Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Col. Bob Pappas, USMC (ret)
Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, ret.) writes for Gulf1.com from his home in Florida's Panhandle. http://www.gulf1.com
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
'In Five Days We Will
Fundamentally Transform America'

Col. Bob Pappas, USMC (ret)
April 2, 2012
For over a week Americans who pay attention to news developments have been inundated with various arguments as to whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold or will declare as unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as “Obamacare.” Incidentally, “Obamacare” was patterned after a Massachusetts Law enacted during Governor Romney’s tenure that has been referred to as “Romneycare.” One significant distinguishing feature between the two is that “Obamacare” was enacted unilaterally by the Democrat Congress without one Republican vote and after great consternation and division within the Democrat Party in 2010. But, by various maneuvers, bribes and waivers Speaker of the House, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid managed to cram the legislation through against not only opposition by Congressional Republicans, but against the will of a significant majority of the American people. It remains highly unpopular today as the Supreme Court addresses the issue. Do Democrats actually believe that the majority of voters are about to forget?

Upon enactment, twenty seven States filed suit in Federal Court to challenge the law’s Constitutionality. That has now come to fruition and for three days last week oral arguments were made before Supreme Court Justices. On Friday, March 30th, the Court conducted a preliminary vote which it is reported will be finalized and made public in June. At stake, more important that the legislation is the future direction of the nation. The law is arguably unconstitutional on its face but the plaintiffs chose to argue that it would be a violation of the commerce clause. Beyond that, if upheld, as Justice Kennedy profoundly explained, it would fundamentally change the relationship of the individual to the Government.

Readers who have followed these essays for any significant length of time will recall seeing quotations that Obama pledged: “to fundamentally change the economic system,” and “fundamentally change the nation.” If the Supreme Court upholds this law, Obama and Congressional Democrats will have succeeded in bringing about that fundamental change, reversal of which may be difficult if not impossible absent a political battle royal that could lead to bloodshed. Not that the law itself would directly precipitate such. Hopefully, bloodshed would not be necessary or materialize, but it is incomprehensible that a majority of Americans would voluntarily bend their knees to such inherent legislative tyranny after defeating it at great human cost and treasure on the field of battle in World War II and the Nation’s longest war, the Cold War. But, if upheld, the Supreme Court would have effectively invalidated the Tenth Amendment, would have stripped away State and individual liberty, and no State nor any individual will enjoy the full measure of freedom envisioned and bequeathed by the Nation’s Forefathers.

The Federal Government will be positioned to become as totalitarian as the former Soviet Union, long a goal of the socialist minority in the U.S. It would be vested with the authority to dictate what one must buy, and by implication what one cannot. With the authority as precedent the Bill of Rights would be effectively gutted. The Government would decide who can travel and who cannot; if and how one can worship; who can speak and who cannot; who can have children and who cannot; who can win and who must lose; who would decide what issues and for whom; who would live and who must die; and, personal liberty will dim to a faint memory. Oh, one can already hear liberals chortle, but when restrictions or unsolicited demands descend from the Federal Government their chortling will be transformed into anguish and despair; Ayn Rand will have been validated; and, “liberal” leftist elitist will proudly “come out” proclaiming their allegiance to the new socialist/communist America.

If the instant case before the Court were not such a serious affront to personal freedom, it’s path to law it would be comical. Readers may recall Democrat Speaker Pelosi telling Americans, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." If ever there was a demonstration of political arrogance and buffoonery that statement ranks near or at the top. In Pelosi’s “honor” the statement should be enshrined in a “hall of fame” for political jokes; it should be engraved on her headstone; and should be printed in perpetuity on the flyleaf of every political science textbook.

But, judging from comments and questions by Justices during the proceedings there is hope that the Court will declare the law unconstitutional. Not out of any lack of compassion for those who do not have formal medical insurance, rather out of respect for the Constitution and the nation’s history of freedom. It is doubtful, although possible that the majority of the court would see fit to turn the clock of history back to the days where citizens were slaves of the state, which this act implicitly does, although it could happen. We will see how the movie ends.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server