Kagan Stalls on Commerce Clause

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asks Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, if a law saying Americans had to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day is supported by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Coburn's question is analogous to the healthcare law passed, and supposedly made legal by the Commerce Clause. See the video below.

Elena Kagan

Kagan would not answer the real question. She understood that Coburn was asking about healthcare legislation, but said passing a law requiring everyone to eat three fruits and vegetables a day would be a "dumb law."  Her answer? She thinks:

 "courts would be wrong to strike down laws that are senseless just because they are senseless."

Many do not believe the healthcare law will pass Supreme Court scrutiny, because it allows the government to require everyone in the U.S. to buy a produce (health insurance), and if they do not, they will be penalized by the government. In other words, citizens will be penalized for DOING NOTHING.

Related is this article on Elena Kagan changing expert witness' recommendations on partial-birth abortion - lies that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

.







Elena Kagan and Senator Tom Coburn on Commerce Clause (video)

ObamaCare Shocker: Tenth Amendment and Health Care

American Daughter is sharing the article below which explains why the Supreme Court will likely view ObamaCare (health care) as unconstitutional. It's very interesting, and written by someone who has been to court under the protection of the Tenth Amendment and won. See a link at the bottom of the detailing why ObamaCare is not legal under the Commerce Clause, as Democrat leadership would have you believe.

ObamaCare Shocker
By Jay Printz at American Daughter

Recently decided tenth amendment cases support constitutional challenges to ObamaCare. Here is evidence that my battle in Printz v. United States was not in vain, as so many liberals would have you believe! From FOXNews — An Obamacare Shocker:

….there’s another key provision in Obamacare that probably violates the Tenth Amendment: the state exchanges.

The Tenth Amendment went for so many years without being used to strike down any law that it came to be regarded as what is called a “dead letter” in the Constitution, meaning a provision that says some sort of obvious statement, but that isn’t actually used by the courts for anything.

Then, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court shocked the legal world by striking down two laws for violating the Tenth Amendment. The first was New York v. United States in 1992, where the Court struck down a federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal of radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those laws. Then in Printz v. United States in 1997, the Court struck down a provision of the Brady Act — a federal gun-control law — that required state and local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun purchasers.

From these two cases emerged the anti-commandeering principle, holding that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from commandeering — or ordering — any branch of state government to do anything. The states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington, D.C.

Therein lies the problem for the Senate’s Obamacare bill. It requires each state to pass laws setting up a statewide non-profit insurance exchanges. It then requires the states to pass regulations for implementing those laws. And it further requires the states to dedicate staff and spend state money to administer those programs.
In most respects, this is a straight-out repeat of those 1992 and 1997 cases. The main difference is that Obamacare violates the anti-commandeering principle in a far more severe and egregious way than those previous laws ever did.
This is really stunning. If New York and Printz had been decided as far back as 1910, then maybe you could imagine Congress deciding to roll the dice with a completely new Supreme Court a century later. But these are recent cases with conservative outcomes, and the only difference is that the Court has become a bit more conservative then it was in the 1990s when it decided those two cases….

The only way the Dems can get around this is to drag out the constitutional challenges until Obama, in a second term as president, may have a chance to replace two conservative Supreme Court justices with liberals.
The American public must deny Obama a second term, and the certain destruction of states’ rights.

Jay Printz is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association; a 26-year veteran Montana Sheriff, retired in 1999; U.S. Marine and Vietnam combat veteran. He spent a dangerous year in Iraq in 2004-2005, serving as an advisor to Iraqi national security forces. He brought a successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge against the "Brady Law" in the landmark case, Printz v. United States.

Read why ObamaCare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause:
ObamaCare is Unonstitutional: Counting the Ways Health Care is Unconstitutional

Amanda Simpson is Transgender Obama Commerce Appointee

Amanda Simpson is an Obama appointee to the Commerce Department. Simpson is a transgender who transitioned from male to female over 10 years ago, and will serve as a Senior Technical Advisor. See video below:

Amanda Simpson

This about Simpson from ABC:

A former test pilot, Simpson worked in the aerospace and defense industries for 30 years, mostly at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Ariz. She holds degrees in physics, engineering, and business.

Simpson told ABCNews.com that much of her work will involve "licensing and enforcement for exports" of military technology.

In 2004, she was named by the YWCA as one of their "Women on the Move," and in the same year, she won the Democratic nomination to the Arizona state House of Representatives. She lost in the general election.
The video below is an interview of Amanda Simpson and another transgender.




Amanda Simpson (video)