Obamacare, not the Constitution, is the law of the land

President Obama picks and chooses which Photo: Dana Carvey Church Lady (YouTube, Saturday Night Live)

WASHINGTON, December 18, 2013 — Week after week brings some new horror or revealed lie about the Affordable Healthcare Act or its harbinger Healthcare.gov.

Despite the fact that the President lied about being able to keep your healthcare plan about a dozen times on national television, and despite the fact that the taxpayers funded the website debacle to the tune of over half a billion dollars, his allies in Congress and in the media are still singing his praises while they circle the wagons around him.

The law brings one sixth of the economy under the control of the federal government, it has been changed and amended without legislative process, and it makes your well-being the actual business of the government. It also bumped millions of Americans off their obviously inferior healthcare plans, and forces geriatrics to buy prenatal care, and single men to buy birth control coverage so they don’t get pregnant and have to take man-ternity leave.

Many have called for the law’s repeal, and many have tried albeit unsuccessfully.

After countless repeal votes, a government shutdown, and public outcry against the law, President Obama is scratching his head and wondering why everyone is being so mean, he is just trying to help. In an attempt seal off the argument once and for all, his most zealous soldier in the Obamacare fight, Kathleen Sebelius, rendered everyone against Obamacare everywhere irrelevant when she stated:

“It was passed and signed three years ago. It was upheld by the Supreme Court a year ago. The president was re-elected. This is the law of the land.”

Well as Dana Carvey’s the Church Lady would say on SNL, Isn’t that special?

Aside from the myriad of mind blowing implications inherent within that statement, such as “the president was re-elected off of what could have been one of the greatest lies in government…” and “the president waited until after his reelection to implement the law so it would not affect his 2nd term chances…” and “the Supreme Court didn’t actually uphold it they changed it to make it work…” Sebelius’ words underpin a stark and harsh truth about Progressives and their agenda in this country, and that is; the law only applies when I want it to apply.

What does that mean, exactly?

That means that despite the fact that in order to pass the ACA the Democrats basically ignored the Constitution, they have the nerve to cry foul when people challenge the law. “It’s the law of the land” they cry, well the Constitution is the law of the land, and the Bill of Rights within the Constitution is the law of the land, but those particular laws don’t seem to apply to the Progressive left.

SEE RELATED: Al Nusra makes gains in Syria with US support

They say that the ACA is the law of the land, well so is the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the people the right to free speech, and freedom from religious oppression. However the law of the land did not seem to stop President Obama and his people from intimidating journalists such as Bob Woodward and Lanny Davis from exercising their right to speak freely about the Obama Administration.

This law did not stop a municipal government from banning the use of words such as  “citizen” and “brown bag” because they might offend people.

That law did not stop the President from mandating that Catholic institutions pay for birth control methods that infringe upon the free practice of their religion.

The President and his Progressive allies have no regard for your First Amendment rights, which are the law of the land, yet he expects you as an American citizen, and he expects our representatives in Congress to let Obamacare stand because it is the law of the land?

They say that the ACA is the law of the land, well so is the second Amendment.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms, as upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on several occasions, most recently in the Heller Decision and McDonald v. Chicago.

However President Obama and his Progressive Allies have launched campaign after campaign against gun owners in this country. Maryland, Colorado, California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey have all passed stringent gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

These laws infringe drastically not only upon the 2nd Amendment, which is the law of the land, but on the right of the individual to adequately provide for their own self-defense. It may behoove the governors of these states, and the President, to look at another “law of the land” in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia in which the Supreme Court ruled that police protection was not Constitutionally guaranteed.

However, that did not stop these governors, and the President from passing, and seeking to pass, legislation that severely handicaps a law abiding citizens right to choose the means by which an individual can adequately defend themselves. If municipal police forces need fully automatic M-16’s and armored personnel carriers from government surplus programs in order to protect themselves, and yet the people are restricted in many states to having five rounds in their magazines, how is that not infringing upon the right to bear arms?

If crime and criminals are so bad that the police need military grade equipment, should not the people be afforded the right and proper means to defend themselves against criminals who apparently have RPG’s?

The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and yet for some reason it also does not apply to this President, or his allies.

Of course he has not called for its repeal publicly, however when the Amendment reads “shall not infringe,” and then you call for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, you are calling for the law to be infringed upon, thereby violating it.

The Fourth Amendment is the law of the land, which protects the American people from unlawful searches and seizures. It protects the American people from warrantless searches, and it protects the American people from having their civil liberties violated by the government. It is the law of the land. However the NSA taps our phones, raids our emails, tracks our whereabouts, orders phone and email companies to surrender sensitive information on pain of prosecution.

This is in clear violation of the law of the land, yet the Obama Administration defends it. Just recently, a judge ruled that the NSA phone spying program was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as it clearly and plainly is. Yet in response to criticism that the NSA spying programs violated the Fourth Amendment, President Obama said “They help us prevent terror attacks…”

One would be hard pressed to find a better staple of Progressive thought in America. The former Constitutional law professor claims that his violation of the law of the land is justified by the potential to thwart terrorist attacks. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety…”

What about the Fifth Amendment? The right to due process and trial before a jury are held sacred in the United States. But President Obama sees fit to order the execution of American citizens abroad via drone without granting them the right to a fair trial .

Where is the law of the land there?

But it does not stop, obviously, at the Constitution. It is the law of the land that the United States protect their borders, but when they fail in that duty and the states take it upon themselves to enforce the law President Obama has Eric Holder take action. This happened in Arizona, where illegal immigration is a prevailing danger to border security. The state took action, and the federal government sued. Then the federal government releases orders telling ICE agents and other police officers not to deport illegal aliens.

This of course is all in defiance of the law of the land, which President Obama is required to uphold.

Then of course there is the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. It is the law of the land, yet in order for it to be considered the law of the land it had to step over, subvert, and ignore the Constitution. The President has changed the law by exempting unions, certain corporations, and by extending deadlines and granting delays, despite having never gone through the actual legislative process to do so.

The bottom line is this; if President Obama does not care to abide by the law of the land, and enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold, then why does he expect us to follow those laws?

If President Obama can pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to enforce, perhaps the American people can, and should, pick and choose whether or not to follow Obamacare.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from It’s All Smoke and Whiskey
blog comments powered by Disqus
Conor Higgins

Conor Higgins has a B.A. from Catholic University in DC in American History, with a concentration on guerrilla warfare on American soil. He has an M.A. in US History from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, with a concentration on Cold War insurgency. He believes that all news and all information should be taken with a grain of salt, and implores people everywhere to seek news stories everywhere. 

Higgins is also a fervent believer in the traditional role of media, in terms of acting as a balanced check on government policies and individuals regardless of party affiliation. But in the end, he believes that no matter how heated an issue is, there is nothing that can't be discussed over a smoke and some whiskey. 

Contact Conor Higgins


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus