: Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.”

          Nine years ago, the Heritage Foundation argued for an individual mandate and insurance exchanges:

          “But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan – one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family.”

          3. Newt Gingrich. Even in 2007, Newt Gingrich supported an Individual Mandate. What happened? He only changed his mind after Obama got into office.

          “Personal responsibility should extend to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect other to pay for their care when they need it.” June 2007

          And don’t make me break out the Mitt Romney…or the praise he received from conservative leaders and organizations for Obamac–errr, “Romney Care?”

          Face it: Republicans are afraid “Obamacare” will work. They could play scare tactics when people didn’t know what was in the bill. They could make dumb comments about “death panels.” They were counting on people NOT being informed. That’s how Republicans have chosen to operate. Not constructively, not creatively, not positively.

          • Lanna

            The Republicans are for choices to cross state lines to buy private healthcare insurance, allow us to keep our own doctors, and providers. They are not robbing the American people and trying to Trash the Constitution, to pay for a Socialist agenda to control 1/3 of the economy and destroy jobs and patient doctor relationship..Quit lying, we work with administrators in hospitals who say this law is a total disaster for good health for all people, it limits services and denies immediate treatment, heart by pass surgery, hip replacements, and other vital treatments that require immediate action to save the patients life. They are also trying not to raise the debt limit with out of control spending!

          • WW4

            I notice you don’t address anything pointedly or directly but you do prefer broad, overly dramatic statements. And I have to wonder why you feel you need to make excuses for all the Republicans who favored the mandate. From what you’re writing you don’t sound like you know much about it. I have to wonder: where do you think the insurance industry was headed? Do you imagine they were not rationing care and dictating what doctors to see and what procedures? If so, I have some bridge property to sell you…

            I have been to several events from the local chambers of commerce and the hospitals on Obamacare. These events were filled with health care providers, businesspeople, and lots of insurance agents. I wouldn’t say the atmosphere was thrilled–but it was hopeful and frank. The ONLY doom and gloom came from a few of the older insurance agents–and why not? Their business is changing drastically. And there are a few of us who are concerned about the immediate effect on smaller businesses. I don’t think the ACA goes far enough to address the big problem: COSTS. But it makes a dent.

          • Lanna

            Enough……If this bill was so adequate then why has SEIU, McDonalds corporation, CIGNA, United Federal Teachers Welfare Fund, The Wilkes Group which does business with Ashley furniture, many other in the last year, and now Richard Trumpka and other unions want out because it destroys the 40 hour work week. We are all equal under the law, so how are people chosen to be exempted, the exemptions are given on a partisan basis…this is such a farce and Unconstitutional, don’t waste my time trying to explain partisan selections of favorite people, corporations and groups, who don’t have to buy this crappy Law!

          • WW4

            Yes, “enough!”–you won’t deal with any of my points. But you do repeat the talking points you’ve read elsewhere very well.

    • Juaniita

      the federal government should leave matters to the states and have the states leave them to private and voluntary programs. They would get more money that way. The federal government is only there to make/pass laws that are in aggreement to the Constitution.

      • WW4

        It is up to the states. The states have three choices: 1. they can run the exchanges themselves, 2. they can partner with the federal government, or 3. they can opt to let the federal government run the exchanges. Many of the so-called “red states” are opting for the last choice–which is odd, because one would think conservatives would naturally prefer the first option. But it’s indicative of the trap they’ve short-sightedly set for themselves politically.

        • Smoking Hamster

          You have choices, but only the choices we prescribe for you.

          It is like the provision that you have a choice of violating your conscience by paying for birth control now or waiting a year before you have to throw your religious principles in the trash.

          None of the choices you totalitarians give us is acceptable.

          • WW4

            Please explain how these choices (plural) differ substantively from the “choices” you had before (“Um, I’ll take my employer’s plan”). As for the non-point of contraceptive availability: Do you realize how many people were part of a plan that paid for contraception, something they had no problem with until AFTER it became a partisan issue? (Contraception, btw, is an issue primarily for Catholics–something like 95% of whom avail themselves of contraception) Partisan b.s.

            You guys are ideologically bankrupt.

      • Lanna

        Very True, leave policies up to the states, Less government promotes more growth and energizes the country. If Obamacare is defunded and eliminated, the economy will take off creating jobs, and result in the government taking in more revenues, the problem is the government doesn’t want the economy to take off, they want to control everything and gain votes by giving out free stuff for votes, they aren’t interested in a thriving economy and a prosperous nation.

  • davarino

    McConnell wants to try and cut the legs out from under Cruz, fine. Then he gets the monicer of McConnellCare. Its no longer ObamaCare, its McConnellCare, enjoy.
    WE THE PEOPLE have decided, after finding whats in the bill (as Pelosi instructed), that we dont particularly like or want this “ACA”. You old farts in the senate are dust in the wind, bye bye.

  • wildjew

    Here is the problem as I see it at the most fundamental level. Unbelievers will scoff.

    Republicans need God on our side for victory. My God is the Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do Republican leaders honor the God of Israel? Or do we honor other gods? If Republican leaders honor God (the LORD), why have we suffered one defeat after another at the hands of this demagogue until now?

    A Song of Ascents, of David. “Had it not been the LORD (YHWH) who was on our side,” Let Israel now say,

    “Had it not been the LORD who was on our side
    When men rose up against us,

    Then they would have swallowed us alive, When their anger was kindled against Then the waters would have engulfed us…. (Ps 124)

    • WW4

      I think America needs God (or at least “faith”); I don’t think He particularly cares about the vanity of party affiliation.

      • wildjew

        “God” is a generic word. Everyone has his or her god or gods and his or her “faith” in his or her gods. Muslims have Allah. Jews have YHWH. Christians have Jesus. Secularists have earthly, carnal and material things because they believe there is no supernatural deity. What good does serving ‘god’ do if you are serving the wrong God? No doubt these devout Muslims who murdered all those non-Muslims in a Kenyan shopping center over the weekend believe they are serving their god, as did the 19 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center towers. I’ve had believers tell me there is nothing we can really do in this world because virtually everything is foreordained by God or by god; it is all in God’s hands they tell me.

        So you say you don’t think God cares about party affiliation but how can we effectively fight for our principles outside of a party in this country? Or do you also see everything is predetermined? Everything is in God’s hands? Don’t we have obligations before God while we are on this earth?

        • WW4

          We are obligated to follow his commandments, “the greatest of which are these”:

          “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

          I have seen people from all walks of life, nationality, creed and party affiliation enacting this wisdom.

          • wildjew

            This is an important point. Follow me, please. First, it is not “You shall love the ***Lord*** your God…” Moses wrote,” Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might…”

            Notice it is LORD (YHWH), not lord or Lord. There is a difference. Also note that Moses said, the LORD *** your God***. He did not say the LORD the God of the nations or the LORD the God of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, etc. The Creator and the ruler of heaven and earth is the “God of Israel.” This is critical.

            Remember Pharaoh: “And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go.”

            Who is the LORD? Do you know?

          • WW4

            I gave you the Christian perspective, of course. You have your own tradition, which gave birth to mine. Remember: Jesus was a “wild Jew,” too!

          • wildjew

            Indeed he was!

  • CowboyUp

    The Founding Fathers would say that obamacare (like about 75% of federal spending), is not found among the particulars of Article 2, Section 8, and is therefore unconstitutional. The Federalist 41 explains the “welfare clause,” and that explanation directly contradicts the left’s claims as to its’ meaning. Unfortunately, nobody in the GOP has the knowledge and sense to call the dp on it when they give them a golden opportunity by waving around “The Federalist.”

  • mtman2

    O’bomb-acare is not about the health of citizens! It’s the next step up+ around, guised even to moderate trusting Dems to total state control! Next ALL rights will be voided, unless granted by the statist elites who will remain in total control!
    This IS the shortcut to what the Super-Left has always wanted, We the Peoples Rights ‘be-dammed’. WE have let this happen one step at a time now for 100-yrs; allowing the ‘ingredients for this cake-mix’ to be put together, this Bill is the oven that will bake their control in place as the “New-America”, with Saul Alinsky as the new George Washington ‘Founder-extraordinaire’ !!
    And as the great -RR- said, into “a thousand years of darkness”!!! ba-aaaah?

    • WW4

      Please tell us how it will work that way.

      • mtman2

        O’bacare is by it’s own wording legally[supposedly]will require all information of individuals lives to be gathered[by Drs.+medical people]to be put in a central govmint data banks. ALL personnel info! Even with the right to come into homes for details of lifestyles.
        As BHO himself said “Sometimes the pain pill will be ‘chosen’ for you instead of ‘treatment’…..that will be determined by unelected, unaccountable appointed boards to decide who gets or doesn’t get what, to what extent ["death-panels"]. ‘Single payer’ IS the ultimate form this downhill slide will end up in by ALL those who promote it. This is not American but IS ‘big-brother’ overseers with three distinct classes citizens. Elite ruling class with underling worker class and the rest subjects told what, where + how to live their lives. Liberty/Christianity will not even allowed to be spoken of or in ANY written form! Farenheight-411, George Orwell/1984, Animal Farm, Soilent-Green, Alexander Soltzenitsyn/The Inner Circle, Georgi Vins/persecution, UK/Canadian style ‘health-care’ die before any treatment or where patients lay dead in the hallways for days. That’s scratching the surface for starters….

        • WW4

          It’s funny–there’s not huge outcry in those comparable nations. They don’t face bankruptcy when they contract a serious disease. But we are “free” to do so–even while insured and working full-time.

          Back up your assertions about the ACA. Your complete misunderstanding (“death panels”) shows you’ve been reading propaganda. What Palin was really talking about? Your insurance would pay for end-of-life planning consultation with your physician. There’s your “death panel.” If you know something about it, it saves a lot of cost and grief to bereaved families. It’s something a lot of insurance does NOT cover currently.

          • mtman2

            I didn’t make an”assertion”, I quoted the ‘Liar in Chief’ his-self! There’s NO misunderstanding on my part .
            “Business”? Will leave the country, shut down or cut back{can’t price themselves out of the market w/out bankruptcy] as has been the case now w/unions+overegs! Ceaseless duplicating, over budget over paid.bureaucracies, the parasites are leaving the economy ‘bloodless’.
            WE are only stating the obvious. The dying girl(13) relegated to a death sentence by ‘Ma Barker’ Sebelious[said NO] was overruled by a judge and the girl got a set of lungs and is alive and fine now.
            “Single payer” is the quote by every single Lefty Dem, prior to this debacle that’ll never hold water.
            How many wavers now 1,400???? Even some big unions + congress itself was exempted from this socialist snuck through the dead of night[to beat Scott-Brown-R Mass] -Un-affordable Care Act! Like the the big union bosses said “it IS a nightmare”.+”It’s a train wreck”. Other than the Pharma-addicted AMA; real Drs. will bail and none will replace them[maybe Pakistanis]

    • Juaniita

      I wonder when Americans are going to wake up. It took less to cause a Revolutionary war. FREEDOME is not easy!!

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    We have never been a unified nation, though politicians resort to the trope of “the American people” as if we were a unified nation. See http://clarespark.com/2013/09/17/the-illusion-of-national-unity/. “The illusion of national unity.” It is a demagogic trick to imagine The People.

  • Juaniita

    The campaign for some form of universal government-funded health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US On several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success; yet each time they faced defeat.

    • WW4

      And in that time our health care costs have gone to on to double and even triple the costs of health care in comparable industrialized nations.

      You keep saying “government funded” as if this is some sort of socialized medicine plan. There’s actually more market-based competition under this plan and more consumer choice than there was before.

      • Smoking Hamster

        Yeah, we have third party payer with no price controls. You get the best quality care in the world but very high prices. They have third party payer with price controls. Lower prices but much worse care. The US has some of the best cancer survival rates because people don’t have to wait for rationed care. We also have the highest life expectancy if you remove accidents and homicides from the data.

  • http://www.shugartmedia.com/ Chris Shugart

    I was struck by the Wilson quote. It’s a well articulated explanation of progressive theory. It sounds like we was describing about every monster movie I’ve ever seen. Coming to a theater near you: “The Government that Would Not Die.”

  • nomoretraitors

    Their founding fathers must be Marx, Lenin and Mao

  • James Keir Baughman

    Thank you for this very clear interpretation. It is just as I as I have always believed.

  • catherineinpvb

    For a quick grasp of ‘Common Core’ think of it’s popular referencing per ‘the Stalinizaton of Education‘. As well; think of ‘Marxist Education and Indoctrination; arriving at every school in America by way of a Trojan Horse named ‘Common Core’.

    Know this as. . .an insidious effort to deliver an entire ‘rising generation’ of useful idiots; ready to honor only; their ‘Dear World Leader’.

    For Common Core ‘prime movers’ and it’s inspiration; know too, for starters; Linda Darling-Hammond; ‘recall’ Bill Ayers and remember again, the omnipresence of George Soros influence ; and his AGENDA 21. Google all – in group individually/singly, with Common Core.

    Can start here w/ LDH; to get idea of this educational evil – that must be resisted and overcome.
    *******************
    Linda Darling-Hammond – Common Core
    whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/…/top-ten-scariest-people-in-education-…
    Mar 25, 2013 – Top Ten Scariest People in Education Reform Linda Darling-Hammond Countdown # 6 This is the fourth in a countdown series of introductions, …

    **********************************
    Another Marxist / Alynsky MO in place here per strategy of ‘overwhelm the system’; so that while Parents and concerned (and fearful) citizens are exhausted from Obama, Inc. ‘Change’ – and sleeping – the thievery of Common Core is creeping – now leaping – into your child’s classroom. . .so as to steal America away from it’s children – and their future.

  • teflonron

    President Washington mandated insurance by seamen be bought for hospital and medical care. It can be argued, and thoughtfully, that this shows that ACA is Constitutional. So the question would then be why didn’t Washington nor the rest of his contemporaries mandate all Americans buy health insurance.

  • NeoPublius

    Great analysis of House of Representative’s powers…and Founding Father’s intent. But found your conclusion odd???? True, House has power to originate appropriation Bills, SO? The Senate has the Constitutional authority to Amend the Bill! In short, w/o both chambers agreeing on the FINAL substance of the Bill…it goes no where. Not to mention that the President has the Constitutional authority to veto the Bill. House can override his veto with 2/3rds majority – but w/o these other two Constitutional realities, your conclusion is meaningless – just as the House’s Approprition Bills are dead on arrival. If you want to get rid of the ACA, then, as the Constitutional athletes that you and your party claim to be…get control of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House, or start accepting reality.