In all likelihood, the House will conduct their first vote on the repeal of the patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare on Wednesday. The attempt to repeal ObamaCare comes on the heels of a newly elected 112th Congress set forth to embrace the constitutional limits of government.

Authority and constitutionalism
Much of the debate surrounding ObamaCare and its repeal stem around the question of whether or not the Obama administration possesses the constitutional right to impose a mandate to purchase health insurance products on the people. On September 9th, 2009, President Obama stated the following before Congress; “[U]nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance...” This came as a shock to many who stood by the President and his prior claims nationalized health care would not be implemented with a mandate. However, the lesser discussed aspect of the mandate is in “authority.”(1)

"By what authority is the government enacting this law?" Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court, rhetorically asked Matthew Clemete of FreedomWorks when discussing the constitutionality of health care reform.(1) This is a concept of constitutionalism that coincides with not only the direction of the newly elected Republican House, but epitomizes why the new House was elected. The 112th Congress started with a ceremonial reading of the U.S. Constitution, an event which was criticized as “ritualistic” and meaningless.(2) Jumping to conclusions and judging Congress’ first ever opening session with a constitutional reading forced the overlooking of what was to follow. It is the intent of the new Congress to restore constitutional limits on government. This led to a new House rule (Rule XII) requiring each new piece of legislation to clearly state its constitutional authority. Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), then read the constitutional authority of the poorly named H.R.2, “Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act.”(3),(1)

Failing Medicaid burdens the state
While the constitutional authority of health care reform's mandate is a point of contention, the impact of ObamaCare on Medicaid is driving both states and individual voters to support the demise of the program. ObamaCare seeks to extend Medicaid benefits to those under 133 percent of the federal poverty level.(4) This financial burden, though through federal law, has been forced upon the individual states. The Medicaid expansion comes at a time when states are being forced to make cuts to Medicaid in order to allow for budget shortfalls.(5),(6),(7) On January 14th, Arizona has proposed to drop Medicaid coverage for some 280,000 residents in an attempt to save $540 million.(8) It was this expansion of Medicaid that the Obama administration boasted as being able to provide coverage for all uninsured Americans. Obamacare actually falls far short of its highly touted goal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 23 million, including illegal residents will remain uncovered when Obamacare is to be fully implemented in 2019.(4)

As Medicaid expands while receiving budget cuts, fewer and fewer physicians will accept Medicaid coverage resulting in an even great backlog in the system already plague by high Medicaid Emergency Room visit rates. The coupling of these effects has resulted in 27 states suing the federal government to block ObamaCare.(9),(10)

Health care reform's losing battle
Virginia has won the first of its suits against ObamaCare as a federal judge ruled the program was indeed unconstitutional.(11) This will most assuredly land before the Supreme Court of the United States and have a line of more than 50% of the states in the nation waiting in the balance for their cases to be heard. As the debate of the constitutionalism associated with Obamacare unfolds, much is left to be desired about elements of the program that are far more directly impacting on Americans without coverage who are being forced into Medicaid through states who may not have the solvency in which to adequately provide it. In 2010, 28 states were forced to cut Medicaid.(12) Despite the full knowledge of the failing program, forced growth of Medicare is being insisted upon under the new health care law.

Further complicating ObamaCare is the likely increase of premiums for young adults whose premiums could surge some 17 percent. An analysis of the plan conducted for the Associated Press revealed the program will burden young adults in their 20’s and early 30’s struggling to start and advance their careers in times with the highest unemployment rates in the last 26 years. This is due to the law’s design to rely on the risk pool of young adults who inevitably foot the bill for larger pools of higher risk beneficiaries.(13)

When we look at why most Americans support the repeal of the health care law it makes sense as to why they would.(14) It also goes to reason why states would go to such extent to protect both their citizenry and solvency from ObamaCare. As the repeal of health care reform begins to unfold, it will lead to spirited debate. The Obama administration has stated that the President will simply veto a repeal of health care reform should it reach his desk, while many Democrats claim a full repeal will never make it through the Senate.

Civility and humanity
Whether a supporter of health care reform or not, what is most important with the 112th Congress is that the American people hold them to task when it comes to maintaining the U.S. Constitution.(15) The constitution grants voice unto We the People and using that voice should always be tempered with civility and a sense of humanity.


1. Clemente, Matthew. The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Reading the Constitution (2 of 8). Freedom Works. [Online] 01 13, 2011. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mclemente/the-constitutionality-of-obamas-mandate-reading-th.

2. Rice, Suzi. 112th CONGRESS OPENS BY READING U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE LEFT FREAKS-OUT AGAIN. Suzi Rice. [Online] 01 11, 2011. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://suzyrice.com/2011/01/112th-congress-opens-by-reading-u-s-constitution-and-the-left-freaks-out-again/.

3. Cantor, Eric Rep (R-VA). To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions. H.R.2, 112th Congress, 1st Session. [Online] 01 05, 2011. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2ih.pdf.

4. Nix, Katheryn. Obamacare: Impact on the Uninsured. Heritage Foundation. [Online] 04 20, 2010. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/ObamaCare-Impact-on-the-Uninsured.

5. Smith, Dennis. Medicaid Expansion Ignores States’ Fiscal Crises. Heritage Foundation. [Online] 01 05, 2010. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Medicaid-Expansion-Ignores-States-Fiscal-Crises.

6. Blase, Brian. States Cry to Washington: Remove Obamacare’s Medicaid Handcuffs. The Foundry. [Online] 01 11, 2011. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] States Cry to Washington: Remove Obamacare’s Medicaid Handcuffs.

7. Sack Kevin and Pear, Robert. States Consider Medicaid Cuts as Use Grows. New York Times. [Online] 02 18, 2010. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/politics/19medicaid.html.

8. Davenport, Dan. Brewer proposes cut in Medicaid enrollment. AZ Central. [Online] 01 14, 2011. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/01/14/20110114arizona-budget-brewer-cuts-to-medicaid.html.

9. Stephen R. Pitts, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.E.P., et al. National Health Statistics Reports. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. [Online] 08 06, 2008. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf.

10. The Foundry. List of 27 States Suing Over Obamacare. The Foundry. [Online] 01 17, 2011. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/.

11. Rago, Joe. ObamaCare Loses in Court, A victory for liberty and the Constitution in Virginia. The Wall Street Juournal. [Online] 12 14, 2010. [Cited: 01 06, 2010.] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017672495623838.html.

12. Smith, Dennis. Medicaid Expansion Ignores States’ Fiscal Crises. Heritage Foundation. [Online] 01 05, 2010. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Medicaid-Expansion-Ignores-States-Fiscal-Crises.

13. Johnson, Carla. Health Premiums Could Rise 17 Pct for Young Adults. ABC News. [Online] 03 29, 2010. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=10233582.

14. Rasmussen Reports. Most Still Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, Say It Will Increase Deficit. Rasmussen Reports. [Online] 01 17, 2011. [Cited: 01 17, 2011.] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law.

15. Johnson, Paul. Rhetoric Versus Virtue and Values;112th's Repeal Attempt. Conservative Voice. [Online] 01 05, 2011. [Cited: 01 16, 2011.] http://conservativevoice.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/rhetoric-versus-virtue-and-values112ths-repeal-attempt.html.

Published 18 January 2011 on Suite101: The Repeal of Health Care Reform http://www.suite101.com/content/the-repeal-of-health-care-reform-a334774#ixzz1BWf7v7aQ

So how do you tell your favorite, unemotional and often overly independent Sagittarian friend that he or she is not a Sagittarius, but an Ophiuchus? The answer is simple; you don’t because they are also just stubborn enough to immediately dismiss any contentions that they are anything other than what they have determined themselves to be! Be that as it may, the world of astrology has been sent reeling with the introduction of Ophiuchus as the 13th zodiac sign.
Read more at Suite101: Ophiuchus, the 13th Zodiac Sign http://www.suite101.com/content/ophiuchus-the-13th-zodiac-sign-a332241#ixzz1Axt0lSTN

Published 13 January 2010, on Suite 101
It has been a whirlwind 24 hours.  The news is saturated with the tragedy unfolding around Representative Giffords.  So much news that some wish to turn away from it.  So much speculation that many have grown confused.  It is the fallout that is of specific concern to several; the long term impact of the morbid demonstration of the abuse of freedom this act represents. 

In incidents such as this, the lesser first seek to find blame.  This from Pima County Sheriff who quickly exploited the tragedy to advance an agenda against the Tea Party which the perpetrator had no affiliation.  National politicians who blamed the blogosphere and even Sarah Palin.  Politicians who blamed the internet.  So few in this first 24 hours blame the perpetrator himself.  In a culture of entitlement and the absolution of personal responsibility, it is not a matter of the individual’s accountability, but the variables that could have enabled this individual to act in this manner; it is simply not his fault they insist through the demonstration of the accusations.

It is the fault of the right to carry laws in Arizona.  It is the fault of political rhetoric and political organizations.  It is the fault of a right wing extremist organizations.

Sheriff Dupnik

The epitome of what has gone wrong with the left (and I mean this constructively); the very embodiment of the rhetoric he denounces.  Before any conclusion could possibly be draw, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik was placing blame on the right and denouncing the state of Arizona as a “mecca for prejudice and bigotry” while further denouncing the Tea Party as the reason for an event that had yet to be investigated.  The objectivity of a Sheriff lost to the very rhetoric he sought to denounce.


The definition of rhetoric has been lost to the progression of political agendas on both sides.  Rhetoric is now any written or orated case against a given side.  Lost is the constructive nature of opposing views that has the potential of making a grossly failing two party system more effective.  A given side will refute “rhetoric” as nonsense before it will take such a criticism to evaluate their current position.  This is because our elected officials are forcing their personal agendas and special interests upon the people.  In as much, re-evaluating a position becomes impossible because the path to the end result cannot be altered with the expectation of delivering the people to the predetermined destination as set by the very few.  Rhetoric now represents a groundless dismissal of opposition.

What has happened in America is simple.  Rhetoric as it is currently defined is a highly contagious political tool that disables both the logic and reason of the adult ego state as it provides a path to unadulterated, emotive and irrational response.  Take Sheriff Dupnik for example.  This is a County Sheriff whom defiantly resists the enforcement of law while freely and illogically dismissing it to racist claims against his own people.  In translation, this simply means he picks and chooses the laws he will and will not enforce because he now possesses such an emotive response that he, by his own words can no longer function competently in his position.  His excuse is to find blame in others and not hold to account the responsibility of the individual perpetrating the act.

Loss of freedoms

In the wake of this tragedy, Americans can expect blame over accountability.  The sick act of individualism will recede to the agenda of government.  Dusted off will be legislation the government previously feared to pass.  Its renewal will be fueled by the exploitation of tragedy itself.  Already the administration is seeking the creation of internet IDs for Americans.   Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has announced she will introduce a gun control bill to ban the high capacity magazines used in the Arizona shooting.  Meanwhile, other politicians have sought to politicize the tragedy to advance their agenda against the Second Amendment.   The Tucson Democratic Party has also set its sights on the Arizona Second Amendment as it is in their opinion; the Second Amendment that is at fault for the shooting of Representative Giffords and slaying of the innocent.  It is not the Second Amendment that brought this tragedy forth, it was the perverse abuse of freedom.

Freedom is always accompanied by threats against it.  Such threats come from the hand of our own citizenry and those from abroad.  Meeting the threat against freedom requires a courage of unity which America is rapidly losing.  Legislation proposed in the wake of the Tucson massacre is based upon an emotive response that delivers all from freedom to protect against the few that would or could, under a given set of circumstances abuse it. 

No comfort

Second Amendment proponents are comforted by the Supreme Court rulings in defense of the Second Amendment.  However, it is important to remember that the June 28th ruling was 5 – 4 in support that the “Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws.”  This was identical in vote to a similar ruling just two years prior.  This is of concern in that the ruling comes in response to states and local communities insisting that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to specific areas of the nation when they seek to move legislation in directions against the Constitution itself.  A 5 – 4 victory in a case like this should be 9 – 0.  The flow of the Modern Liberal agenda against the Constitution is having an impact that could (through “rhetoric” induced emotive response) swing against the Constitution in the wake of tragedy.

In our ill belief that we can “control” guns, we believe we can control the people and their use of guns whether they are acquired legally or illegally.  This has been targeted by many because a gun was used.  The internet will be targeted because it is where much of this man’s emotional instability was disclosed and caused him to “slip through the cracks;” cracks that government will seek to seal through imposing restrictions of freedoms and liberties upon all of the people.  The belief for many active in politics today; if some cannot handle the responsibility of American freedom and liberty – none shall be entitled to it.

This horrific even was not the result of rhetoric, it was the evil abuse of freedom.  The challenge we are faced with as Americans; are we a strong enough people to defend freedom in dark of night when the evil it begets cowardly attacks its intent?

Not a matter of Right or Left

The Right was prematurely blamed for this tragedy by those sworn to uphold the law.  This was not the result of rhetoric; it was rhetoric in its perverse form.  Immediately the Right was sought out to be discredited in the wake of tragedy because American politics have devolved to such low levels that mourning the loss of life is now secondary to advancing a political agenda.

“The Right Wing Extremist” as this individual was claimed to be, was actually the furthest thing from it.  He believed in the big government universal solution.  His desired reading was of those embodied bodied by the far Left that even the true Left does not support.  The accusations against the Right, of course came before anything was discovered.  He was / is not a Right Wing Extremist, nor was / is he a Left Wing Nut Job.

The blame lies on his shoulders and his shoulders alone.  To use such a person and his actions against humanity to benefit a political belief system is an act as deviant as the turn of events that plummeted the state of Arizona into despair, dread and horror.  As we publically denounce this act of violence, those politicizing should be equally denounced.

Published, 10 January 20101 on Examiner.com

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot; What is Next for America - Phoenix Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-phoenix/arizona-rep-giffirds-shot-what-is-next-for-america#comments#ixzz1AkO4nJXS


Works Cited BIBLIOGRAPHY (contributed), Greg Palklot. "Administration to World: Arizona Shooting Shows We Have Extremists Too." 10 01 2011. FoxNews. 10 01 2011 <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/administration-world-arizona-shooting-shows-extremists/>.

Foxnews.com. "Pima County Sheriff Sets Off Debate on Price of Free Speech." 09 01 2011. FoxNews. 09 01 2011 <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/pima-county-sheriff-sets-debate-price-free-speech/>.

Hurlbut, Terry. "Pascrell, Paterson mayor continue to politicize Giffords shooting." 10 01 2011. Examiner. 10 01 2011 <http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/pascrell-paterson-mayor-continue-to-politicize-giffords-shooting?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>.

Johnson, Paul. "Arizona Rep. Giffords shot; What is Next for America." 10 01 2011. Examiner. 10 01 2011 <http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-phoenix/arizona-rep-giffirds-shot-what-is-next-for-america>.

Kincaid, Cliff. "Obama Officials Use Fox News to Smear Conservative Group in Shootings." 09 01 2011. American Renaissance, Accuracy in the Media. 09 01 2011 <http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/01/obama_officials.php>.

Liptak, Adam. "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling." 28 06 2010. NYTimes. 09 01 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?_r=1>.

LOVLEY, ERIKA. "2 pols say they'll be armed back home." 09 01 2011. Politico. 09 01 2011 <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47316.html>.

McCullagh, Declan. "Obama to hand Commerce Dept. authority over cybersecurity ID." 07 01 2011. CNET, Privacy INC. 09 01 2011 <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html?tag=topTechContentWrap;editorPicks>.

Somashekhar, Sandhya. "Sheriff Dupnik's criticism of political 'vitriol' resonates with public." 09 01 2011. Washington Post. 09 01 201 <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sheriff-dupniks-criticism-of-p.html>.

Summers, Patrick. "American Renaissance Denies DHS Charges, Any Affiliation With Shooter." 09 01 2011. FoxNews. 09 09 2011 <http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/09/american-renaissance-denies-dhs-charges-any-affiliation-shooter>.

TOEPLITZ, SHIRA. "Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill." 09 01 2011. FoxNews. 01 09 2011 <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html>.


In 2010 the nation engaged in spirited debate over illegal immigration.  The state of Arizona was unconstitutionally boycotted (Friedman) and sued by the federal government for passing legislation that sought to enforce existing federal laws that the federal government struggles to uphold. (Johnson)  The federal government directly challenged provisions in the Arizona law and quietly placed them in its own failed DREAM Act which sought to grant amnesty to many in the nation unlawfully.  (Johnson) (Read more).