‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law
[ABCNews.com]
A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare. ”The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”
The survey showed public opinion on Obamacare is at its second-lowest rating in the past two years. Less than half – 40 percent – of adults viewed the ACA favorably, whereas 35 percent said they viewed it unfavorably. Another 24 percent said they did not know or refused to answer.
Supreme Court opens door to another challenge to Obamacare
[FoxNews.com]
Published October 01, 2012
Tucked inside the Supreme Court’s lengthy list of orders on Monday was an indication that the fight over President Obama’s health care law soon could be back before the high court.
Since the court’s June decision upholding the law’s individual mandate to buy insurance, one of the first Obamacare plaintiffs has been fighting for a new hearing on challenges to other portions of the law.
Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a “tax” before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.
Obamacare Goes to the Supreme Court
[Townhall.com]
March 26, 2012
Kate Hicks Web Editor, Townhall.com
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or Obamacare, is off to the Supreme Court for a three-day marathon of oral arguments. Lawyers representing the federal government will attempt to prove the law’s constitutionality; those representing private individuals, the National Federation of Independent Business, and most prominently, 26 states, will argue that PPACA violates the supreme law of the land.The Court has allotted six hours for arguments, and while it doesn’t seem like much time for such a contentious and crucial issue, bear in mind that the court typically grants a case just one hour. This is the most argument time given in 47 years.
So what questions will the Court answer? What will the lawyers argue? How might the Justices vote? I have a seat inside the courtroom for all six hours of arguments, so expect a full report on the proceedings, as well as a preview each morning of the question before the Court that day. For now, however, we’ll take a general look at the schedule, the questions, and the basic arguments each side will make, in preparation for Obamacare’s big day in court.
[Please Click to follow the agenda this week and pray for our Nation's freedoms...]
FBI Warns of ‘Anti-Government’ Extremists
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted Feb 8th 2012 at 8:41 am
by Wynton Hall
At a Federal Bureau of Investigation conference on Monday, FBI agents said state and local law enforcement should be on alert for people who consider themselves “sovereign citizens,” individuals who believe they are not subject to any type of government authority.
According to Reuters, these anti-government extremists “may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.”
Routine encounters with police can turn violent “at the drop of a hat,” said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division.
“We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement,” he said.
In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a “sovereign citizen” in traffic.
Supreme Court Case Could Threaten Big Labor’s Ability to Deduct from Public Employee Paychecks
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted by CWN: February 7, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s no secret that Big Labor is dependent on dues and fees automatically withdrawn from the payroll checks of union members and non-members alike.
The automatic deductions funnel millions of dollars into public sector union coffers each year, with a portion frequently going toward partisan political causes and liberal candidates who promise to preserve or expand the unions’ forced dues racket.
But this vicious cycle is finally being challenged in states and municipalities around the nation. Perhaps the most important challenge, Knox vs. Service Employees International Union, was heard earlier this month by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is one of a growing number of examples of how public employees, including public school teachers, are pushing back against forced union dues – something many consider a violation of their First Amendment rights. American citizens should not be forced to financially support an organization or political causes they don’t agree with, union objectors rightly contend.
By forcing members and non-members to subsidize its radical political agenda, Big Labor may have finally cooked its Golden Goose.
SEIU wants to run from the case
The Supreme Court case stems from a “special assessment” that was automatically withdrawn from union and non-union state employees’ checks in 2005 to help defeat a ballot proposal in California that would have made it illegal to force employees to pay dues that would be used for political purposes.
The plaintiffs, who are non-union members who pay a reduced fee in lieu of union dues, claim their rights were violated when they were charged more than their regular fees to support a union political effort.
Internal DOJ Email: Kagan Was Brought Into Loop on Mark Levin’s Obamacare Complaint
[CNSNews.com]
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey’s posts
Posted December 12, 2011 (CWN)
Then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.
Obama admin attempting another Congressional end-around on ObamaCare defect
[HotAir.com]
posted at 1:55 pm on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability. Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress. Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.
That is, unless the IRS just bypasses Congress and corrects the law:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)
The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.
Supreme Court Offers Victory to World Vision in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
[TheBlaze.com]
- Posted on October 5, 2011 at 10:59am by
Billy Hallowell
On Tuesday, we reported on “Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” the church and state case that many are calling one of the most important of its kind in recent years.
While this legal battle is far from over, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a separate but related instance, has offered up a major victory to the faith community.
The Court let stand a 9th Circuit ruling that affirmed World Vision, a Christian aid organization’s, right to fire employees who don‘t share the humanitarian group’s religious beliefs. This, much like the Hosanna-Tabor case, involves the “ministerial exception,” which is a legal doctrine that provides protection to churches and religious institutions, alike, from government intervention in employment decisions.
In describing how faith plays into the organization’s hiring process, World Vision’s U.S. president, Richard Stearns, said in a statement on Monday that it is “…vital to the integrity of our mission to serve the poor as followers of Jesus Christ.”
Obamacare ‘Void’ of Law and Sense
BigGovernment.com
Posted Feb 14th 2011 at 1:39 pm
by Jack Painter
A second federal judge has just ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it mandated that most Americans must purchase health insurance starting in 2014.
Whatever the Supreme Court eventually decides on that constitutional question, the so-called “individual mandate” is an unprecedented expansion of government power.
The government has long claimed the power to coerce you not to act in specific ways. In other words, the government says “You can’t do X.” This happens, for example, when a law says you can’t drive above the speed limit or steal from your neighbor.
The government also claims the power to coerce you to act in specific ways, but when it does so, it rarely says “You must do X.” Instead it says, “If you choose to do X, you must do X in a certain manner.” For example, if you choose to build a house, you must comply with building codes. Or it says, “If you choose to do X, you must do Y as well.” If you choose to earn taxable income, you must file a tax return and pay a tax; or if you choose to drive a car on public roads, you must purchase auto insurance.
Until now, the only time the federal government has flat out said “You must do X” has been in the case of military conscription. In that case, the government coercion has had nothing to do with a choice you’ve made. It has applied merely because you reside in this country. (State laws requiring the education of children are similar.)
The Obamacare individual mandate is like military conscription.
The government coerces you to act in specific ways (purchase health insurance) merely because you are a citizen. You cannot make a choice to forego certain activities and avoid the government coercion.
Washington Extra – Question of Constitution
Constitutional or unconstitutional? That is the question the U.S. Supreme Court eventually may get to decide on President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.
(By one definition, constitution can also refer to one’s health — just throwing that in.)
A judge in Virginia declared unconstitutional a provision that requires individuals to buy health insurance or face a fine, backing arguments by the state that Congress exceeded its authority. 
The White House begged to differ.
“We disagree with the ruling,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
“We’re confident that it is constitutional,” he said.
If it does go to the highest court in the land, there are 4 liberals (Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), 4 conservatives (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) and one moderate conservative (Justice Anthony Kennedy) who often controls the outcome.
My colleague Jim Vicini, who covers the Supreme Court, points out that the healthcare law issue which involves the power of Congress and interstate commerce may not fit strict conservative/liberal lines, so it would not be easy to predict the outcome if it comes to that.
Why Doesn’t Obama Worry About Union Political Spending?
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 25th 2010 at 6:01 pm
by Chris Berg
Media reports have been decrying the corporate influence in the 2010 election cycle. If you were to read the Washington Post, New York Times, or most online media sources you would think Citizens United v. FEC is the biggest problem facing America.
That’s a narrative that President Obama has embraced. Since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in January, President Obama has led a vocal campaign against the decision and the First Amendment rights that it protected. He has devoted at least three weekly radio addresses to the topic, one Rose Garden speech, and even made an unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.
Recently, in addressing liberal donors, President Obama proclaimed:
“That’s the biggest problem that we have all across the country right now. We’ve got great candidates who are taking their case directly to the American people, but they are being drowned out by groups like Americans for Prosperity. Nobody knows who they are. Well, we know who they are — but nobody knows where the money is coming from, and they certainly don’t appear on those ads.
So I believe that if we are able to get our message out, if we have the same energy and focus and determination that we had in 2008 and 2006, then we will do fine. But that requires us to understand the stakes involved in this election. And I want everybody to understand, especially those who supported me, we are just in the first quarter here. We’ve gotten a lot of stuff done, but we’ve got a lot more work to do.”
The real problem is that he’s only telling half the story. Yes, corporations are financing issue advertisements, as they were allowed to before Citizens United. But they are not the only ones exercising their rights to political speech.
Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution
BORN IN THE USA?
‘Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief’
Posted: September 04, 2010
12:00 am Eastern
By Thom Redmond
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
FORT MEADE, Md. – The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.
So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.
His comments came today in an interview with WND about Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who yesterday was denied permission by Army Col. Denise R. Lind to obtain evidence that could document Obama is not eligible to occupy the Oval Office.
Lakin refused to follow his latest deployment orders to go to Afghanistan, because he was unable through Army channels to document Obama’s eligibility, and the president himself has declined opportunities to do so.
Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers that be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America.
A federal judge opined that the monument shouldn’t be there and ordered its removal. Moore refused and ultimately was removed from office by a state commission that he says “blindly” followed the order without evaluating its legitimacy.
Senate Confirms Kagan as 112th Justice
BigGovernment.com
Posted Aug 5th 2010 at 12:52 pm
by Publius
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th justice and fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court.The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”
Kagan isn’t expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.
Read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | 
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Landowners
June 17, 2010 – 4:49 PM | by: Meredith Orban
In an 8-0 decision, the nations highest court ruled that beach renourishment along the Florida Panhandle does not amount to a taking of private property. When the state deems a stretch of beach “critically eroded” it brings in new sand to replenish the beach in an effort to protect against storm damage. The problem, as several waterfront property owners saw it, is that the newly created beach is public property. So, according to landowners, what was once private waterfront property now stops at the beach and the waterfront is public. In an April ”It’s Your Land” Fox News investigation before the ruling, landowner Linda Cherry from nearby Destin, Florida said, “We want to be able to keep our beach; it’s what we paid for, it’s what is described in our deeds… When we buy property on the beach we assume that Mother Nature might take our backyard. We don’t expect the government to take our backyard.”
The Supreme Court Justices disagreed with Cherry’s viewpoint and today rejected the challenge to the state’s beach renourishment program brought by six Walton County property owners. In a statement Kent Safriet and Richard Brightman, attorneys for the homeowners, wrote “We are deeply disappointed by today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling and we are fearful that it will lead to more incidences of government unfairly taking private property away from hard working citizens.” Calling private property rights “the cornerstone of our society’s prosperity and freedom,” the two vow to “continue to work tirelessly to protect private property from governmental tyranny.”
CWNews Posted Comments