Dan Heninger: BARACK OBAMA, Re-Founding Father

Barack Obama, Re-Founding Father…. from the Wall Street Journal:

It isn’t just “Obama’s power grabs.” It’s a redesign of the Founders’ original vision.
by DANIEL HENNINGER

To the list of questions Hillary Clinton will never answer, add one more: Would a second Clinton presidency continue and expand Barack Obama’s revision of the American system of government that existed from 1789 until 2009?

The central feature of Mr. Obama’s rewrite of what one might call the Founding Fathers’ original vision has been to abolish Congress. Yes, the 535 men and women elected to

“To the list of questions Hillary Clinton will never answer, add one more: Would a second Clinton presidency continue and expand Barack Obama’s revision of the American system of government that existed from 1789 until 2009?

The central feature of Mr. Obama’s rewrite of what one might call the Founding Fathers’ original vision has been to abolish Congress. Yes, the 535 men and women elected to Congress still show up at the old Capitol building, as they have since November 1800. But once past passage of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, the 44th president effectively retired Congress from its historic function. If you put the president behind the wheel of a car in front of the White House to visit Congress, he’d probably get lost.

Opinion Journal Video
Wonder Land Columnist Dan Henninger on the Texas governor’s run for President. Plus, can anyone reverse President Obama’s executive overreaches? Photo credit: Getty Images.
This is not a joke if you are one of the many million Americans the Re-Founding Father has commanded, via vast executive power, to do what he wants you to do. He did it again last week.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, whose neo-constitutional function is to serve as a primary executor of Mr. Obama’s re-dos, waved into existence a massive expansion of the Clean Water Act. Landowners across America woke up to discover that the EPA has designated ponds, creeks, rivulets, ditches, catch basins and water-filled potholes as subject to what the Clean Water Act originally called “navigable waters.”

From somewhere on Capitol Hill, a plaintive Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat North Dakota’s voters bothered to elect in 2012, said: “It’s frustrating that after so much time, the EPA today decided to finalize this rule instead of . . . releasing a revised rule as our legislation would require.” Legislation?

Conservatives by now are numb to Mr. Obama’s expansions of executive power. They call it an “abuse” of authority, and no doubt it is. “Abuse,” however, makes it sound like the whim of one politician, a Huey Long-like convulsion. This isn’t a one-off. This is how the modern Democratic Party governs. It is how a Clinton presidency would govern every day of the week.

This is not the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton. It is the progressive left wing, which won party control by defeating the Clinton machine in 2008. As a matter of ideology, it is “impatient” with the pace of change possible under the pre-2009 system of checks and balances. Former law professor Elizabeth Warren could teach seminars on the progressive Re-Founding of America.

Barack Obama, channeling decades of theory, says constantly that the traditional system has failed. He said it in his 2011 Osawatomie, Kan., speech: “It doesn’t work. It has never worked.” He has attacked Congress repeatedly as a failed institution, teeing it up for mass revulsion just as he did the 1%.”

(Do read on: http://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-re-founding-father-1433373010)

Twila Brase: “Will Supreme Court Protect Rule of Law in ObamaCare?”

……or will the three Marxist-feminist Court members and traditional Democrat, Stephen Breyer, gather once again John Roberts’ vote to sabotage again the personal freedom of choice regarding the citizen’s own health care due to the Chief Justice’s admitted desire to make the Left feel good about his leadership over SCOTUS?

Minnesota’s Twila Brase, President of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, provides the following report:

Will SCOTUS Protect Rule of Law in Obamacare?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is correct. What matters in the pending ruling on the Obamacare premium subsidies lawsuit is “not what Congress would have wanted, but what Congress enacted.”

The lawsuit, King v. Burwell, rests on four words in the 2010 Affordable Care Act: “established by the state.” Premium subsidies for Obamacare can only be issued by an exchange established by the state, not one established by the federal government (Healthcare.gov).

The New York Times, trying to dismiss the plain words of the law, recently went to great lengths to discuss what involved individuals thought was in the law and wanted in the law.

It is terribly convenient after the fact to make such claims – and terribly wrong to accept them. There’s no evidence that such claims are true and even if it were true, ruling according to anything but the law as written would set a terrible precedent for rule of law. Judicial decisions must not be based on the wishes, afterthoughts, claims and reconsiderations of those who now realize their attempt to bribe states didn’t work.

In fact, beyond the words in the law, there is plenty of evidence that allowing subsidies only through state-based exchanges was the plan (See amicus brief for Halbig v. Sebelius). As Jonathan Gruber, a chief architect of the law, who became known for his comments on the “stupidity” of the American people, told an audience in 2012:
“If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.
The bribe is clear. Because the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal commandeering of the States, President Obama needed to bribe states into setting up and funding a state-based exchange. Now, two years of premium subsidies and some $5 billion in federal exchange grants later, 34 states said no, 16 states plus Washington, D.C. struggled to set one up and…

Continue reading… http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.php/1044#readmore