Spiking The Football Over Obamacare

Unlike Obama Spiking the Osama Football,
The Taxpayers, Not An Egotist, Will Be
Spiking the Obamacare Football

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 26, 2012:
Editorial comment: The Supreme Court announced its intention to release it's decision on Federal Affordable Healthcare Act, aka, ObamaCare, on Thursday. While some Republican leaders and others are asking that we taxpayers stop addressing the issue using the term ObamaCare, they do not run this or other "free speech" sites. Speaker Boehner has even warned House Republicans not to "spike the football" in celebration if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the States.

Well, to be blunt! We understand the difference between "Obama spiking the Osama football" as pictured again today and what we as taxpayers will be doing if the proper decision is made by the Supreme Court. We the taxpayers are not running for office and we will "spike the obamacare football. We definitely are not stupid. We understand that real threat to the Constitution. We moved and motivated our state officials and others to listen and to file the lawsuits against ObamaCare. We - Americans are tired of their rights, property and money being trampled on by the "button collared" Washington establishment, who, as a majority, have no idea what it is like to live, work, pay the bills, and suffer under the debt incurred by Washington, D.C. Big Government spending and frivolousness waste!

If the Obamacare is determined to be unconstitutional, damn right, I will join millions of others in "spiking the football" and will be jumping up and down and then falling on my knees and thanking God for the wisdom that He gave our forefathers in establishing separation of powers. If the decision is only a partial victory with the "mandate to buy healthcare insurance" being struck down. we will still cheer, thank God, and then get on my computer and with letters to Congress to "Repeal the Bill."

---

The House reconvenes at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Potential bills for on their schedule for consideration:
Under suspension:
HR 4850 — Energy-saving innovations
HR 5625 — Hydroelectric projects
HR 5889 — Nuclear terrorism and maritime hijacking
HR 4223 — Theft of pre-retail medical products
HR 4018 — Police benefits program
HR 2297 — D.C. Southwest waterfront
HR 4251 — Port security programs
HR 4005 — Port security gaps
HR 1447 — Aviation Security Advisory Committee
HR 5843 — Grant funds for training conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or research facility
HR 3173 — Transportation Worker Identification Credential
Under an open rule:
HR 5972 — Fiscal 2013 Transportation-HUD spending
HR 4348 — Surface transportation

The Senate reconvened and resumed post-cloture consideration of the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187, the FDA user fee bill.

At 11:30 AM, the Senate will take up the nomination of Robin S. Rosenbaum to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Following a half hour of debate, the Senate will vote on the nomination which means Rosembaum has little or no opposition to being confirmed.

This afternoon, the Senate will resume post-cloture consideration of the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187, the FDA user fee bill. If all the remaining debate time is not used, a vote on the motion to concur (which would send the bill to the president for approval) could occur this afternoon.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 89-3 to invoke cloture (cut off debate) on the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187. Also yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filled the amendment tree on the flood insurance bill, S. 1940, blocking ALL amendments to the legislation.

Two excellent editorials today rightly praise the Supreme Court for its important decision yesterday reaffirming the Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling protecting political speech. Unfortunately, the decision seems to only have emboldened liberal efforts to go after First Amendment protections of political speech.

The Wall Street Journal editors write, “Believe it or not, the Supreme Court means what it says about the First Amendment. That was the short but sweet message from the Justices on Monday as they affirmed that their 2010 campaign-finance decision in Citizens United is the law of the land—and that goes for states too. In a two paragraph per curiam (speaking without a single author but for the Court) decision in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the High Court summarily reversed a Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law limiting corporate expenditures to candidates or political action committees that support candidates. The rebuke was necessary because the Montana court had willfully ignored the legal precedent and had seemed to be baiting the High Court to formally accept the case and reconsider Citizens United.”

And the editors of the Chicago Tribune, President Obama’s hometown paper, ask, “What part of ‘free speech’ does the Montana Supreme Court not understand? That was the question that arose after it upheld a state ban on corporate campaign spending — in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that corporations are entitled to participate in debate about elections. On Monday, the court informed the Montana justices: We meant what we said.”

The Tribune editors write, “Not that such realities cut much ice with those who regard the Citizens United ruling as a threat to democracy and a boon to special interests. The special interests that supposedly gained such entree from the ruling, contrary to myth, have shown little interest in exploiting their new freedom. As an amicus brief filed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out, of the $96 million contributed to Super PACs supporting one GOP presidential candidate or another in the primaries, less than 14 percent came from corporations. Less than 1 percent came from publicly traded corporations, which were assumed to be the chief beneficiaries.”

Of course, the Tribune editorial notes, “There were howls of outrage and anguish during the primaries when these committees blanketed radio and TV outlets with ads touting one candidate or trashing another. This free-for-all confirmed the belief of many liberal groups that corporations were brazenly trying to buy elections.” And the WSJ editors add, “This won't be the end of the matter, because the political left has begun to treat Citizens United as the moral equivalent of Dred Scott, as preposterous as that is. They'll keep hoping that one of the majority Justices retires if President Obama wins a second term.”

But Roll Call reports that the Left is pursuing another avenue: trying to amend the First Amendment. “The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling to strike Montana’s ban on corporate campaign spending opens a new chapter in the political money wars, fueling an improbable but increasingly vocal movement to amend the Constitution. . . . More than a dozen Members of Congress have proposed various constitutional amendments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling to deregulate corporate and union political spending. Some declare that corporations are not people; others empower Congress and the states to restrict campaign spending and contributions. Until now, such proposals have garnered little notice, given the slim likelihood that any could clear the high bar set for amending the Constitution . . . . But the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Montana case, known as American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock, makes crystal clear that an amendment is needed, watchdogs say.”

In his address at AEI on threats to the First Amendment, Senator Mitch McConnell called this idea “the ultimate act of radicalism.” He said, “Democrats in the House and Senate recently proposed the so-called ‘People’s Rights Amendment’, which basically repeals the First Amendment. And just [recently], citing Citizens United, the President’s top political advisor, David Axelrod, told an audience in Manhattan that, quote, ‘When we win, we will use whatever tools are out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn [it] back.’ This, my friends, is all you need to know about this administration’s view of free speech. The courts have said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to muzzle political speech. So the President himself will seek to go around it by attempting to change the First Amendment. Amending the First Amendment for the first time in history would be the ultimate act of radicalism.”

---

Tags: SCOTUS, decision, Obamacare, spiking the Football, US House, Us Senate, free speech, democrats attack on free speech To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!