(LA Times) A federal judge appeared dubious Monday about a lawsuit filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that seeks the release of orcas from SeaWorld on anti-slavery grounds.

PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr told U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller that invoking the anti-slavery 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in hopes of freeing the orcas is “the next frontier of civil rights.”

But Miller told Kerr that he cannot find a legal precedent for allowing a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the orcas under the 13th Amendment. The orcas, he noted, are animals, not people.

Judge Miller said he will consider the request by Sea World to dismiss this absurd and frivilous lawsuit, but gave no timeline for his decision. Over to the BBC

Five killer whales have been named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit which argues they deserve the same constitutional protection from slavery as humans.

Jeffrey Kerr, the lawyer representing the five whales, said: “For the first time in our nation’s history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human.

“By any definition these orcas have been enslaved here.”

No mention as to whether Judge Miller took frequent breaks to go back in his chambers and laugh his head off.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Hat tip to Allahpundit that who says:

A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

Please! This is one of the main reasons that you need to vote against Obama when it is time. I don’t want him to have the chance to appoint another justice as liberal as this one! Perhaps she should recuse herself from any rulings based on Constitutional grounds since she isn’t so fond of our Constitution. Or maybe she should move to South Africa!

Others: Jeff Goldstein

Skip ahead on the video to 9:28.

“Google has removed hundreds of web pages relating to former motorsport boss Max Mosley’s sex life from its search results index, Britain’s Leveson Inquiry on press standards has heard.

But the internet giant said it dealt with requests for material to be excluded on a country-by-country basis, meaning articles and videos might remain accessible on other national versions of its site.

Mr Mosley told the inquiry in November he had spent over £500,000 ($750,000) trying to restore his reputation after a March 2008 News of the World article alleging he had a “sick Nazi orgy”, something he strongly denied.

He described his strenuous efforts to get articles removed from websites, adding: “The fundamental thing is that Google could stop this appearing but they don’t or won’t as a matter of principle.”

Google legal director Daphne Keller on Thursday confirmed that someone in Mr Mosley’s position would have to apply individually to have web pages, known as URLs, removed from the company’s sites in different countries. She told the inquiry: “I would hope that wouldn’t be a terribly difficult thing to do, and I can tell you that in his case we have removed hundreds of URLs.”

Ms Keller said a defamatory video could be removed from one of Google’s national sites but remain up on another. “If there is a country whose law says that that should stay up, then in that country we would comply with that law,” she said.

But the lawyer rejected a suggestion that Google should block certain search terms. She said: “In the Max Mosley case, obviously there has been all kinds of news coverage about this very inquiry, and other coverage that’s legitimate, and that you wouldn’t want to disappear from search results.”

Source

The libel judgment in his favour obtained by Mosley was handed down in London by The Hon. Mr. Justice Eady. Mr Justice Eady is well-known for leaning towards the plaintiff in libel suits, bringing that entire area of British law into disrepute. His notorious judgments often lead to censorship of material that most people would think should remain uncensored. His ruling was particularly obnoxious in the Rachel Ehrenfeld case, causing the NY legislature to pass a special law to protect her from any consequences of Eady’s judgment. So I have no confidence in Eady’s ruling favouring Mr Mosley

That lack of confidence is strongly supported by the fact that Mosley has made strenuous efforts to have the video of his behavior suppressed. If the video just showed him having a cup of tea, why would he want it suppressed? Clearly it does at least in part support the allegations made.

To help circumvent the Mosley/Eady censorship attempts, I have made a copy of one report of the matter that is still up and reposted it here. Under U.S. law it would be regarded as in the public interest for public figures to have information about their deeds known.

I am not in fact particularly critical of Mr Mosley’s actions in this matter. As I see it, it is Mr Justice Eady who has poisoned the well in the matter. He appears to have developed de novo a law of privacy that has no regard to the truth or merit of the allegations. The USA is not alone in having unelected judges who create law that would never pass muster before a democratically-elected legislature.

So until the British parliament steps in, I will continue in skepticism towards British libel judgments. The problem is well-known in Britain and the present government has promised corrective legislation — but no such legislation appears to be on the horizon yet.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

One of the Old Media’s favorite ways of attempting to hide the ideological track of a story is to somehow forget to mention to which party someone in the news hails or owes fealty to. In this case it is what they don’t report that misleads. This week we find a classic what-they-don’t-say story concerning the judge that blocked sections of South Carolina’s new immigration law.

For those unaware, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel temporarily blocked segments of South Carolina’s new immigration laws because he claimed that some of its provisions impinged on federal prerogatives, things over which the state has no jurisdiction.

The South Carolina law was opposed in court by Obama’s left-wing, activist Department of Justice headed by Eric “Fast And Furious” Holder and a gaggle of civil rights groups and Judge Gergel agreed with these attackers issuing an injunction to stop implementation of the provisions in question.

The Old Media reported a lot of details in the story, of course. We learned all about who opposed the provisions, who scoffed at the injunction, in what District Judge Gergel hailed, and in some of the reports we even get to hear what Republican South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had to say about it all. But one thing few of these news outlets seemed to report might help readers understand the decision better.

Judge Richard Mark Gergel is an Obama appointee.

So we have an Obama appointee — Eric “Fast And Furious” Holder — attacking a state trying desperately to deal with the illegal immigration problem that other Obama appointees won’t deal with and an Obama appointee — Judge Gergel — agreeing with Obama appointee Holder that the struggling state needs a rebuke.

Yet, the Old Media doesn’t see any need to tell us that Obama appointees are agreeing with Obama appointees against a Republican Governor, here? The fact that Judge Gergel is an Obama appointee isn’t relevant?

Imagine that.

Yes, it somehow slipped Politico’s notice that Gergel is an Obama appointee. The Associated Press made the little oopsie, too. Oh, and Reuters must have given their editors the week off for Christmas or something because they missed this fact. AFP missed it, too. Oh, and Bloomberg forgot to mention Gergel’s Obama connection. Naturally The New York Times didn’t bother with this little fact. Shockingly, the L.A. Times somehow neglected the fact that Gergel was an Obama man. It slipped right past the steely eye of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Even Fox News missed it.

Did anyone note that Judge Gergel was an Obama man? At the time I wrote this only some SC political blogs and a site called the International Business Times bothered to let its reader know that Gergel is an Obama appointee.

Now, we all know that every time we have a Republican president and one of his appointees turns in a judgment that opposes the liberal mindset, the fact that the judge is a GOP appointee is always prominent in the story.

But, gosh darn it, the fact that Judge Gergel is an appointee of the most liberal president in American history just didn’t seem relevant to the Old Media today.

It’s just a little Merry Christmas present to the Old Media’s President Obama.

Ho, ho, ho.

“The ACLU has managed to block North Carolina from issuing license plates with a “Choose Life” message because the state legislature declined to also issue “Choose Death” plates.

U.S. District Judge James Fox didn’t put it that way in his Nov. 28 injunction, but he did agree with the ACLU that the absence of an opposing plate violates the First Amendment. The problem arose because lawmakers refused to authorize the “Respect Choice” plate that Planned Parenthood wanted as part of its ongoing “Culture of Death” initiative.

The ruling prompts the question of whether every expression allowed on a license plate must be accompanied by a contrary view, sort of a Fairness Doctrine for motorists.

Tennessee also found itself in court over “Choose Life” plates in 2004 in ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen. In 2006, the 6th U.S Circuit Court overturned a district court ruling against the state, saying, “Government can express public policy views by enlisting private volunteers to disseminate its message, and there is no principle under which the First Amendment can be read to prohibit government from doing so because the views are particularly controversial or politically divisive.”

The court pointed out that nobody is forced to buy the “Choose Life” plates, unlike, say, New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” plates that all Granite State vehicles must bear.

The current controversy is likely to continue for years, as courts have been all over the map, with some ruling that message plates constitute a “public forum,” and others disagreeing. Twenty-nine states have “Choose Life” plates or have authorized them, according to the Winston-Salem Journal

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

This past weekend the Washington Post published a hit piece on the grand opening of a museum in Georgia dedicated to the birthplace of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The paper was desperate to make some grand conspiracy, some lawbreaking evil from the project. But whatever is going on with the museum, this story was just one more shot orchestrated by the left aimed at forcing Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the upcoming hearings on whether or not Obamacare is Constitutional. Of course, this is all a smoke screen to hide the fact that it is really left-wing darling Justice Elana Kagan that should recuse herself from the case.

The Post story was a mish mash of innuendo, guesswork, and partisan claims, all amounting to much of nothing for proof of wrong doing. The Post even took the opportunity to use the word “whitewashed” when describing the color of the building housing the museum commemorating Justice Thomas’ birthplace. None too subtle, that.

There was plenty of other coverage of the opening of the museum that was positive, of course. Still it is apparent that the left hates Justice Thomas so much that they can’t even stand it that a small commemoration of his place of birth be created.

But real facts weren’t on the agenda for this article on Thomas. This article was meant as yet another slap at Thomas in order to mount pressure against him for the upcoming case against Obamacare. The left has been floating the demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself because his wife has worked as a “conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated for the repeal of ‘Obamacare.’”

Contrary to the left’s new attack on Thomas, in America we do not hold the work of a spouse against someone. If we did that, half the members of Congress would have to be removed for the boards, or agencies, or organizations that their spouses work for. The pertinent fact is, though, that Justice Thomas himself was not the one working for any group that advocated for or against Obamacare.

This, however, is not true of another member of the Supreme Court. Justice Elana Kagan was actually involved in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. If that isn’t directly relevant, what is?

Last week it was discovered that when Obamacare passed, Kagan sent euphoric emails to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe who was then serving in the Department of Justice. This in itself should be enough to show that Kagan’s opinion on Obamacare has already been decided easily bringing into question her unbiased judgment on the case.

But that isn’t the only problem with Kagan’s serving as one of those that will have the final word on the constitutionality of Obamacare. She wasn’t simply elated that Obamacare passed. She was also part of the team that advised the Democrats on how to support Obamacare and keep it from being challenged.

You see, at the time, Kagan was Solicitor General and was, “personally involved, even if only to a limited degree (though without a complete record, it’s difficult to know how limited), in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare.”

Yet, here we have the left attacking justice Thomas because his wife said she doesn’t like Obamacare and saying that is a basis to force him to recuse himself from the case while ignoring Kagan’s actual involvement in favor of Obamacare. Not too blatantly partisan, is it?

So, how is the Old Media reporting this story? A recent piece by Politico is a perfect example of how the left is minimizing the facts. The meme du jour is to report that there is, “No sign Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas will recuse on health care law.”

Politico isn’t the only one. The Week did a similar piece juxtaposing calls for both Thomas and Kagan to step down as if the calls were equal in seriousness.

In other words, by linking the two calls for recusal as if they are coequal in import minimizes the call for either to recuse themselves. Readers will simply see the calls for recusal as a partisan maneuver and Kagan’s more legitimate reason for having to step back from the Obamacare case will more likely go unaddressed.

Further, the left also knows that the right is traditionally spineless in the face of criticism. They are banking on the fact that the right will cower — like it always does — and Thomas will remove himself from the case, even though there is no legitimate reason he should, while Kagan will never in a million years remove herself despite that there is good, legal reasons for her to do so. The left doesn’t care about propriety or legality when it comes to pushing its agenda, we all know.

The case for Kagan’s recusal, though, is quite serious, indeed. So serious that Eric Holder was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he said that Kagan was not involved in Obamacare. Holder’s testimony is questionable, though. Recently Republican leaders in the Senate sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their belief that Holder’s testimony about Kagan’s involvement in past Obamacare policy making was “belied by the facts.” Holder’s office has been stonewalling calls by the Senate that he provide it with documents regarding Kagan’s involvement in the healthcare law.

Finally it is interesting to note that the Old Media knocked itself out to send reporter after reporter to Alaska to uncover dirt on 2008 GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin. Then the media wanted to uncover every single piece of dirt it could find. Yet in this case the Old Media is uninterested in discovering to what extent a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court had in a case that she will be tasked with adjudicating. Remember, a vice president has little real power, but the Old Media was losing its mind over Palin. On the other hand, a Supreme Court Judge has incredible power and the media are disinterested in finding out about this judge.

If this all doesn’t show the left-wing bias of the media, well, “you can’t handle the truth.”

In 2008 a pipeline operated by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded destroying several homes and killing 72-year-old Wilbert Paana. Since that time authorities have been attempting to determine what sort of fines PG&E should face for its negligence. Recently administrative law judge John Wong proposed that a fine of $38 million — and an end to the whole matter — would be enough. But is this enough to assure the protection and safety of California’s ratepayers?

To his credit, Judge Wong rejected an even lower proposal of a $26 million fine noting that if found guilty the utility would face at least a $97 million fine if found guilty of all the charges and safety violations leveled against it. Yet, he’s willing to let PG&E get away with less than half of what it could face were it to go the distance in the courts.

Whatever is fair or not, though, one thing must be noted. PG&E’s board recently rewarded CEO Peter Darbee with a $35 million severance package even though he presided over multiple violations of safety including that Rancho Cordova incident that took the life of Mr. Panna, not to mention eight more deaths in the San Bruno incident. He also headed up the utility as it wasted $46 million on the ballot initiative Prop 16 which was an attempt to enshrine in law PG&E’s California monopoly.

So, Mr. Darbee has been involved in the waste of $81 million of PG&E’s funds, at the very least. One would think that if PG&E has this much money to throw around that it should be held accountable properly for the deaths of so many of its customers!

Unfortunately Judge Wong’s proposal wasn’t rejected by the California Public Utilities Commission as it should have been. A more careful examination of the violations should have been made in order to fulfill the CPUC’s charge of Enforcing, “consumer protection laws and service standards, investigate fraud and illegal activity,” and to, “prosecute violators of the Public Utilities Code, CPUC orders, and utility tariffs.”

In fact, even as this proposal by Judge Wong was being floated, state officials were finding that PG&E may have used substandard “junked pipe” in its system in the 40s and 50s raising the specter of many other San Brunos and Rancho Cordovas just waiting to happen.

With these constant violations and the public obviously still in danger sweeping this case under the rug with this fine and an end to the case does not seem like the best idea. The people of California deserve to learn the full extent of what PG&E is responsible for perpetrating against them. Let’s hope that as time goes on the people of California finally get their day in court.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010–before Elena Kagan’s June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed–and which became the target of legal challenges–while Kagan was serving as Obama’s solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

In response to questions from CNSNews.com, Prof. Tribe said on Thursday that other than the references in his email exchange with Kagan on March 21, 2010, he never had any communications with Elena Kagan while she was solicitor general relating to pending or enacted health-care legislation or actual or anticipated health-care related litigation. Tribe also said he sees no reason to believe 28 USC 455 would require Kagan’s recusal from cases involving PPACA.

If you read the entire exchange of emails it is obvious she was rooting for Obamacare and involved in discussions of the pending legislation. They speak vaguely, but putting double exclamation points on them getting the votes is pretty obvious, if not highly questionable. If she doesn’t want a stink of controversy she needs to do the right thing and recuse herself from this upcoming SCOTUS decision.

Of all the possible outcomes being tossed around as the Affordable Care Act litigation heads for Supreme Court consideration, one is usually overlooked: If the court upholds the act’s constitutionality and its “individual mandate,” it could sound the death knell for the tea party.

Well, if pooping on cop cars, rampant drug use, violence, murder, sexual assault, and rape hasn’t shut down the Occupiers, a loss at SCOTUS wouldn’t eliminate the Tea Party. For one thing, the TP is not a single subject movement, unless you consider the over-arching idea of a limited federal government as the starting point.

The challenges to the mandate are perhaps the most concrete manifestation of the tea party’s vision of the Constitution and the role of government. The tea party has made its name by promoting a constitutional vision of a weak central government, incapable of addressing national issues — like the health care crisis, environmental protection and financial system reform — and this theory is at the heart of the lawsuits challenging the mandate. Progressives have long argued that the tea party’s vision has more to do with the failed Articles of Confederation than our enduring Constitution.

Liz was on the right track right up to the word “incapable.” That is incorrect. We understand that the federal government has a role, and what that role should be, as established by the pesky Constitution thing.

That argument by the progressives is a new one to me, though. Perhaps that’s how she thinks about it, without any real facts and knowledge.

But what if this message were delivered by the conservative Roberts Court in a high-profile defeat for the tea party in the health care litigation?

There is a distinct possibility that the high court could uphold the health care law’s constitutionality, not just with a 5-4 ruling — in which swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with the court’s more liberal members — but with the support of conservative heroes, like Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Got that? A distinct possibility. Why?

After all, Scalia concurred in the 2005 decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court upheld a federal ban on possession of marijuana grown in accordance with local law for personal, medicinal use — because the ban was part of a broader regulation of interstate commerce.

Except, marijuana, rightly or wrongly, is a Schedule I drug, banned and illegal, under federal law. Unlike the individual mandate, no one is being forced to purchase cannabis simply because they are a citizen of the United States under the Commerce clause, because they might possibly cross state lines at some point. Heck, the federal ban on drugs itself may be overbearing, if the drugs never cross a state line or US border.

The health care law might also pick up conservative support in the Supreme Court beyond the Commerce Clause argument. Another constitutional basis for the law’s individual mandate is that it is a “necessary and proper” means of carrying out Congress’s constitutional power to regulate commerce.

I love when Liberals cite the Constitution without context. The last line of Article I, Section 8, states

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The powers of Congress are laid out in Section 8 prior to that line. Necessary and proper points to what Congress is tasked with doing, not that I really have to point that out to people who can read. Section 9 lays out what Congress cannot do. How about this one in 9?

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

The Obama administration has, at times, proclaimed that the mandate is a “tax.” So, the Constitution defeats their, and Elizabeth’s, argument.

Even if the Mandate was upheld by SCOTUS, it would only make the Tea Party work harder, and would not erase the primary purpose, which is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.