Obama Moves From "Yes, We Can!" To "Yes, You Will!"

From Liberty Pulse and Liberty Maven:

Ron Paul’s H.R.4995 and Obama’s move from “Yes, We Can!” to “Yes, You Will!”


July 2nd, 2010 12:57 am
by Marc Gallagher


Obama campaigned on “Yes, We can!”, but he’s governing on “Yes, You Will.”



He’s so similar to George W. Bush, and in some cases worse (drone bombing fetish?), on foreign policy that I expect to hear him start mis-pronouncing the word “nuclear” any day now.



He, like his fellow progressives, believes government is the solution to all the problems of the world. Will it take someone hurling a shoe at him to wake him up to the fact that the government doesn’t have such a great track record when it comes to solutions? That probably wouldn’t work. He’d just accuse the shoe-thrower of being a Right-wing extremist and/or a Tea Party racist and/or a domestic terrorist and/or a misguided soul who has been brain-washed by “my opponents” to believe that government is the problem.



Then he may calm down a bit and suggest that perhaps he just needs to explain things better so the stupid peasants that live around his DC castle and beyond understand that the proper role of government is to be involved in every aspect of their lives.



For instance, let’s investigate the health welfare individual mandate.





Virginia (my home state) passed a law that went into effect yesterday. The law exempts Virginians from the mandate. Virginia has also sued the federal government claiming the mandate is unconstitutional. Here is the latest on this lawsuit (from Reuters):



RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) – The state of Virginia and the government were pitched in a legal battle in a federal courtroom on Thursday that could lead to the undoing of the massive healthcare reform law passed three months ago.



Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Richmond heard the federal government’s arguments to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Virginia that contends the healthcare law’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance is unconstitutional.



Before President Barack Obama signed the radical overhaul of the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry into law, Virginia’s legislature passed its own law that took effect on Thursday that says no one could be mandated to buy health insurance.



While the judge will only decide if the suit can proceed — a decision Hudson said he would render within 30 days — the court heard the first airing of arguments that could make their way to the Supreme Court as some states resist implementing the law.



States “resisting” federal law is just a modern day more politically-correct version of nullification. There are several states participating in this effort. Virginia is not alone.



If the case is not dismissed, both sides will return to court on October 18 for a summary judgment. If it is dismissed, Virginia will likely appeal and keep the suit in the courts. Regardless, other lawsuits will proceed, including one filed in Florida by more than a dozen states. In July alone, the federal government will have to argue in court twice, once in California on July 16 and once in Michigan on July 21.



Legal analysts say there is a good possibility one of these cases will reach the highest court in the country, but most say there is only a slim chance that the Supreme Court will rule in the states’ favor.



This version of nullification, successful or not, is the best method available to fight back against federal government overreach. The question is are there enough judges with the stones to uphold these “nullification” lawsuits in the courts? I hope we all get a chance to find out.



Then Lisa Lambert, the article’s author, asserts something that left me, a normally mild-mannered human, screaming at my computer screen in anger. Here it is:



In its argument, the U.S. government said the requirement to buy health insurance falls under the Commerce Clause, the constitutional provision allowing the federal government to regulate commerce between states. Also, the Constitution says that the federal government’s power is higher than the states’.



What?



Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the federal government’s power is “higher” than the states? I’m curious how many people who read that sentence will believe it is true. I’m not sure it is a blatant or malicious lie, but it is simply untrue. Then again if our lawmakers can cite the Commerce Clause to regulate any and everything under the sun maybe she’s right. Maybe the supreme law of the land in 1789 really has morphed into being just a “god-damned piece of paper” in 2010.



The Commerce Clause reads, “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”. (NOTE: The definition of “regulate” in 1789 was to “keep regular” or to “keep in proper functioning order”. The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders never intended for it to permit government direction and control of commerce.)



Now, “among the several States” defines the scope of the clause. It applies to interstate commerce. Since current law is such that health care is purely intrastate commerce (we can’t purchase health insurance across state lines) how can the Commerce Clause apply?



The judge deciding whether to permit the case stated his own dilemma with applying the Commerce Clause to the health welfare mandate.



[Judge] Hudson seemed skeptical of the idea that everyone in the country participates in the commerce of healthcare, saying that this could establish the paradox that a form of economic inactivity – not buying insurance – would be considered an economic activity.



This seems promising to me that the judge will ultimately permit the case to proceed. We’ll know that within the next 30 days.



The mandate is not set to go into effect until 2014. This gives any presidential candidate opposing Obama in 2012 political ammunition. All one would have to do is sign on to support Ron Paul’s bill (H.R. 4995) to repeal the health welfare mandate and then campaign on repealing it prior to it going into effect in 2014.



Imagine the GOP primary debates in 2011-2012. I envision all the GOP candidates fighting over supporting Ron Paul’s H.R. 4995 all the while Ron Paul sits back as the bill’s sponsor relaxed and ready for the next question.



It’s January of 2011 and a lone man stands on a street corner holding a sign in Ames, Iowa. The sign says, “Yes, You Will!” There is a picture of a man below those words.



It is either…



…a picture of Obama with a crown on his head and a whip in his hand.



Or a photo of a smiling Ron Paul with the phrase “run in 2012″ below the picture.



In either case, I’d be left smiling on the outside and hopeful on the inside.