Libertarian Think Tank Spokesperson Claims Obama Might Push Country Toward Armed Revolt

michael-cannonI swear, conservatives and libertarians seem obsessed with violently overthrowing our government.  After all, isn’t that why many of them are obsessed with our Second Amendment?  It isn’t about self defense or hunting, it’s about them arming themselves for a “potential” violent revolt against the government.

Yeah, good luck with that.

The latest insanity from the world of, “This could lead to the violent overthrowing of the government” is President Obama unilaterally using his powers to fix small parts of the Affordable Care Act.  His most recent one is a delay for small businesses as some of the kinks get worked out.

To sane people, that’s an intelligent move.  Why “stay the course” when the course obviously has flaws that need to be fixed?

But according to Michael Cannon, the Director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank), Obama’s action could lead to an armed revolt against our government.

He said:

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government.  Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.  That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate.  If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.  That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

First, let’s just state the obvious: If the legislature didn’t have the one primary goal of doing everything they possibly can to sabotage and obstruct President Obama, he wouldn’t have to use other means to actually accomplish something.

That’s the root to all of this.  President Obama has probably faced the most obstructive Congress in presidential history.  Since day one, Republicans have made it clear that they have absolutely no intention of working with the president on anything.  Even simple procedural votes to raise our debt ceiling, as they did 7 times in Bush’s 8 years without any argument, were turned into a national crisis.

Even when their goals weren’t obtainable — a fact many congressional Republicans admitted to — they still shut down our government for the first time in nearly two decades.

Issues such as universal background checks on gun purchases, and immigration reform — two things overwhelmingly supported by most Americans — Republicans have blocked in Congress.

But Mr. Cannon’s assertion that President Obama trying to fix issues as they arise with the Affordable Care Act might lead to a second American revolution is absolutely ridiculous.

This is the problem with people on the far right: “compromise” or admitting something is wrong is now seen as a full-on failure.  Heck, to this day, George W. Bush still won’t admit the Iraq War was a mistake.  Conservatives have lost all ability to simply act rationally.

It’s just absurd to think that an effort to give every American access to health care, which is really the primary goal of the Affordable Care Act, is actually a bad thing.  And that’s what this really breaks down to.  The primary goal when this whole thing started was an effort to ensure every American could have access to health care.  Then after seemingly endless compromises with Republicans, the current form of the Affordable Care Act was created.

Now many of these conservatives are claiming this might be the catalyst for an armed revolt?

So let me get this straight: Over four thousand dead Americans in Iraq, sent off to war based on a lie, isn’t worthy of an armed revolt — but trying to give every American access to health care is.  Got it.

When you think about it, isn’t that notion by itself a pretty good summary of just how ridiculous conservatives have become?

Screen grab image via Fox News

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim

    Please come to my front door, all of you “libertarians” and “conservatives”. You really are the paid fools and tools of the overlords of Wall Street and you will not like the welcome you get.

    • UselessCongress

      Very productive indeed…

      • Jim

        Notice I wasn’t threatening to go looking for them.

  • Finnsmom1

    I suppose this Knucklehead also believes that scantily clad women will drive men to rape. If there’s an armed revolution it’s on the participants, the NRA and the Right Wing Media.

  • PRIME79

    He’s right because Waco and Ruby Ridge worked out very well for these types.
    /s

    • gaige

      Waco and Ruby Ridge produced Oklahoma City as a reaction towards perceived abuses of Federal power. And McVeigh was something of an antisocial amateur, given to conspiracy theories and racism, who had little in the way of support and assistance. Imagine what a motivated, reasonable, cohesive cell of like-minded individuals could accomplish, if they were so inclined.

      Just sayin’.

      • Kieth Brackett

        It’s sad that so many people don’t have the foresight that you do to recognize that the groups we have today are much more organized and prepared than they were back then. While most militias today are organized most of them won’t try to overthrow the government, but the fringe persons/groups that leave these regular militias are a major concern. If they ever do cut loose then the loss of innocent life could make the deaths on 9/11 look like a small town newspaper’s local traffic report.

      • PRIME79

        Any group of people with weapons can make life hell for regular citizens at anytime and any place. But when it comes to an actual war, the USS Ronald Reagan and all that comes with it doesn’t give a rats ass how many guys with guns they have. Its flat out lunacy to think that a few armed civilians could honestly take on the United States Armed Forces and have even the slightest amount of success. The military has tactical nukes, game over.

      • gaige

        You don’t fucking understand: HALF THE SAILORS AND AVIATORS WILL BE ON OUR SIDE! I know, because I actually talk to them. And it’s not going to be “a few guys with guns.” It’s going to be at least ten percent of the gun owning population, which is about 9 million Americans. With a big hunk of the combat arms units from the Army and Marines helping them.

        The Reagan isn’t doing anything if their cats are wrecked by sympathetic technicians, and some ordnance-handler cooks off a 500 pounder in the guts of the ship.

        There will be NO secure rear area. Traitorous officers will be killed by their senior NCO’s, critical installations will be sabotaged by the troops guarding them, there will be defections and desertions in the thousands if not tens of thousands.

        How is the military going to use tactical nukes when we’re in the cities that are the progressive centers of power? Are you willing to nuke Chicago to kill the handful of Patriot cells operating there?

      • gaige

        I bring up the issue because I’m a member of the militia movement. There has been a mild revival of the neo-Nazi types since 2008, but not much. They seem to have genuinely died out to a large degree.

        Now, the constitutionally minded patriots who are organizing themselves for the defense of the Republic against domestic enemies? Growing like fuckin’ weeds.

      • PoppaDavid

        Defense of the “Republic” or of our Constitution? The Constitution allows both Congress and state conventions to provide for peaceful change to our government through amending our Constitution. Our Constitution gives a name to those who would make war against the United States, “treason”. Constitutionally minded patriots don’t commit treason. They would support the Constitution against those who would make war against our legal government.

      • gaige

        They’re one in the same. Or rather, I’d say the idea and ideals of the Republic supersede the actual legal framework and political system set out by the document called the Constitution. The latter is the mechanism that defends the former.

        That’s how it was prior to our War for Independence. There was an English constitution, though unwritten, that served to defend the divinely-granted rights of natural-born Englishmen. But by 1775, it had repeatedly failed to do so in the American Colonies, and their war against the legally-constituted government set over them by the English constitution was indeed treasonous. Except that they won, and who has authority to try and hang the victors? Not a soul on Earth.

        So it will be again, if and when the Patriots have to rebel. We’ll be “traitors,” of course, as the Federal government and those that slop at their trough will label us. And they may be right. But I don’t think so, and I’m willing to stake my life on it.

        And when we win, who will have the authority to call us traitors then? No one.

      • PoppaDavid

        So who gets to decide what qualifies as the “idea and ideal of the Republic”? I’m guessing “you”.

        Especially the bit about “natural-born Englishmen”, I read that to be some verbal code that excludes everyone else from inclusion in the Republic. How close am I?

        So far, it looks like you support the right of arms to determine the rights of everyone else. Do you support slavery as well?

      • gaige

        Go fuck yourself, you race-baiting cunt, I’m not going to dignify your fucking ad hominems with an actual response.

        Your race-card is played out, though. No one buys it anymore. You have to make actual arguments now. Poor you.

      • PoppaDavid

        You said you wanted to return to the ideals of the Constitution. The original document allowed slavery. Do you support that part of the original Constitution?

        Which is it? Was the original Constitution perfect and without error, or was it a document that needed to change over time?

        You spoke about “the divinely-granted rights of natural-born Englishmen.” The Celts were not English, and didn’t get the same level of rights from English law. Neither did people from the Continent. Are you suggesting that the American system should be limited to only the English? Or do you allow for the extension of rights to all our legal residents?

        Since you seem prepared to wage war on the rest of us, it is useful to learn what your new society would be like.

      • PoppaDavid

        You mistake a response with an ad hominem attack.

        I could do that, but why bother?

  • Gary Menten

    And most sane people think these so-called libertarians are just nucking futz.

    Americans in any case, have gotten too fat and lazy to take up armed revolt on anything like a scale needed to succeed. They’d much rather sit behind their computers and post absurd right-wing baloney on the internet, or listen to absurd right-wing baloney from Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck while sitting in their armchairs or swigging from their six packs. While some may style themselves as militias and go running around in the woods with a rifle and a camouflage uniform every other weekend, the fact is these chickenhawks, nitwits and Che Guevara wannabe’s wouldn’t stand a chance against the local National Guard, much less the full weight of the US military and Federal Law enforcement agencies.

    Don’t get me wrong; some of these kooks are plenty dangerous. Remember Tim McVeigh? But none of these race-baiting wingnuts stands a chance of provoking a general uprising, much less winning a war against the US government.

  • BlueAlliance

    Don’t underestimate how ruthless the right wing is…..look what they did to Kennedy! They are still covering that up. They are dangerous, desperate people and are capable of ANYTHING! Hatred is driving them so I say. be ready America….. their big money backers will protect them no matter what they do. Look at the ACA sabotage….they are diabolical.

    • Gary Menten

      Sorry dude. There are many things I like to blame on RWNJ’s but the Kennedy assassination ain’t one of them. Kennedy was killed by one idiot with a rifle. No massive right-wing conspiracy, just sloppy security and an idiot with a gun. And Lee Oswald was a pretty left-wing idiot to boot.

      A lot of people have trouble coming to terms that just one idiot with a gun could do so much damage, but it shouldn’t be. If anything, recent history should demonstrate quite clearly how much damage can be done by just one idiot with a gun.

      • BlueAlliance

        You have been duped…..that’s exactly what they want you to believe!! There is evidence out there – you should read up on it!

      • BR

        Agree. The Kennedy assassination was a one-man job. No use to try and glamorize RW’ers as having that much chutzpah.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Nice, call a Reich-wing extremist a left-wing, funny idiotic spin, next thing you be calling the corporatist fascist seditious Koch Brothers libertarians.

  • Daniel Leyva

    Please stop calling these Neo-cons “libertarians” because they are not libertarians.

    • Victor Lynn Avera

      They are Corporatist Fascists.

  • Audeamus

    Armed revolt. Rrrright. Imagine not being able to get gas for your car, or cash, or food to feed your family because some overfed, overarmed, white rednecks have taken over, what? A TV station? A Wal-Mart? A county courthouse in a small town?

    We spend close to a trillion dollars a year on defense, intelligence black budgets, National Guard, etc. Does anyone really think that the taxpayers are going to put up with “armed revolt” for a NY minute? Frankly, if I can’t get paid, gas my car, and feed my child, the first person I’m going after is Michael Cannon.

    • gaige

      You’re assuming that the National Guard and US Armed Forces would fight against us…

      If mainstream conservatives are pushed to the point that they think revolt is their last viable option, then the combat arms units of the Marines and Army are going to be facing mass desertions, if not outright mutiny.

      I can virtually guarantee victory, though a costly one, at that point.

      • Wait a minute. You actually believe that the U.S. armed forces would join up with these nuts?

      • gaige

        In circumstances that drove mainstream conservatives to armed rebellion? Yes. The US Armed Forces are overwhelmingly conservative/libertarian/right wing, politically speaking. This is especially true of combat arms, less true of support and service support formations.

        I am saying that based off a large amount of both formal and informal polling of combat arms troops in both the Army and the Marines.

        Let me put it this way: informally speaking, all my friends and acquaintances who are veterans or currently serving, a list totalling about 100 men and a half dozen women, have gone from “annoyed with politics as usual” to “realizing their C-in-C is a traitor” to “prepared for mutiny and a march on DC” in the space of the last 5 years.

        If things get much worse economically, or President Ogabe does something profoundly stupid during a legitimate crisis, then it is very easy to see some form of armed insurrection taking place in America today, drawing personnel from entirely mainstream sources on the right.

        You progressives have really done a bang up job digging your own graves.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Fascists call themselves Libertarians and tries to make the people revolt, the seditious bullshit propagandas of deceptions. Even the fascist Koch Brothers turn against the Tea Partying idiots for trying to shut down the government, if there is a revolt, it will be these fools getting rounded up and place on trial for everyone to know about their sedition in the open reality and not hiding behind propagandas stupide idiotic.

      • gaige

        Who is going to round us up? I ask because I know all the guys who would be sent to do so, and they like me better than you.

      • PoppaDavid

        What part of the Constitution describes the economic system of this country? I don’t recall any part of it that requires us to have a class of royal families who own three-quarters of our nation’s wealth. I don’t recall any part of it that requires 90% of the population to be serfs working for their royal overlords. Sorry, I don’t buy that the American military is fighting the 90% for the sake of the 1%.

        BTW, there is still a middle class, it is just getting smaller. That isn’t due to government growth either, the number of federal employees per capita (6.9%) is the lowest it has been since Reagan ended his first term.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        The funny thing is, it’ll be the last ones you will think that will, the very ones feeding the KOCHsuckering disinformation you spew, makes you so easily identifiable.
        As long as you do the Goose-step twist, they’ll leave you along, but step out of line…..Don’t worry, those so called enemy your KOCHsuckering masters that has been feeding disinformation you on, will keep the real enemy at bay, my father fought a war against such said types.
        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=NAZI+KOCH+ALEC+bribery

      • gaige

        Oh, so your daddy was a Red Army soldier who massacred men at Katyn Forest? Not surprising.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Sorry about your perverted KOCHsuckering for corporatist fascists, but no, my father had to kill Nazi and you are truly a idiot for sure littler boy.

      • Audeamus

        As a taxpayer, voter, and member of a family who has providing soldiers for at least four generations, I am appalled you would state something like this on a public board. As a serving member of the U.S. military, you and your fellow soldiers took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. That doesn’t mean indulging in seditious fantasies when you don’t care for your Commander in Chief or his policies. What it means is that you obey your CIC whether you like it or not. Work within the system to change the politicians you don’t like, but don’t you dare suggest armed revolt. That is not only cowardly, but treasonous and unworthy of calling yourself an American.

      • gaige

        I took an oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I’m looking around and I’m seeing many, many domestic enemies. Most call themselves Democrats, a handful call themselves Republicans, and pretty much all of them call themselves progressives these days. A few still cling to the older, more honest labels of “Marxist” or “socialist.” Their weapons are things like political correctness, “hate speech,” lawfare, a grotesquely servile news media, and buying the votes of the people with other people’s money.

        My oath is to my country, her founding principles, and the Document that enshrines them. My loyalty to the President (or any other elected or appointed politician) is secondary and incidental to my oath to the Constitution. I follow his or her orders as long as they serve the first part of the oath, and not one moment beyond that. After that, mutiny becomes a duty.

        The Republic will be defended at all costs, as long as I, and the millions who think as I do, are still breathing. And many of us are wearing the uniform this very second. We are everywhere, but as I said, mostly concentrated in the combat arms formations. And the further you get towards the tip of the spear, the more Patriot-dense it gets. Expect the Tier One units to more or less evaporate and turn insurgent when the time comes. After the pointless losses sustained in places like Libya and Afghanistan, they hate you progs more than the rank and file grunts do. You’ve made it personal for them.

        This country was born in an act of “treason” and armed revolt, because the means of reform via politics and petition had become corrupted. Parliament nor the King had any interest in seeing American’s natural rights restored. Today’s Congress is entrenched, and a Federal bureaucracy wielding immense power has taken the place of corrupt and venal colonial officials. It would be fitting to see the Republic restored by the same forceful means that birthed it.

        Sic Semper Tyrannis

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        All I see is your KOCHsuckering corporatist fascist master’s voice coming out of you, you are too far into KOCHsuckering corporatist fascism to be reason with and thus doomed to be nothing more then a idiotic imbecile spewing disinformation fascist propagandas idiocies, toy been KOCHsuckering too long and hard on your knees for your master’s spew, you are trying way too hard to spit upon everyone. it is time for you to stop being so perverted and start thinking for yourself….unless of course, you approve of KOCHsuckering, then you are where you want to be, one of the KOCHsuckered imbecilic fools.

      • gaige

        I’m sorry, faggot leftist nonsensically babbles what?

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        You do real good KOCHsuckering for idiots there little boy, how long on your knees KOCHsuckering that corporatist fascist disinformation propagandas spew you are trying to spit at everyone? It is purely perverted shit for perverts too lazy to think for themselves, too easily to be mislead into stupide ways of the moronic idiot. Keep on KOCHsuckering there, your masters likened idiots like you dumbed-down just stupide.

  • Dorothy Dill

    I am so very sick of the Republicans making claims of what they think may happen or could happen. They have just found another way to use the term “slippery slope”. However, now they make news by making bold claims of what could happen in future, and in the process they get simple minded people in an uproar. When did news become about what could be. Someone needs to start calling them out on this and tell them to stick to the facts. After all, Obama still has not come for anyone’s guns, nor have I seen the first death panel from Obamacare. Every time these people or Fox news talks, it is always about what might happen or what could happen, and frankly, I am sick and tired of their false predictions for our future.

    • strayaway

      How about a progressive then? Professor Jonathan Turley is, according toe Wikipedia, a progressive professor who specializes in the rule of law. Turley does not even suggest revolution just the danger of our present course.

      “JONATHAN TURLEY: The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.
      This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013)”-as reported in RealClearPoliticsDOTcom

  • Ted_Levy

    You people really need to get a clue:
    1. As anyone who has published essays and op-eds knows, the writer is not responsible for the headline. Cannon has already said online he was not happy with Mediate’s headline.
    2. Cannon, and Cato, the think-tank he works for, has long opposed the Iraq war (both Bush I’s and Bush II’s), so the penultimate paragraph here is farcical.
    3. This idea that the President is allowed to violate the law because…well, gee, the other guys weren’t cooperating is grossly fascistic. Because the Republicans refused to play ball, would Obama have been justified in arresting them en masse, as Lincoln once did with some of his opponents, claiming emergency powers to enact Obamacare? Feel free to love the law that is helping so many Americans to lose their health insurance if you wish, but if you want to justify illegal actions by the President because otherwise he couldn’t get done what he wants to get done at least have the good graces to wear brown shirts.

    • How many people do you specifically know who have “lost their health insurance” and cannot get better and cheaper insurance on the exchanges? And how many people do you know who have gone without health insurance for years.. but will now be covered?

      • Ted Levy

        And how many people do I know that can’t follow a simple argument? At least one, apparently.

        As a physician, I actually know many patients who have lost the health insurance that they enjoyed for years and have to pay much more for new insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that really isn’t the point here. The point here isn’t about costs and benefits. The point here is whether in order to accomplish something that the President thinks is worthwhile, his violating the Constitution is justified. It is a question about means, not a question about ends.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Fascist propaganda is all about “KOCHsuckering on your knees” idiots like you for spewing them.
        Fascism is a very unhealthy states to be in.

  • James Schroder

    Not all democrats and liberals are pacifists. In fact, far from it. The day the right starts their “revolution” will find me locked and loaded, with a neo-con in my cross hairs.

    • gaige

      And that neo-con will have the other 9 or 10 members of his squad tearing your position apart with small arms fire.

      You can’t win, fat ass, so don’t try. We own the food and fuel producing-areas, the combat arms units of the Armed Forces and National Guard are overwhelming staffed with anti-fascist patriots, not to mention most armed members of law-enforcement agencies.

      You will be very, very fucking alone, considering most of you progressive fascists are conveniently bottled up in the major cities…

      • Don’t put your money on that.

      • gaige

        What makes you so confident that the progressives would win any domestic conflict, Molly?

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        You are a idiot.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Nice fascist idiotic propaganda for the stupide “KOCHsuckering on their knees for fascism” idiots.

      • gaige

        Do you have anything beyond ad hominems? Or do you just plan on sitting there, impotently banging your sippy cup right up to the moment the shooting starts?

      • James Schroder

        You know, I really don’t give a shit whether I live or die….so long as I get you first. Come and get me, motherfucker.

      • gaige

        You’ll never see or hear me coming. Especially if there is little to no wind, and I have the APDS and optics I’m planning on having.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Funny, a idiot brainwashed by corporatist fascists to turn against the citizens of the USA, how perverted KOCHsuckering this idiot came to be.

  • jmark80

    Is this supposed to be legitimate journalism, or merely opinion? If it is the latter, so be it, but shame on you if this yellow trash is supposed to represent the truth. You are being very selective in what you are choosing to write here. Did you miss his quote:

    “I am acutely aware of the last Republican president’s failures to execute the laws faithfully,” he added. “In 2008, though I did not support him, I preferred the Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican candidate in part because he promised to curb such abuses by the executive.”

    After the abuses of power by GWB, many saw this man as a solid hope for transparency, and end to the unconscionable wars, and a reduction of government overreach.

    We have received none of those.

    This is nothing more than picking up pom-poms and cheering for your party and leader, despite his blatant abuses of authority. How can you claim to be “liberal” and still support a president who authorizes drone strikes on children, who openly signed and supports the indefinite detention and even execution of US citizens without trial, expanded the Patriot Act, and is openly supportive of spying on US citizens?

    You are NOT a liberal. You are an Orwellian sheep bleating about how bad 2 legs are. You are a cheerleader. A party stooge. And it is disgusting.

    You and your mirror images on the right can keep it. Those of us who care about humanitarian issues, about personal liberty and about ending pointless wars will continue to push for solutions outside of your broken 2 party system.

    Everyone is trying to avoid conflict, and yet it just keeps being pressed down our throats with more and more blatant assaults on us. You literally have a man who is an expert in Constitutional legality warning congress that people are getting more and more angry, and that by ignoring laws, he is endangering our entire system of government, and instead of taking those warnings to heart, or listening to what he is saying, you choose to make it yet more of a hyper-partisan attack on him.

  • Mr Smith

    I think the 2nd amendment radical constitution thumpers forgot to read article 3 of the constitution of the United States, much like they do with the Bible. Its an interesting read they should consider giving it a look see.

    • Victor Lynn Avera

      and they do not seem to understand what the words “Well Regulated” to mean.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well regulated refers to training and organization Vic. This is clear in several historical documents from the federalist papers written by Hamilton to the constitution itself;

        “Well Regulated

        The Random House College
        Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions
        for the word “regulate,” which were all in
        use during the Colonial period and one more definition
        dating from 1690 (Oxford English
        Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
        1) To control or direct by a rule,
        principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for
        amount, degree, etc.
        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
        4) To put in good order.
        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise
        that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse,
        not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that
        side.
        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from
        Alexander Hamilton’s words
        in Federalist Paper No. 29:
        The project of disciplining all the militia of the
        United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it
        were capable of being carried into execution. A
        tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
        requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor
        even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of
        it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other
        classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of
        going through military exercises and evolutions, as
        often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well
        regulated militia,would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.


        The
        Federalist Papers, No. 29.”

        And;
        “In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
        and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[98]”

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Therefore you have the well regulated National Guard.

      • Charles Vincent

        The national guard didn’t exist before 1902 Vic. And under current us code the militia still exists.

      • Victor Lynn Avera

        Yes and we still have to take months to cross the USA.

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        Source:

        (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7),Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a),Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

        Historical and Revision Notes 1956 Act Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)311(a)311(b) 32:1 (less last 19 words).32:1 (last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162, § 7 (as applicable to § 57 of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 61 Stat. 192.

        In subsection (a), the words “who have made a declaration of intention” are substituted for the words “who have or shall have declared their intention”. The words “at least 17 years of age and * * * under 45 years of age” are substituted for the words “who shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five years of age”. The words “except as provided in section 313 of title 32” are substituted for the words “except as hereinafter provided”, to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.

        In subsection (b), the words “The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia” are substituted for the words “the National Guard, the Naval Militia”, since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.

        1958 Act Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, § 1, 70 Stat. 729.

        The words “appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title” are omitted as surplusage.

        Amendments

        1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–160substituted “members” for “commissioned officers”.

        1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–861included female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

  • Victor Lynn Avera

    I love it when fascists tries to call themselves Libertarians, the KOCHsucker ALEC corporatist fascists thinks they have pulled a fast ones on their few fanatical “KOCHsuckering on their knees” idiot followers, but the rest of us knows all about their seditious bullshit propagandas of deceptions.

  • Charles Vincent

    Well Well Well Mr. Clifton puts his feet in his mouth yet again…

    “I swear, conservatives and libertarians seem obsessed with violently
    overthrowing our government. After all, isn’t that why many of them are
    obsessed with our Second Amendment? It isn’t about self defense or
    hunting, it’s about them arming themselves for a “potential” violent
    revolt against the government.” to quote Mr. Clifton…

    What Mr. Cannon said “That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

    Perhaps the author missed this part of the comment he made on C-span. Oh wait no he didn’t he just wants to conveniently ignore it considering he posted it in the excerpt. And here is an expanded clip with people on the left that support Obama voicing the same concern but the Author wants to bury that because he knows it doesn’t fit his narrative;

    http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=a63LKnpHzyQ

    • strayaway

      Also, the author wrote,

      “First, let’s just state the obvious: If the legislature didn’t have the one primary goal of doing everything they possibly can to sabotage and obstruct President Obama, he wouldn’t HAVE TO use other means to actually accomplish something”

      As I understand this passage, its author is condoning this President or any president who decides to override the will of the people’s elected representatives. That’s the sort of thing King George used to do. It is amazing so many who have posted on this thread are so sanguine about such a statement advocating that presidents act as dictators whenever they see fit and in contradiction to promises made in their oath of office.

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      I think that the solution is for Congress to reprimand the President and give him a warning. If he continues to usurp Congressional powers, he should be impeached. I doubt this will happen so the best we can hope for is the 2016 choice of a candidate unlike Bush and Obama.

      • PoppaDavid

        I will believe that our President overrode the will of the People when I see the House vote actually vote on bills rather than having the Speaker prevent the vote. I will believe that our President overrode the will of the People when I see the Senate actually vote on bills rather than suffer filibusters that prevent the vote.

        Get real. When the majority of the House and Senate doesn’t get to vote because a minority of the House and Senate prevent the vote, that is not “the will of the people”.

        Is our President authorized by the Constitution to execute the laws of the United States? Absolutely. Does that allow him to exercise Executive Authority and issue Executive Orders? The last forty-three Presidents did.

        The Constitution does talk about civilians taking arms against an unpopular government. It labels it “treason”.

      • strayaway

        As you are almost certainly aware, Sen. Reid holds up bills too. It may be frustrating to you or me when Boehner or Reid holds up something but those are our elected representatives. If you or i don’t like it, we have to do a better job of getting the right people elected. I am one who wants the federal government cut by about a third and the federal debt paid. I try to elect candidates who will do that. I really do hope they will obstruct the likes of Bush and Obama from bankrupting this Country with wars and by favoring the 1%.

        Yes, the President is supposed to execute the laws of Congress in their entirely. No, he does not have dictatorial powers to write laws, change laws, or selectively enforce parts of laws. I can’t find the term executive order in the Constitution although a president is the Commander of Chief and has a staff answerable to him with respect to carrying out the laws of Congress. Every President lately has signed more executive orders than the last. How will you like it when the next Republican president uses an executive order to reverse every one of Obama’s executive orders? Is that the sort of government you want?

        I sure don’t want revolutions. There is too much suffering involved. That’s why I suggested Congress reprimand this President for violating his oath of office and if necessary, impeach him. That won’t happen because most members of both parties answer to the same corporate puppet masters as Obama and Bush, so I will just have to wait 2016 and hope for 2016 to elect a President true to his oath.

      • PoppaDavid

        The current President has signed fewer Executive Orders than his predecessor in similar lengths of time. And I had never heard of a signing order until his predecessor starting using that practice.

        As to oath of Office, you are welcome to show me where he has been violating the Constitution, please provide something more than a list doing stuff you don’t like. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act and it is law. Obama is working to execute the law by addressing those shortcomings that have presented themselves.

        One part of the Constitution that gets no attention is the intent that our government would “promote the general welfare”. That is an action verb. Health, environment, and social welfare are “general” and they are within the duties of our government.

      • strayaway

        I already listed some things but I will review a couple of them. After five million Americans lost their health insurance coverage as a result of the (un)ACA, President Obama announced that he would now allow insurance companies to continue selling policies that do not meet new requirements. There was, as far as I know, nothing in the (un)ACA allowing a president to postpone deadlines. If there was, then the next republican President could just delay the entire implementation of the (un)ACA indefinitely. It isn’t logical that democrats would have left such a poison pill in that bill. The President went on to delay upcoming small business mandate deadlines for a year too. This is picking an choosing parts of the bill to ignore and change. ALL legislative powers are vested in Congress. that does not mean that presidents can legislate like banana republic dictators.

      • PoppaDavid

        Yes, you don’t like that. What part of the Constitution prohibits it?

        The law is provided by Congress and it provides that the implementation is done with regulations. The Executive Department does the regulations.

        They are scattered through the final CFR documents. For example: 1104 (g)(4)(B)(iii)
        “The set of operating rules for health claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorization transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2014, in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective not later than January 1, 2016.”

      • strayaway

        Aren’t ‘claims’ what a patient incurs? What have claims got to do with deadlines for having to enroll?

        President Obama pushed back the enrollment deadline for individuals to December 23 and gave businesses with more than 50 workers until 2015 to provide required health insurance without paying a penalty.

        This has nothing to do with claims. Where in the law does it authorize the President to make those changes? We aren’t talking about the President deciding what pictures to put on his website. We are talking about major changes in a law affecting the uninsured and moving them back until after the 2014 election.

        Why are you even sticking up for fiat executive rule when Mary Landrieu already had a bill to address these things by Congress so it could have been done constitutionally? What part of the Constitution you asked? The part I already mentioned that “ALL legislative powers are vested in Congress.” Or I could get into the l0th. Amendment which was ignores by the Supreme Court as it usually is. A weak case could be made that the power of taxation could justify most anything in which case the Supreme Court gave license to kleptocracy.

        But I keep going back to why anyone would want expanding executive powers when congressional fixes are available. The German people looked the other way when Hitler asked for and was granted an enabling act “for the duration of the emergency” to do the same. I question why any Americans would go down that path.

      • PoppaDavid

        The legislative powers of Congress means they create laws. This law (like many) authorizes the Executive branch to issue Regulations to provide for the implementation of that law. Which means those regulations that are aligned with the law are Constitutional.

        I provided one example that specifically allowed rule making up through 2016, which is after the 2014 election. Unless you can provide some examples of regulations that violate the law as written, you objection is not important. Please use actual text not your personal feeling about the meaning of the law.

      • strayaway

        The rule you mentioned had nothing to do with postponing major (un)ACA deadlines a year until after the election or reversing mandates found in the plan. You still haven’t come to grips with the possibility of President Cruz using the same imaginary powers to indefinitely postpone the entire (un)ACA or end it if such a loophole exists in the law.

        Nor do you address why President Obama opposed (D) Sen. Mary Landrieu’s legislative bill to accomplish the same goal. Four posts ago, you were making noises about what this this President has to do because of an obstructionist Congress and justifying this President dictating executive orders because other presidents have. Then you misinterpreted the ‘general welfare’ to mean modern welfare programs instead of being the opposite of ‘parochial interests’. Then you cited a paragraph about “claims” having nothing to do with this President making large fiat changes to the law. Now you want me to find wording in the (un)ACA that overrides Article 1, Section 1 and the word ‘all’.

        This morning I read that Rep. Ellison (D-MN) told a crowd that they should join him in demanding that Pres. Obama skip seeking Congressional approval and raise the minimum wage on his own. At the end of his speech, the crowd chanted “Sign the executive order!”. Back to this thread a bit, some have commented that libertarians tend to vote Republican. This is why, when people like you and Rep. Ellison rationalize and demand more executive power even when legislative prescriptions are at hand, libertarians will avoid you like the plague. Republicans aren’t much better but at least offer some wiggle room for those who oppose authoritarian rule. You might as well be supporting a de facto presidential enabling act for the duration of your perpetual self-created emergency.

      • PoppaDavid

        When the Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” that means they may write the Affordable Care Act, and when it is signed by our President it becomes law.

        When Congress wrote Section 1311, they required the Executive Branch to provide assistance to establish “American Health Benefit Exchanges”.

        In (b) Congress required that “Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘‘Exchange’’) for the State”

        In (c)(1) Congress required the Secretary to establish criteria for the certification of health plans “by regulation”.

        In (d)(4)(H)(i) Congress required the Secretary to grant a certification that individuals are exempt from penalty if “there is no affordable qualified health plan available through the Exchange”.

        So, what part of Article 1 Section 1, fails to give Congress the authority to have the Secretary grant exemptions if the Exchange isn’t making health plans available?

        The law doesn’t require an Executive Order, only a certification from the Secretary.

        If you have a problem with the Executive Branch following the text of the law written by Congress, you have a problem with the Constitution.

        “President Cruz”? I though there was a strong prejudice against electing to the Presidency people with foreign citizenship, who were born in foreign countries, to a father who was the citizen of a foreign nation? Something about a Constitutional requirement for “a natural born citizen”.

      • strayaway

        “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

        Notice the word “Powers” which is also mentioned in the 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.”

        I can’t find the power to force people to buy corporate products or the power to regulate national medical care anywhere in the Constitution. Those powers are not delegated to the federal government. States can have there own health care plans though as Vermont attempted and Massachusetts has. The Constitution can also be amended as it was for the income tax, prohibition, and repealing prohibition to have a national health care plan. It was under Roosevelt’s court that the 10th Amendment began being ignored.

        I have mentioned that perhaps the delegated power to tax could be considered as a way around the Tenth Amendment although the ramifications of a kleptocracy could be disastrous for Main Street Americans. The Supreme Court did rule that the (un)ACA was constitutional because it was a tax and the federal government has the right to tax. The Court, however, did not address why the 17th Amendment had to be passed to allow the income tax but no amendment was needed for this new sort of tax.

        So the (un)ACA has been ruled constitutional for a curious reason but the quotes you cite are specific to a part of the (un)ACA specific to States choosing to have their own exchanges, what has to be in those exchange plans, etc.. I believe that elsewhere, provisions are made within this law for the federal government to establish its own exchanges in states that have not done so. Those states are not covered by 1311.

        You have a good point about the Constitutional requirement of natural birth and President Cruz. Its amazing how even liberals have embraced that part of the Constitution since they weren’t too interested in it when birthers were claiming Obama was foreign born. You evaded my question though. Let’s try again with President Paul. “You still haven’t come to grips with the possibility of President PAUL using the same imaginary powers to indefinitely postpone the entire (un)ACA or end it if such a loophole exists in the law. If a future president or Secretary actually could make substantial changes to deadlines and requirements of the bill, they could can the whole mess. So, in a way, I hope you are right.

      • PoppaDavid

        If you have read Article III, Section 1, then you know, “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, …”

        After the XVI Amendment the Court heard and adjudicated questions regarding direct federal taxes on personal income.

        After the adoption of Social Security the Court heard and adjudicated question regarding the federal authority to create welfare programs.

        After the adoption of Medicare the Court heard and adjudicated questions regarding the federal authority to create medical programs.

        When the Court heard the challenge of ACA they heard the arguments you raise, reviewed prior decisions and adjudicated their decision. Until and unless Congress changes something or the Court reverses the decision, ACA stands.

        That means, when the Supreme Court has delivered a decision on this issue, your opinion (no matter how sincere) is personal commentary with no legal weight.

        1311 covers Exchanges created by state legislatures.
        1321 covers Exchanges created by the Secretary in states where the legislature did not create an exchange.

        1311 authorizes the exemption when there is no coverage through an Exchange. The text of 1311 does not distinguish between the methods of formation for the state’s Exchange, so it applies equally to both.

        The material I quoted only covers an exemption from penalty, it only applies when there is no coverage available, and it applies to nothing else. That would preclude some mythical President Klutz from using that section of the law to postpone other parts of the law.

        BTW, it appears that Senator Cruz is “a natural born citizen”, although he doesn’t meet the mythical requirements foisted upon us by the Birthers. Personally, I would love to see him and Governor Palin run on the Republican ticket in 2016.

      • strayaway

        I haven’t claimed anything but that the Supreme Court has the last word at least until Congress makes changes in the law or a subsequent Supreme Court modifies a ruling. As to Courts using other Court precedents, that goes on but you make it sound so Byzantine compared with just reading what the Constitution says. It’s as if lawyers make splitting legal hairs thinner an art form for each others’ enjoyment or for their patrons.

        President Klutz is already postponing other parts of the law; not just an exemption to a penalty.

        I wouldn’t mind seeing Cruz take on Hillary either. Hillary would become the second oldest president ever elected after Reagan. There will be nine months difference. She sometimes looks so weary already and she would have to take on a former national college debate champion who can stay on his feat for 21 hours. Hillary voted to give Bush the power to declare war on Iraq and today I read that a record high percentage of Americans 53% agree with the statement that Americans should keep out of other countries affairs. Hillary should invest in some professional air brushed smiling photos and keep her debates to a minimum.

      • PoppaDavid

        American courts were using precedents since before the Revolution. That is our system. You want to have a system that ignores precedent? Try a country using the Napoleonic Code.

        When you choose to identify the part of the law that our President has been violating, let me know. This bit where you make a reference and expect others to do the work is getting boring. Especially since you have been batting zero so far.

        Regards the Bush War Act (H. J. Res. 114), try actually reading what was in the text. He was supposed to exhaust all peaceful options to obtain UN inspections of Iraq and then he was allowed to take those actions necessary to defend the United States. Since Saddam capitulated on the weapons inspections before “Shock and Awe” was scheduled to start, and there was no offensive capability in Iraq to attack the United States, it looks like Bush failed to follow the Law.

        From you comment on Secretary Clinton it is obvious that you didn’t know that.

      • strayaway

        The rule you mentioned had nothing to do with postponing major (un)ACA deadlines a year until after the election or reversing mandates found in the plan. You still haven’t come to grips with the possibility of President Cruz using the same imaginary powers to indefinitely postpone the entire (un)ACA or end it if such a loophole exists in the law.

        Nor do you address why President Obama opposed (D) Sen. Mary Landrieu’s legislative bill to accomplish the same goal. Four posts ago, you were making noises about what this this President has to do because of an obstructionist Congress and justifying this President dictating executive orders because other presidents have. Then you misinterpreted the ‘general welfare’ to mean modern welfare programs instead of being the opposite of ‘parochial interests’. Then you cited a paragraph about “claims” having nothing to do with this President making large fiat changes to the law. Now you want me to find wording in the (un)ACA that overrides Article 1, Section 1 and the word ‘all’.

        This morning I read that Rep. Ellison (D-MN) told a crowd that they should join him in demanding that Pres. Obama skip seeking Congressional approval and raise the minimum wage on his own. At the end of his speech, the crowd chanted “Sign the executive order!”. Back to this thread a bit, some have commented that libertarians tend to vote Republican. This is why, when people like you and Rep. Ellison rationalize and demand more executive power even when legislative prescriptions are at hand, libertarians will avoid you like the plague. Republicans aren’t much better but at least offer some wiggle room for those who oppose authoritarian rule. You might as well be supporting a de facto presidential enabling act for the duration of your perpetual self-created emergency.

      • PoppaDavid

        The legislative powers of Congress means they create laws. This law (like many) authorizes the Executive branch to issue Regulations to provide for the implementation of that law. Which means those regulations that are aligned with the law are Constitutional.

        I provided one example that specifically allowed rule making up through 2016, which is after the 2014 election. Unless you can provide some examples of regulations that violate the law as written, you objection is not important. Please use actual text not your personal feeling about the meaning of the law.

      • gaige

        This is why war is inevitable between the Patriots and the progressive fascists in this country. The question you need to be asking is not “what part of the Constitution prohibits it,” but rather “what part of the Constitution authorizes it?”

        Any Federal intervention in the healthcare system is a massive overreach in basic premise alone.

      • PoppaDavid

        I invite you to read the Constitution starting with the preamble which gives us the general reason for OUR government.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        Please note, our founding fathers intended our government to “promote the general Welfare”. That is an affirmative action, not a sit back and watch others do it.

        Article I, Section 8 says,

        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        Congress is authorized by the Constitution to collect taxes to pay for general Welfare. The definition of “general welfare” is made by Congress. They have included healthcare as a general welfare item and they are taxing everyone by requiring them to buy health care or pay a penalty.

      • gaige

        Such a loose reading of the Constitution means there are effectively no restraints on Federal power. If they can require the citizenry to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, based on the preamble rather than the 18 enumerated powers, then they can do literally anything that can be rammed through Congress or imposed by Executive fiat.

        I reject this loose reading of the Constitution. Categorically. Hence, why war is inevitable between our two camps.

      • gaige

        Such a loose reading of the Constitution means there are effectively no restraints on Federal power. If they can require the citizenry to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, based on the preamble rather than the 18 enumerated powers, then they can do literally anything that can be rammed through Congress or imposed by Executive fiat.

        I reject this loose reading of the Constitution. Categorically. Hence, why war is inevitable between our two camps.

      • PoppaDavid

        I invite you to read the Constitution starting with the preamble which gives us the general reason for OUR government.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        Please note, our founding fathers intended our government to “promote the general Welfare”. That is an affirmative action, not a sit back and watch others do it.

        Article I, Section 8 says,

        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        Congress is authorized by the Constitution to collect taxes to pay for general Welfare. The definition of “general welfare” is made by Congress. They have included healthcare as a general welfare item and they are taxing everyone by requiring them to buy health care or pay a penalty.