Forthcoming this week from the Heartland Institute will be my comprehensive study on the Obama/Democrat government takeover of health care. That study presents my thorough analysis of the health care overhaul bills supported by President Obama now working their way through Congress.
Congress created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to enforce the Sarbanes Oxley law. But Congress provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not the President, to appoint the members of the PCAOB. The President also has no powers of oversight or removal regarding the board members. Yet the PCAOB has the power to establish standards of criminal misconduct, and to decide on their prosecution and punishment. It also has the power to impose taxes on publicly traded companies, and to set its own budget, again independent of the President.
The Free Enterprise Fund brought suit challenging the constitutionality of this arrangement, arguing that […]
The ACLU has filed suit in Pennsylvania in defense of ACORN for a declaration that a law there is unconstitutional for preventing the kind of voter fraud which is a hallmark of ACORN efforts nationally. In short, the ACLU claims that ACORN has a constitutional right to engage in its chosen form of voter fraud.
Some of the facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from a press release by the ACLU itself. The release concerns the filing of a case by the ACLU in Pennsylvania to defend one aspect of ACORNs frequently fraudulent efforts to register non-existent people, aliens, and real people […]
A key element of President Obama's plan for a government takeover of health care is to create what he calls "the government option." He wants his government option to compete with private insurers. Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) says that this government option will compete with private insurers the way an alligator "competes" with ducks. It's a pretty safe bet that the ducks always lose.
There were too many falsehoods in President Obama's healthcare press conference to cram into one column. But three of them show just how far this president is willing to ignore the truth to push his political agenda. And people are starting to catch on.
Over the next two weeks, one of the critical issues will be your civil rights on guns. Senators could benefit from context to understand the importance of this civil right to protect families, especially racial minorities. Given Judge Sotomayor's long record, her confirmation must be more than "transparent," it must be penetrating and the Senators must dig deep.
Democrats are playing the race card with Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in more ways than one. The White House and Senate Democrats want a vote on Sotomayor's nomination before the August congressional recess. If Senate Republicans surrender to the Democrats' race pace card, it means a fast, uninformed vote on a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
People are praying in a city hall in Michigan, and atheists are up in arms. People of faith should hope the secularists push this into court, because this time the believers should win. There's something happening in Warren, Michigan. This town has been hit hard by layoffs, like the rest of the state. (Michigan's unemployment rate is over 14%--the worst in the nation, thanks in no small part to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm imposing big-government taxes, entitlements and union labor policies on the people there.)
Last year’s watershed Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller was just the beginning of the fight over the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. The most significant question now is whether the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government (because D.C. is directly under federal law) or whether it also applies to states and cities under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This question of whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment is now being offered to the Supreme Court. The city of Chicago has a law banning handguns similar to the law struck down last year […]
Next year, the Supreme Court can throw open the doors for voters to learn the truth about those seeking power in America. Or not. In an unusual move, the Court declined to decide a case on Americans' right to speak out on candidates during presidential elections that was argued this year. Instead, they will rehear it this fall, focusing on a new legal issue in a case that will pit two legal heavyweights against each other.
