The wicked flee where none persue ...

I sense real trouble here ...

Did anyone view the "health care summit?" It was an astounding (and terrifying) insight into the mind of our president. The entire operation was a political tool, in this sense - Pelosi, Reid & Obama are now "retooling" their bill yet again, post summit, and plan to supplant all previous versions offered thus far with a "really, really, REALLY" good one now. In other words they put in some GOP requests/issues around the margins so as to set up a show down for the "nuclear option", reconciliation. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure meant to allow a simple majority, rather than 2/3rds, vote to pass budgets & keep the government operating. It was even stretched by George W. Bush to include tax cuts as part of the overall budget (again, that was a stretch). It was never meant to be used to pass fundamental legislation, for it circumvents both the 2/3rds Constitutional requirement and the filibuster. Now their plan, best as I can see, is to this coming Wednesday offer this "new" bill, which is the same trillion dollar fiasco with some marginal reforms on the periphery, and when the Republicans still oppose it, which they will, the Democrat leadership will claim, "Well we tried, we offered a bipartisan bill, they're obstructionists, we have no choice but reconciliation for the American people." Those same American people whom oppose this bill 2 to 1, I might add.

Now the "terrifying" aspect I wrote of was a small exchange between the President and John McCain at this summit. McCain sought reassurance from the President that such an unprecedented , patently unconstitutional maneuver (reconciliation) wasn't going to be employed by the Democrat majority to pass health care reform. To McCain's (and my) astonishment the president answered with the following: (the "dot, dot, dots" are noticeable pauses as the PoTUS searched to phrase this very carefully, you could see that clearly on his face), "John ... I think ... I think the American people ... would find it fair that a majority vote passed this."

Dear Lord. Does anyone understand what an insight this is into his mind set? We have long been treated to the Chicago NPR interview, circa 2000, in which he described the US Constitution as "fundamentally flawed", and the Bill of Rights as "insufficient." He is the chief defender of that very Constitution. He is sworn to faithfully execute it. Fair? Fair? I can't decide if this is more Jr. High debate club or Machiavellian taunt, though I lean towards the latter. The Czars, auto industry, CEO pay caps, and it goes on and on ... how long before he signs a Treaty without submitting it to the Senate at all? I have long said that his desire to "fundamentally transform America" as he put it, was all we needed to know about the man, for one must first believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the manner in which the nation was constituted, and he clearly does. This is the aim of the progressive - to "progress" past the Constitution. Marxism does it by revolution. The Progressive by evolution. Even Chris Dodd, and I'm certainly not in the habit of praising Chris Dodd, went on the floor of the Senate and gave a very impassioned speech opposing the nuclear option today: "Why even have a bicameral legislature? Why have 2 chambers? Why have a 2/3rds majority requirement? What were the founders thinking if not to protect against the tyranny of the majority?!" And I mean to tell you, he was yelling. Clearly he is finding an impending retirement liberating.

Fortunately the American people are on to Obama's disdain for the Constitution, and the fallacy of budget neutral trillion dollar programs. My concern is since the president has no problem acting unconstitutionally - bringing the proverbial gun to a knife fight - then he may very well get his bill. And while that will be a road map to a Democrat minority, perhaps for a generation, the GOP's record on having enough spine to actually overturn legislation is less then inspiring. However messy the process, however devastating electorally, I think the president willing to pay that price. Our only hope is that the Democrats up for reelection in Congress, aren't.

****
Guns ... yes I'm aware of this case. DC vs Heller has opened a plethora of new challenges to get firm case law established so as to guard the 2nd Amendment from future unconstitutional legislation. One that caught my interest is a case soon to be heard (brought by the Heller lawyer) in Montana, regarding a challenge to the commerce clause. ... from the Washington Times: According to the act's supporters, if guns bearing a "Made in Montana" stamp remain in Montana, then federal rules such as background checks, registration and dealer licensing no longer apply. But court cases have interpreted the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as covering anything that might affect interstate commerce - which in practice means just about anything.

Those of us on this side of the 2nd Amendment aisle have the good fortune of clear Constitutionality in this matter (in my opinion), and a Supreme Court affected by 8 years of a Republican Administration. Things look hopeful in each of these cases.

****

I will get to the Andrew Jackson question soon ... it is a fantastic philosophical exercise.