Entry 45                     Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

According to the Journal Sentinel June 7, 2010
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore quietly has signed on to legislation that would weaken an independent ethics board that she once supported.
The Milwaukee Democrat was one of 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who introduced a resolution late last month that would restrict the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics, created by Democrats after regaining control of Congress. Moore voted to create the office in 2008. The independent panel is composed of former lawmakers and other experts chosen by congressional leaders.
The move follows the ethics office’s investigation of eight black caucus members over a privately funded trip to the Caribbean. Moore was not cited in that investigation.
The resolution would prevent the office from looking into cases except in instances where they receive sworn complaints from a citizen asserting personal knowledge of alleged violations. It would also prevent the ethics committee from issuing public statements in cases where the complaints are dismissed.
————————————————————————————————————

According to the Journal Sentinel on Posted: April 5,
Washington — With health care reform notched on his belt, President Barack Obama faces tough odds when it comes to enacting the rest of his ambitious political agenda.
Democrats are too spent; Republicans are too angry.
“I wouldn’t expect anything major with the exception of the financial regulation reform Obama has been pushing for,” said Michele Swers, a political scientist at Georgetown University. “Something like cap and trade I don’t see happening. Immigration I don’t see happening. Obama has used up the political capital that he has with the Democrats to get them to do tough things before an election.”
……..
Obama and other Democrats are framing the issue as a necessary step to protect average Americans from the Wall Street excesses that contributed to the global economic meltdown. They want to set up a new consumer financial protection agency, begin regulating derivatives and other risky financial instruments and create a new authority that could dismantle financial companies that threaten to bring down the nation’s financial system.
“There is a lot of resistance to it, but we’re going to have to regulate these financial markets,” said Rep. Gwen Moore, a Milwaukee Democrat who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “There has got to be some consumer confidence restored.”
…….
VS

Federal regulation over private business vs. regulation of government.

Founding Document

US Constitution, Tenth Amendment

We the People:

Representative Moore voted to exceed Congressional authority by regulating the healthcare system, and favors overreaching regulation of the private financial markets. And yet she rescinds authority over a government agency. Why would such an official protect the government from the people instead of protecting the people from the government? Power!

Entry 43                       Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

According to the New York Times on June 10, 2010 (full article available on-line)
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases as lawmakers road-tested arguments for a future fight over climate change legislation.
The Senate voted 53-47 to reject an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, to block the E.P.A. from imposing new limits on carbon emissions based on its 2009 finding that such gases from industry, vehicles and other sources represent a threat to human health and the environment.
Ms. Murkowski and others, including six Democrats, contended that the E.P.A. was engaging in a bureaucratic power grab and usurping Congressional authority with regulations that would stifle the economy and kill jobs.
“The sweeping powers being pursued by the E.P.A. are the worst possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ms. Murkowski, who tried to thwart the agency’s action using a rarely employed procedure called a resolution of disapproval.
The resolution of disapproval, created in a 1996 law, is a vehicle to allow Congress to overturn an executive branch action and is not subject to filibuster in the Senate. It is seldom used, however, due to the likelihood of a veto.
Democratic opponents of the Murkowski proposal said its backers were protecting oil companies and other industrial interests at the expense of public welfare and were ignoring science that substantiated the hazards of greenhouse gas emissions. They said Ms. Murkowski and her allies wanted to prevent the E.P.A. from taking action while simultaneously stalling Congressional action, essentially protecting the status quo.
………..
Supporters of the plan to block the E.P.A. said they were trying to stop a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to regulate carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to weigh in. They said the E.P.A. approach would produce little environmental reward while putting the United States at a severe disadvantage to nations that were not imposing such controls on their own industries.

VS.

Abuse of the Clean Air Act vs. the people

Founding Document

The Constitution, Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.”
–Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

We the People:

Only Congress, (not the executive branch) has the authority to define a pollutant through law. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.gov) website, “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants” (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html ), carbon dioxide is not a listed pollutant. So the executive branch, which is responsible for law enforcement, is violating a law. And the peoples’ house, the House of Representatives is silent; as the states’ house, the Senate, blocks this challenge. People, our government is out of our control.

Entry 42              Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

Washington Times September 10, 2009(full article available on-line)

The argument was extraordinary in its timing, length and participants. It took place during the court’s summer break, almost a month before the start of the new term in October; lasted more than 90 minutes instead of the usual hour; and featured the Supreme Court debuts of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the solicitor general, Elena Kagan.

It was, moreover, a rare re-argument. When the case was first heard in March, it centered on whether the restrictions on corporate spending in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law applied to the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” which was produced by a nonprofit advocacy corporation called Citizens United. In the request for re-argument, the court raised the much broader question of whether it should sweep away restrictions on political speech by corporations.
………………
The McCain-Feingold law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The law requires the government, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, to make an array of distinctions — among speakers, what they say and when they say it — that raise serious First Amendment concerns.

The court could rule in favor of Citizens United without making fundamental changes to the political landscape. It could say that the McCain-Feingold law was not meant to address 90-minute documentaries like the one at issue. It could say that the way Citizens United wanted to distribute the documentary, on a cable video-on-demand service, was not covered by the law. Or it could, as Ms. Kagan suggested, carve out some kinds of corporations.
………………..

Ms. Kagan disavowed a statement that a government lawyer made when the case was first argued in March. The lawyer said the government could ban the distribution of books paid for by corporations before elections.

“The government’s answer has changed,” Ms. Kagan said, adding that the Federal Election Commission had never tried to regulate distribution of books.
Chief Justice Roberts bristled at that statement. “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of F.E.C. bureaucrats,” he said.
He then asked about pamphlets. “A pamphlet would be different,” Ms. Kagan said. “A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering.”
………

VS

Elena Kagan vs. The First Amendment

Founding Document

US Constitution, First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We the People:
Chief Justice Roberts’ comment was as insightful as it was brief. Indeed the right of speech is among those provided by our creator. It is not granted by the federal government, so the F.E.C. cannot regulate it. Ms. Kagan was demonstrating her logic against speech in pamphlets, which she could use as a Supreme Court Justice.

Entry 39                                     Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event
From FOXNews.com April 02, 2010
Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn’t care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.
In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this.”
“Jackpot, brother,” Sharp said.
Hare cringed in disgust and said, “Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don’t have health care.”
“You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?” Sharp shouted back.
“I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Hare countered.
When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, “Doesn’t matter to me. Either one.”
When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn’t know.
“But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country,” Hare said.
Sharp said the law won’t do that.
The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the “maldistribution of income in America.”
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” Baucus said after the Senate passed a “fix it” bill to make changes to the health care law.
“Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America,” he said. “This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”
VS

A congressman’s oath of office vs the US Constitution

Founding Document
US Constitution; Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

We must sternly teach any Congressman or Congresswoman who displays such ignorance and disregard for the Constitution.

Entry 38    Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event
According to – FOXNews.com, May 18, 2010
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she’s gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was “bad law enforcement law.”
The admission comes after Attorney General Eric Holder, who earlier warned the law could create a “slippery slope” toward racial profiling, told a House committee last week that he had not read the bill either. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he too had not read the bill, even as he defended diplomatic official Michael Posner for comparing the law to Chinese human rights violations.
…….
The Arizona policy requires local law enforcement to verify the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and empowers them to turn anyone who doesn’t check out over to federal custody.
The law prohibits officers from solely considering race or nationality in implementing the law, though critics say the law will lead to racial profiling.
…….
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
According to ABC News May 26, 2010— (full article available on-line)
A team of Justice Department attorneys has written a recommendation challenging the Arizona immigration law.
The draft recommendation, part of an ongoing Justice Department review, concludes the Arizona legislature exceeded its authority in crafting a law that could impede federal responsibility for enforcing immigration laws.
Some department lawyers are also concerned that the law could lead to abuses based on race.
The review, however, is not yet complete and there are some within the Justice Department who challenge the recommendation’s legal analysis. Sources tell ABC News that the ongoing review may take weeks more and that no formal recommendation has been sent to the White House.
……………
VS

Federal vs. state enforcement of immigration violations

Founding Document
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
US Constitution, Article II Section 3
He(the president) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

What should a state do if the federal government refuses its constitutional responsibilities? It should do everything it legally can do. I see no phrase in the sections above which prohibit this law.

Remember, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school; and apparently his administration is struggling to find legitimate grounds for a challenge. He is gambling on this Justice Department’s threat. In Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”, rule number 9 is “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself”. However if Obama’s bluff is called and he looses a constitutional suit, his credibility will surely suffer.

Entry 37                        Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

Per transcript from This Week ABC, April 18, 2010 (full interview available on-line)

JAKE TAPPER: …………(regarding the Supreme Court nominee)…What advice would you give President Obama? Because Republicans are saying he’s not including them in this.
CLINTON: Well, I think for one thing, I had to do a little more of that because I never had a filibuster-proof Senate. And now there are 41 of them, although I think that a lot of those who come from more progressive states, the two Maine senators, the new senator from Massachusetts, a lot of them may think they already gave it the store on the health care deal or whatever they’re doing on financial reform. I think it will be very difficult to just outright block a Supreme Court nominee that’s otherwise qualified. Especially after the Democrats confirm, allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia and a lot of other people who were — Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts.

My advice to him would be to first of all see what the court is missing. Does it matter if he puts a Catholic or a Jewish person or someone of another faith on a court, there might—there would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Does that matter? Does there need to be another woman on the court? Should there be some other group represented? Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that. We’ve seen the hard way in the Citizens United case and campaign finance and in Bush v. Gore, during the most bizarre rulings in the history of the Supreme Court and I think one of the five worst, what the consequences of that are.
But I would also not — I don’t expect him to intentionally pick a fight with the Senate, but he can’t avoid it. If he finds somebody that he thinks is just the best person, but the most important thing is he needs to be really proud of the people he puts on the court. The two people I put on the court have made me proud. I haven’t agreed with every decision they’ve made. That’s not the important thing. The important thing is that you think they’re smart and they’re competent and they understand the lives of ordinary people. Now one thing I think he should think about is have we gotten — have we gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you’re not qualified if you weren’t a judge.
……..

VS

Supreme Court picks vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

The Federalist Papers, No 78; Quote by Alexander Hamilton on “Judicial Review”:
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

We the People:
President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer. His advice to President Obama was not based using the constitution as a reference to interpreting law, or on avoiding legislating from the bench. And yet we are to believe that his Supreme Court appointees are the guardian for constitutional compliance? Some officials’ appointments and approvals are based on politics instead of the Constitution; consequently the people become the last protector of it by whom they elect.

Entry 35                        Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event
From FOXNews.com March 27, 2010
After the Senate passed a “fix-it” bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an “income shift” to help the poor.
As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul — ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans — one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the “mal-distribution of income in America.”
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit.
But some Republican critics have suggested the overhaul is taking the country down the path to socialism. The nearly $1 trillion legislation pays for itself in large part through new taxes on the wealthy — Americans who make $250,000 and more.
………..
GOP strategist Matt Schlapp, the White House director to former President George. W. Bush, told FoxNews.com that Baucus’ statement reflected the “duality” of a responsible Democrat who understands the ramifications of tax policy on Americans but has a “foot in the camp of the most radical and rabid big government activists that are advocating for some breathtaking policies.”
“It’s interesting,” he said. “He’s not the senator I would use as the poster boy for radical and misunderstanding of market dynamics.”
But Schlapp said he’s not surprised by anything said by a member of a political party that, he said, seeks “to take money away from people who are achieving and give it those who aren’t.”
VS

Sen. Max Baucus and other Democrats vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

The US Constitution: Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

The founders recognized that in a pure democracy, the majority might take so much from the wealthy that they would stop contributing their talents to society. The result is a constitutional republic which protects all minorities. When modern leaders inflame class envy, they are indeed encouraging the suppression a minority group’s rights. Obviously the 10th amendment is violated in the process. Such violations will expand if we tolerate it, and America will cease to be the land of opportunity.

Entry 34                            Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event
According to the Associated Press; January 11, 2010 (full story available on line)
SAN FRANCISCO
The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses.
The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.
Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.
The judge who will render a decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, has asked lawyers arguing for and against the ban to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among the questions Walker plans to entertain are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.
“The case is intriguing, exciting and potentially very significant because it addresses multiple important questions that, surprisingly to many, remain open in federal law,” said Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal. “Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?”
The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to. The attorney general and the governor are defendants in the case because of their positions in state government.
………..
“Our story, I think, is pretty ordinary,” said Perry, 45, the title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. “We fell in love, we want to get married and we can’t. It’s pretty simple.” The women have been together for almost 10 years and since 2004 have been registered domestic partners, a legal relationship that in California carries most of the benefits and obligations of a full-fledged marriage.
Stier, 47, was married to a man for 12 years. She said the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, part of what will be debated during the trial, are profound. She and Perry have to take extra legal precautions when they travel to states that do not recognize gay relationships and continually explain to friends and family what a domestic partnership is, Stier said.
…
VS

State of California and The US Constitution vs. the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal.

Founding Document

The Constitution, 10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

As Seinfeld would say; “I’m not gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that”.

Judge Walker should comment on whether the federal government has jurisdiction, not on the arguments of same-sex marriage. It is the prerogative of each state to determine the criterion for marriage per the tenth amendment.

Entry 33                                     Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

From: FoxNews , January 28, 2010 (full article available on-line)
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring “individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings.”
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the “darker side” of Mother Teresa.
…………………….
“Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years,” the Postal Service said in a press release. “Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations.”
But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did,” Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
“In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith,” Betts told FoxNews.com.
Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.
………………….
Betts said that despite the Foundation’s accusations and letter-writing campaign, “The response to Mother Teresa has been overwhelmingly in favor of this stamp.”
VS

An atheists’ group from Wisconsin vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

The US Constitution: First Amendment

Thomas Jefferson’s reference to the phrase “separation of church and state”:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson’s full letter is in the following link: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

We the People:

Honoring a Mother Theresa who happened to be religious does nothing toward establishing a national religion. Thomas Jefferson was once again speaking to limit the national legislature from making such laws. And yet the introductory paragraph from the “Freedom From Religion” website is as follows:

“The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

Paradoxically, FFRF works “to promote the constitutional principle” which is not in the constitution; and their effort “to education of the public” separates Jefferson’s quote from its context.

Entry 32                                  Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

From the American Thinker on-line; March 24, 2010

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House of Representatives for being the longest serving member of the body (he was first elected in 1955, succeeding his father, Rep. John Dingell, Sr.), made an amazing admission during a live telephone interview with Detroit WJR News/Talk 760 radio talk show host Paul W. Smith on Smith’s show Monday morning, March 22, 2010. The night before, Dingell had been a featured speaker at the Democrat Congressional leadership victory press conference after Obamacare passed the House.

In response to a question posed by Smith, Dingell said:

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

VS

The Congress vs. The People

Founding Document

The US Constitution, The ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The US Constitution; tenth amendment

We the People:

This legislation was touted as health care reform. Its practical implementation becomes more apparent by such slips of the tongue by Mr. Dingell.