Commentary by LA Repucci
November 14th, Washington DC
President Obama spoke from the White House this morning regarding a proposed ‘fix’ to his failed health care policy in an effort to edify his fellow democrats through the next election cycle.
After publicly promising the American people that they could keep their insurance plans 30 times, the president has received flack due to the fact that millions are losing their insurance policies due to the Affordable Healthcare Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.
In his address this morning, the president announced a ‘delay’ of the portions of the law to enable insurers to re-instate individual policies purchased on the “old individual market” to avoid losing their coverage…presumably, for another year. Obama offered no details or legal explanation as to how this radical change in the law of the land would be implemented.
Okay — let’s suspend the fact that our Constitution very clearly states the government is prohibited from compelling the people to purchase a product or service. Let’s pretend that the government, having betrayed this constitutional provision time and again (Social Security comes to mind), may simply call a compulsion to purchase a ‘tax’ as chief justice Roberts ruled regarding the health insurance mandate, circumvent one of the clearest directives of the US Constitution, and may compel the people to purchase a product or service. Even with this egregious transgression of the sovereignty of the people as a given, the State seems unable to obey its own new laws these days. The federal government has been exposed time and again in the last few months (and decades) as the primary and frequent transgressor of our laws – the confirmed reports of illegal mass warrant-less surveillance are only the latest example of complete disregard for and perversion of the law to come from this administration.
There is a single mechanism by which our federal government transgresses the will of the people; one over-arching distortion of sanity by which the administration, law-makers and courts continue to exploit (at accelerating pace) and abridge the will of the people. President Obama is merely the culmination of this singular corruption of constitutionality that transforms our nation from the rule of law toward the rule of tyrants. As a student of constitutional law, Mr. Obama must know precisely what he is doing. Even if he didn’t, ignorance would not save his neck from the block that is the US constitution.
The truth is this: all three branches of the federal government disregard the rule of law. They are all traitors to the republic, and as such, should be tried, convicted, and sentenced for high treason.
How can a president (and constitutional scholar) mandate the people’s purchase of a product in clear violation of our supreme law, then claim the power to arbitrarily change his own law simply by decree? The answer is two-fold. First, a legitimate president cannot – a tyrant can and will do anything they please. Second; as a tyrant by definition does not respect law in any case, once abridged, law may be changed without the legislative process or will of the governed, by decree.
Obamacare is unconstitutional – the state-appointed high-priests of the Supreme Court aren’t required to understand that simple point. As an unconstitutional law issued by the fiat of a tyrant, supported by a false legislative process of ‘democracy’, it should be taken as given that law will now be dictated from the executive office out of hand, as the now impotent legislative and judicial bodies meekly question ‘can the president make law by decree? Law, by definition, is the littoral antipode of decree.
Dictation is the province of dictators – those who would destroy the rule of law and institute the rule of decree. Ayn Rand prophesied this exact eventuality for American politics in her opus Atlas Shrugged, within the pages of characters decry ‘pragmatic, relative flexibility’ to be superior to principle. When the state abandons duty to the law of the people, then it is the duty of the people to abandon the state. A state that represents not the interest of the people, is anathema to the rule of law. According to Rand’s prophecy, this perversion of the very concept of law will accelerate dramatically as more ad-hoc tyrannical declarations are needed to patch the tower of babel created by the abomination that is the rule of man. If Rand is right, this will all get much more absurd and destructive before it gets any better.
Obama’s decree this morning illustrates the now obvious point that the Affordable Health Care Act is HIS law, and not the law of the people. The people change laws through the legislative process and the ballot — a tyrant changes his laws by decree.
Gravity is a law. It needs no paper legislation, no judicial review, no vote of democratic tyranny to ‘be’ a law. It is a natural force acting upon reality whether people consent to it or not. Markets are the same – they are a natural law. They exist whether or not they are acknowledged by the state — and will continue to exist so long as there is a society within which to emerge and operate. ‘Regulating’ an economy or market is akin to regulating gravity. Paper law — Obama’s law, is not law at all. In fact, it is now specifically the opposite of law – it is the whim and decree of a despotic megalomaniac — it is Canute ordering the tides back. Let’s all hope this tyrant drowns quickly so that our nation may once again be ruled by the laws of the natural universe, and the US government may return to performing its sole legitimate function – safeguarding the liberty of the people against tyrants like Obama.
Our President minored in bong rips, honoring his predecessors’ commitment to cocaine and drunk driving.
I am considering sending Mr. Obama a copy of Bastiat’s “The Law” – apparently, this foundational primer, along with Locke and Jefferson aren’t required reading in the Columbia University constitutional law curriculum. Is it intellectually honest to assume that the nations’ chief executive is ignorant of the school of thought that is the genesis of our nations’ supreme law? Likely not – either Mr. Obama is ignorant of the very nature and definition of law itself, or he is openly perverting its’ mechanisms in an effort to destroy the liberty of the people and supremacy of the Constitution. Darth Sidious, evidently, trained another apprentice after the death of Vader.
Oh Jedi, where art thou?
Disgusted and Furious,
LA Repucci
Notes On Liberty 
I like this analysis. One small error of fact, I think: Mr Obama is not a “constitutional scholar.” A scholar is a producer, somebody who does scholarship, not somebody who reads it in front of a captive audience (of students). I am pretty sure he did not publish anything on the constitution. (Not even when he was the editor of a law review that surely would not have rejected his contribution!) If he had, even as a seventh author, we would know it. It would be all out there. Anytime you look at this man, he turns out to be a charlatan. A really important issue is this: How can he fool so many people for so long? His favorability rating still seems to be in the high thirties. I wonder why not in the mid-teens, like the French president. There is a magic there that is related to our collective tolerance of the improbable, the bedrock of fascism everywhere.
As a quill in the coat of the libertarian porcupine, I often marvel at the public acceptance of demagoguery of all stripes. Obama is a mere single actor in an ocean of human history — de rigueur. Excellent point on the definition of scholasticism. I would assume that the reports of fellow alumni to the effect of calling him out as persona non grata on campus and in class, as well as photos of him ‘teaching’ Cloward and Piven point not to a true academic, but to a radical, activist student given a myopic, agendized crash course in political theory by Bill Ayers and SDS in preparation for a singular end as a legislator. Color me a cynic, Jaques. 😉