Archive for June, 2012

“Upon the supposition, that the bank is constitutionally created, this is the only question; and this question seems answered, as soon as it is stated. If the states may tax the bank, to what extent shall they tax it, and where shall they stop? An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. A question of constitutional power can hardly be made to depend on a question of more or less. If the states may tax, they have no limit but their discretion; and the bank, therefore, must depend on the discretion of the state governments for its existence. This consequence is inevitable. The object in laying this tax, may have been revenue to the state. In the next case, the object may be to expel the bank from the state; but how is this object to be ascertained, or who is to judge of the motives of legislative acts?”

McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819),Chief Justice John Marshall

Full Text of Supreme Court Decision

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf

“

Chief Justice John Roberts Comes Out of The Progressive Closet

ONE FOR THE TEAM

A progressive Republican President George W. Bush appointed another progressive Republican to be Chief Justice– John Roberts.

The result of this decision is the Affordable Care Act is declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States!

A progressive Democratic President Barack Obama lead the Democratic Party in passing the Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare. The Constitutional authority cited for the passage of the bill was the commerce clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Both Obama and the Democratic Party deliberately did not use their taxing powers under the Constitution as their authority for passing the bill.

Obama Goes Toe-To-Toe With Stephanopoulos On “Tax Increases”

The reason for not using the Congress’ taxing authority was Obamacare would never had passed for it would have been viewed as one of the biggest increases in taxes in the history of the United States. Just remember candidate Obama’s promise, now a big lie, to never increase the taxes of Americans earning less than $250,000:

President Obama’s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year

Both the majority and dissenting decisions clearly state that the commerce clause cannot be used to justify Obamacare or more specifically the mandate that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts was joined by the four progressive or liberal justices in declaring Obamacare Constitutional because it was a tax and Congress has the power to tax under the Constitution.

Instead of simply declaring the act unconstitutional for exceeding their powers under the Commerce clause, the majority of the justices said correctly that the act is a tax, even though the bill was not written as a tax.

While it is clearly the function of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress and decide whether an act is Constitutional or unconstitutional, it is decidedly not the function of the Supreme Court to legislate by in effect rewriting the act and giving it the correct justification.

The act should have been declared unconstitutional and sent back to Congress for them to rewrite the act and use their taxing powers as justification.

If this had been done, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act would never had been passed–it would have been repealed.

The majority of the American people never asked for Obamacare.

Today at least 2 out of 3 Americans want the repeal of Obamacare.

Chief Justice Roberts should have joined the dissenting justices in a 5 to 4 decision to rule that Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its authority or powers under the commerce clause.

This would have ended Obamacare, a bill that at least 2 out of 3 Americans do not want and cannot afford.

Instead, Chief Justice has come out of the closet and revealed that he is really a progressive Republican that talks conservative but acts progressive.

Shame on Justice Roberts and the justices that joined him for exceeding their own authority and the will of the American people.

While the majority of the American people consider themselves conservative, both the Democratic and Republican parties are controlled by progressives that want the government to intervene in the economy at home and other nations abroad.

Beware of progressives Republicans that talk conservative to get elected and once elected act like progressives.

Mitt Romney reacts to the health care ruling

Since both Obama and Romney have a record of flip flopping, I suggest American follow the advice of the late President Reagan.

Trust but verify

Not a Dime in Tax Increase for Those Earning Less than $250,000

Health Care: Mitt Romney flip-flops on Health Care

Romney: Mass. Health Law Differs From Obama’s

ObamaCare is RomneyCare 2.0

Remember, it was another Progressive Republican President, George H.W. Bush, who said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

George H. W. Bush

Trust but verify.

Obamacare is a tax and as such should have originated in the House of Representatives, the people’s house, and it did not.

The reason is simple, the bill that eventually become Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, would have been one of the largest taxes increases in United States history and would have clearly broken Obama’s promise not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,00.

Hence Obama’s repeated assertion of the big lie that Obamacare orthe Affordable Care Act is not a tax.

Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax

Rush Limbaugh on fighting to defeat Obamacare

Coburn on how ACA “sovietizes” health care

The American people know a liar when they hear him.

The American people knew all along that Obamacare was a massive tax increase, especially on young.

They did not need a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with a Harvard Law degree to point out the obvious.

Obamacare generates signficant uncertainty for businesses–the wealth, income and job creators of America.

Businesses do not know what the cost of their employee group health care insurance will be in future years.

Nor do businesses know what taxes they will paying in the future years.

This massive uncertainty as to the cost of doing business results in lower economic growth and reducing hiring of new employees.

The economic consequences of the passage of Obamacare have been unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent for 42 months and most likely the entire Obama administration.

As the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.”

Chief Justice John Roberts is simply not in the same league as Chief Justice Marshall.

Roberts originally was going to vote with the dissenting justices and if he did, Obamacare would have been declared unconstitutional.

Inside Justice Roberts’ health care decision

This would have dramatically reduce business uncertainty.

Instead, he came out of the progressive closet and sided with the four progressive justices.

Obamacare is wrecking the economy, destroying jobs and killing the American dream.

Outrage Over Judicial Activism and Obamacare

The vast majority of the American people never wanted Obamacare.

Yet a small elite of progressive Harvard Law graduates are telling the American people that they must buy something that do not want and many cannot afford.

The time for action is now.

Obamacare is a massively huge tax increase and an assault on the consumer sovereignty of the American people

Rush Limbaugh on fighting to defeat Obamacare

March on Washington, D.C. on July 4, 2012!

Washington Tea Party!

The time is now for Americans all across this nation to have tea parties in protest of Obamacare and massive unbalance budgets that will add more than $5 trillion or $5,000 billion in the four-year of the Obama administration.

WHY DON’T YOU MIND MY OWN BUSINESS?

Repeal Obamacare!

Background Articles and Videos

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!

Mark Meckler on the Tea Party Movement

Judge Napolitano: “Individual Mandate Most Bizarre Tax in the History of the Country”

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare – Conservative Reaction Absurd

Obama reacts to health care supreme court ruling. 6/28/12

Obama Tax Promises

Obama on single payer health insurance

Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009

If You Like Your Health Care Plan You Can’t Keep It!

Healthcare Summit Reveals Industry Movement Independent of Reform

Boehner: We Must Repeal ObamaCare In Its Entirety #4jobs

Who knew individual mandate was a tax? NOT Obama!

CNBC: Senator Rubio Comments on Supreme Court’s Decision on ObamaCare

The Meaning of Independence Day – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Obamacare and the Supreme Court with Richard Epstein and John Yoo

Richard Epstein on Barack Obama, his former Chicago Law Colleague

Obamacare Ruling May Be Bad News For Stressed Tax Code

Howard Gleckman, Contributor

“…Because the High Court found that the penalty for not having coverage is a tax and not a fee or a banana, it ruled Congress has the constitutional authority to impose such a levy. In effect, the 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts concluded that Congress can tax you for failing to acquire insurance. Thus, the mandate as created by the ACA is constitutional.

But the Court rejected the White House’s main legal argument—that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to require people to get insurance. It will be interesting to see how legal scholars read this in the coming weeks: Is the Court saying that tax policy is the only tool Congress has to enact certain social welfare programs? If so, it would put an already-stressed tax code under even greater pressure.

The ACA includes a number of tax provisions—only a few of which are related to insurance reform.

Among them:

The tax on those who don’t have health insurance. The key to the individual mandate, this provision would penalize those who do not have insurance starting in 2014. The penalty begins at $95 and phases up to a maximum of $695 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016.

Subsidies for buyers. These subsidies are aimed at helping low-income households purchase individual insurance through the health exchanges created by the law. The subsidies are effectively refundable tax credits managed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Small business tax credits. These subsidies, initially up to 35 percent of an employer’s premium contribution, are already in effect. The subsidy gradually phases out as the firm’s average wage and the number of its employees increase.

Medicare payroll tax. Starting in 2013, the ACA raises the Medicare Part A payroll tax by 0.9 percent for those making $200,000 or more (couples making $250,000).

Taxes on unearned income. The law also imposes a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income and other unearned income for wealthy households, also starting in 2013.

Increasing the threshold for itemized medical expenses. Today, taxpayers can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. The ACA raises that threshold to 10 percent beginning next year.

Taxing high-value employer-sponsored health plans. Technically imposed on insurers, the law sets an excise tax on individual coverage that exceeds $10,200 or family coverage of more than $27,500. The levy, effective beginning in 2018, is equal to 40 percent of the premiums that exceed these thresholds. Because it is indexed by the rate of the consumer price index (which rises more slowly than medical costs), the tax will gradually apply to less generous policies.

Other revenue raisers. The law includes a number of other minor taxes intended to help pay for the health coverage expansion. These include new penalties on Health Savings Accounts, limits on Flexible Savings Accounts, and an excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

The Court upheld all of these taxes with the rest of the law (except for a requirement that states expand their Medicaid coverage for the working poor).

The political fate of the ACA remains to be seen, of course. But the Supreme Court has at least settled the dispute over whether it is constitutional. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-may-be-bad-news-for-stressed-tax-code/

A Vast New Taxing Power

The Chief Justice’s ObamaCare ruling is far from the check on Congress of right-left myth.

“…The commentary on John Roberts’s solo walk into the Affordable Care Act wilderness is converging on a common theme: The Chief Justice is a genius. All of a sudden he is a chessmaster, a statesman, a Burkean minimalist, a battle-loser but war-winner, a Daniel Webster for our times.

Now that we’ve had more time to take in Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning, we have a better summary: politician. In fact, his 5-4 ruling validating the constitutional arguments against purchase mandates and 5-4 ruling endorsing them as taxes is far more dangerous, and far more political, even than it first appeared last week.

This is a minority view. By right-left acclaim, at least among elites, the Chief Justice has engineered a Marbury v. Madison-like verdict that camouflages new limits on federal power as a reprieve for President Obama’s entitlement legacy and in a stroke enhanced the Supreme Court’s reputation—and his own. This purported “long game” appeals to conservatives who can console themselves with a moral victory, while the liberals who like to assail the Chief Justice as a radical foe of democracy can continue their tantrum.

It’s an elegant theory whose only flaw is that it is repudiated by Chief Justice Roberts’s own language and logic. His gambit substitutes one unconstitutional expansion of government power for another and rearranges the constitutional architecture of the U.S. political system.

His first error is the act of rewriting the plain text of a law, instead of practicing the disinterested interpretation that is the task of the judiciary, regardless of the partisan outcome. The second error is converting the health insurance mandate’s penalty into a tax. Ninety years of precedents have honed precise and widely divergent legal meanings for taxes and penalties for violating laws or regulations, and they are not interchangeable.

The Chief Justice did not simply change a label—as if Congress said something was a penalty when it was really a tax. Rather, these categories are defined by their purposes and effects, by how they operate in practice. Taxes are “exactions” whose main goal is raising revenue, while penalties punish individuals for breaking the law. The boundaries can blur—legitimate taxes may also have strong punitive aims—but scarcely so in this case. ObamaCare’s mandate was designed to regulate individual conduct to help achieve universal coverage. If it succeeds perfectly, it should collect $0.

Even if Democrats had passed the mandate tax as rewritten by the Chief Justice, and they did not, the Supreme Court until Thursday has never held that Congress can call anything it wants a tax. The taxing power like the Commerce Clause is broad, and the courts are generally deferential. But all powers the Constitution enumerates are also limited, and these limits—unique to each power—must be meaningful and enforceable by the legal system.

The Chief Justice’s compounding errors deprive the taxing power of any viable limiting principles. Article I, section 8 gives Congress an independent grant of 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.” Taxes must originate in the House, the political body designed to be most responsive to voters. There are also important additional safeguards on the type of exactions known as “direct taxes.”

Indirect taxes—”duties, imposts and excises”—are taxes on activities and products. They are passed on by a seller, triggered by a transaction and more or less optional: Consumers don’t have to buy taxed goods and services. Direct taxes, on the other hand, are those that the federal government is empowered to impose on individuals as citizens. They cannot be avoided because they are levied on the existence of people.

America has its origins in a rebellion against arbitrary and pernicious taxation and the Framers wanted to make it extremely difficult to impose or raise direct taxes. These can easily morph into plenary police powers, the regulation of private behavior and conduct that the Constitution vests in the states. For this reason, while the taxing power in addition to raising revenue can achieve regulatory results, those regulatory results must be constitutional themselves. …”

“…Chief Justice Roberts’s ruling is careless about these bedrock tax questions, and they are barely addressed by either the Court’s liberal or conservative wings. His ruling, with its multiple contradictions and inconsistencies, reads as if it were written by someone affronted by the government’s core constitutional claims but who wanted to uphold the law anyway to avoid political blowback and thus found a pretext for doing so in the taxing power.

If this understanding is correct, then Chief Justice Roberts behaved like a politician, which is more corrosive to the rule of law and the Court’s legitimacy than any abuse it would have taken from a ruling that President Obama disliked. The irony is that the Chief Justice’s cheering section is praising his political skills, not his reasoning. Judges are not supposed to invent political compromises.

“It is not our job,” the Chief Justice writes, “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” But the Court’s most important role is to protect liberty when the political branches exceed the Constitution’s bounds, not to bless their excesses in the interests of political or personal expediency or both. On one of the most consequential cases he will ever hear, Chief Justice Roberts failed this most basic responsibility.”

A version of this article appeared July 2, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Vast New Taxing Power.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html

The Roberts Rules

The Chief Justice rewrites ObamaCare in order to save it.

“…The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court’s conservative bloc, but he also said that the mandate fell within Congress’s power to tax, joined by the Court’s liberal bloc. In practice this is a restraint on federal power without real restraint—and, worse, the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it. The ruling will stand as one of the great what-might-have-beens of American constitutional law.

The novel question raised by ObamaCare’s command to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty—the first-ever purchase mandate in U.S. history—was whether Congress could create commerce in order to regulate it. In his 1-4-4 opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes that construing the Commerce Clause as the Obama Administration argued “would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding.”

Note that this rejection of federal compulsion, which the four conservatives supported albeit in dissent, is the same one that the liberal legal establishment spent years deriding as frivolous and beyond debate: Of course Washington has carte blanche to do whatever it wants to do. “That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned,” the Chief Justice writes, before going on to envision it himself by grounding the mandate in Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole. The result is that Washington has unlimited power to impose new purchase mandates and the courts will find them constitutional if Congress calls them taxes, or even if it calls them something else and judges call them taxes.

That was true with ObamaCare. The Pelosi Democrats explicitly structured the mandate as a regulatory “penalty.” Congress voted down a direct tax in 2009. Supreme Court precedents going back to the 1920s and 1930s define penalties and taxes as mutually exclusive and critically different.

Every lower court that heard the health-care cases rejected the taxing argument. Administration lawyers devoted only 21 lines of their reply brief to this argument and it barely came up at oral arguments. The Chief Justice in effect revised the statute in order to find it constitutional. …”

“…One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.

The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court’s institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties. If this was a play to compete with John Marshall’s legacy, the result is closer to William Brennan’s.

The Court did rule 7-2 against ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid, the supposedly voluntary federal-state program that once covered only the poor. The majority included liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who held this expansion to be unconstitutional because the feds commandeered state resources.

The problem is that this also involved rewriting the law. The majority merely created an opt-out that Governors and states could elect to preserve some measure of independent control, instead of telling Congress to start over. Still, this is the first time the Court has found a law enacted under Congress’s spending power to be unconstitutionally coercive.

But this and even the five votes limiting Congress under the Commerce Clause pale against the Chief Justice’s infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. It turns out we also needed John Roberts to write his appendix.”

A version of this article appeared June 29, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Roberts Rules.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577494400059173634.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*
In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain“minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A.For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this “penalty”will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1).Another key provision of the Act is the Medicaid expansion. The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care. 42 U. S. C. §1396d(a). The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For ex——————
*Together with No. 11–398, Department of Health and Human Services et al. v. Florida et al., and No. 11–400, Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
2 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Syllabus
ample, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1).But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. §1396c.
Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court,challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–
15.
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3
Syllabus
power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155
U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to inter4
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Syllabus
pret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c)
Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf

Bachmann Got It Right Two Years Ago!

Bachmann: Obamacare Likely Largest Middle Class Tax Hike Ever

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Second Great Awakening and Antibellum Reform–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Education, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Charles Finney, Lyman Beecher, Religious Movement, Second Great Awakening, Shakers, Timothy Dwight, Videos |

Saylor HIST211: The Second Awakening and Antebellum Reform Pt. 1

Saylor HIST211: The Second Awakening and Antebellum Reform Pt. 2

Saylor HIST211: The Second Awakening and Antebellum Reform Pt. 3

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Martin Van Buren–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government spending, High School, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Video, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Andrew Jackson, history, Marin Van Buren, Panic of 1837 |

President Martin Van Buren Biography

American President #8: Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)

Presidents in Our Backyard — Martin Van Buren

Martin van Buren: What Greatness Really Means | Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Andrew Jackson–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Education, government, government spending, High School, history, Law, liberty, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Andrew Jackson, Histroy, Videos |

Andrew Jackson – 1 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 2 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 3 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 4 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 5 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 6 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 7 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 8 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 9 of 10

Andrew Jackson – 10 of 10

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Election of 1824–The Corrupt Bargain–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, High School, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Andrew Jackson, Election of 1824, Henry Clay, history, John Quincy Adams, Presidents, The Corrupt Bargain |

John Quincy Adams and the Corrupt Bargain

Election of 1824

The Presidents: Number 6: John Quincy Adams-Part 1

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–President John Quincy Adams–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Education, European History, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, High School, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: American history, Andrew Jackson, Character, history, John Quincy Adams, Presidency |

President John Quincy Adams Biography

President John Quincy Adams Film

The Presidents- John Q Adams to Polk 1825-1849

Amistad: The Best of John Quincy Adams

The funniest and most inspirational John Quincy Adams moments from Steven Spielberg’s “Amistad,” starring Anthony Hopkins as JQA. If you have not yet seen this movie, I hope these clips and Hopkins’ brilliant performance will convince you to do so. 🙂

Amistad – John Quincy Adams before Supreme Court on Slavery

Amistad (Full Movie)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Adams-Onis Treaty–Videos

Posted on June 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, European History, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics | Tags: Adams-Onis Treaty |

Adams-Onis Treaty

President John Quincy Adams Film

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Matt Kibbe: Hostile Takoever: Resisting Centralized Government’s Stranglehold on America–Videos

Posted on June 22, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Economics, Education, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Author, Book, Centralized Government, Freedom Works, Glenn Beck, Hostile Takeover, Kibbe, Limited Government, Matt Kibbe, Reason, Republican Party, Tea Party, Videos |

GBR: Matt Kibbe

Matt Kibbe – Hostile Takeover

Matt Kibbe: Hayek and the Tea Party

Background Articles and Videos

Give Us Liberty? Q&A with Dick Armey & Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works

Matt Kibbe on GBTV:The Tea Party and The 2012 Elections – Part 1

Matt Kibbe on GBTV:The Tea Party and The 2012 Elections – Part 2

Kibbe Previews “Hostile Takeover” Tea Party Book

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

How to get your “free” Obama Phone!–Americans Pay Over $1 Billion–Videos

Posted on June 22, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Free Cell Phone, Free Phones, government spending, Obama Phone, Rush Limbaugh, Welfare |

UPDATED Septmeber 27, 2012

Romney Protester Says Vote for Obama Because He Gives Free Phones

True Wireless TV Spot – Got Food Stamps? Get A Free Cell Phone Too!

Free Obama Cell Phones

SafeLink Wireless Provides Free Cell Phone Service to Low Income Families in Tennessee

4409 — OBAMA PHONE: Obama giving away FREE cellphones

Rush: “Obama Phones” Free Cell Phones and Service Doubles Under Obama

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Lexington and Concord–Videos

Posted on June 21, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Education, High School, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: American history, history, Lexington and Concord, Videos |

The Battle of Lexington and Concord: America the Story of Us

Battle of Lexington

The Battle of Lexington

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Battle of Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill–Videos

Posted on June 21, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, history, Law, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Uncategorized, Video, War | Tags: American history, Battle of Breed's Hill and Bunker's Hill, Videos |

The Battle of Bunker Hill and Breed’s Hill

The Battle of Bunker Hill

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Battle of Saratoga–Videos

Posted on June 20, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Education, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Battle of Saratoga, history, Videos |

Battle of Saratoga I

Battle of Saratoga II

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–French and Indian War– Videos

Posted on June 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, European History, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Video, War | Tags: American history, French and Indian War, Video |

French and Indian War

Battle of the Monongahela

The Acadians Deportation

Battle of Fort William Henry

Battle of Carillon

[y0utube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF6Lwvo1UBQ&feature=relmfu]

The British Conquest 1759

Invasion of Québec City

Battle Plains of Abraham

Battle of Ste-Foy and Pontiac

The American Revolution

The Lower Canada Patriots

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Pontaic Rebellion–Videos

Posted on June 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, history, Law, liberty, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Resources, Strategy, Taxes, War, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Native Indians, Pontiac Rebellion, Videos |

Battle of Ste-Foy and Pontiac

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Microsoft’s No Compromises–Surface–Doing More With Less Than $500?–Real Cool–iPad Killer? — Videos

Posted on June 19, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Computers, Education, High School, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Raves, Tablet, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: iPad Killer, Keyboard, Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, Surface, Tablet Computer, Windows 8 |

Microsoft Surface – Keynote (Re-live the mystery)

Microsoft Surface Pro vs Surface RT

First Thoughts: Microsoft Surface Tablet

Microsoft Surface Tablet Specifications,Price and Photos – For Windows OS

Microsoft Surface Tablet – The Great Team Behind

Surface by Microsoft

Microsoft’s Apple iPad Killer – Windows 8 RT Surface Tablet Hands on Review

Microsoft Surface Tablet Windows 8 – Hands on with Touch cover Keyboard – iPad Killer

Microsoft Surface Tablet Windows 8 – Hands on with Touch Screen – iPad Killer

Microsoft Surface Tablet – Windows RT / Windows 8

Microsoft Surface Tablet – Cooling System

Microsoft Surface tablet release date, news and price

By Gary Marshall

“…Microsoft Surface tablet runs Windows 8 Pro and Windows RT

There will be two Surface models, one running Windows 8 Pro and one running Windows RT. The Surface RT processor will be an ARM one and the Surface Pro processor will be Intel. The Pro model will be more powerful, with a higher resolution and a slightly chunkier case.

The Microsoft Surface specifications are quite nifty

The Windows RT model weighs 676g, is 9.3mm thin and comes with what Microsoft calls a 10.6″, 16:9 ClearType HD display. The battery’s a 31.5W-h model, you can choose between 32GB and 64GB of on-board storage, and connectors include MicroSD, USB 2.0, Micro HD VIdeo and 2×2 MIMO antennae for better WiFi performance. The processor hasn’t been named but the smart money’s on a Tegra 3.

The Pro model is heavier – 930g – and thicker – 13.5mm – to make room for an Intel Ivy Bridge i5 processor. This time the ClearType display is “Full HD”, which implies 1920×1080 resolution. The battery’s bigger too, at 42W-h, and the connectors include MicroSDXC, USB 3.0, Mini DisplayPort and the same antennae. Storage options for the big Surface are 64GB and 128GB.

Both tablets have twin cameras, stereo speakers and dual microphones tuned for Skype, and their cases are made of VaporMg, a magnesium alloy that’s very light and strong.

The Surface tablet also includes an integrated kickstand to prop up your tablet when you’re watching video.

The Surface Pro tablet has a pen

The Windows 8 Pro Surface tablet supports pen input at 600dpi resolution, and there’s a palm block so you don’t lose focus when your palm touches the screen. The pen can be used just like a real one, with digital ink annotating documents or filling in forms.

The Windows RT Surface includes Microsoft Office

Microsoft Home and Student 2013 RT is pre-installed on the Windows RT Surface tablet.

Both Surface tablets have a touch cover and a type cover

Microsoft has come up with a brilliant idea: a protective cover that doubles as a pressure sensitive multi-touch trackpad and keyboard and that attaches magnetically. If you’d rather have a chiclet keyboard, there’s one of those too: an ultra-thin one that, while it’s naturally a bit thicker than the touch one (5mm compared to 3mm), still doesn’t add too much bulk to the device.

The keyboards have built-in accelerometers, which mean they can tell when you fold them back over the screen: when you do, they stop drawing power. When you compare them to the kinds of keyboard docks we’ve seen for other tablets, such as Asus’s Transformers, they’re clearly remarkable bits of engineering.

The Microsoft Surface price will be competitive

Microsoft’s keeping its cards close to its chest with this one: while it promises that both the Windows RT and Windows 8 Pro Surface tablets will be priced competitively with rival devices, it doesn’t say which rival devices, let alone commit to a price range. We’d expect prices to be similar to high-end Android tablets and, of course, the iPad, even if that means making a loss: as we know from the Xbox, Microsoft isn’t afraid to lose money for a long time if that’s what it takes to build market share.

The Microsoft Surface release date isn’t imminent

The RT Surface tab is due to be released “this fall”, with the Surface Pro shipping roughly 90 days later.

The Surface tablets will have Xbox integration and SmartGlass

Microsoft’s twin-screen SmartGlass is an obvious feature for the Surface tablets, and Microsoft says it’s coming alongside Xbox integration.

Surface is designed to give Microsoft’s partners a poke

Microsoft normally lets OEMS (Original Equipment Manufacturers) do the hardware stuff, so Surface is something of a departure from the normal PC business. It’s a tacit admission that sometimes, PCs are crappier than they ought to be: as Mary Branscombe explains, “Not only does Surface deliver hardware innovations that the OEMs can’t turn around and put on their Android tablets; it also take advantage of the hardware experts at Microsoft and their 3,200 hardware patents and lets Microsoft deliver the PC it thinks Windows 8 will run best on, not a PC maker’s interpretation of that.”

It’ll be interesting to see how Microsoft’s OEM partners react to that: can Microsoft be their best pal as well as their biggest rival? …”

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/microsoft-surface-tablet-release-date-news-and-price-1085679

7 reasons Microsoft’s new tablet could worry Apple

By Erik Sherman

“…There are skeptics aplenty, including Stephen Chapman at ZDNet, MoneyWatch’s sister site. Skepticism is necessary and healthy, as this would be far from a cakewalk for Microsoft. But if you’re trying to understand where computing is headed, cynicism would be dangerous. Microsoft has many strengths that could help, and Apple knows it. Here are seven things that Tim Cook is likely weighing.

Corporate buy-in
Apple is the king of consumer electronics, no question. But even with its again growing use in corporations, Microsoft has an establishment in corporate computing that is remarkable. From the operating system on the vast majority of desktops to software that is pervasive, including databases, Office, major corporate applications, and middleware, the company is there, no matter where you turn.

Yes, iPads have become very popular, but they don’t naturally integrate with existing systems the way corporations would like. Get the same type of functions in an enterprise-friendly form, and you’ve provided companies with a powerful reason to buy hardware. Furthermore, the greater number of form factors that will be available are more likely to hit corporate needs, including docking stations for people who have to create and edit documents and spreadsheets and find the experience on a pure tablet wanting, even with the availability of Bluetooth keyboards. (I’ve been using a Google (GOOG) Android-based system that I bought for traveling, and the ability to seat a tablet to a keyboard with touchpad and extra battery that adds little in weight has been great. Once a Windows-equivalent is available, I’ll likely jump just for the desktop software compatibility.)

Massive existing developer base
As Chapman noted, Microsoft will need app developers to compete. I’m wary of the whole “apps are the reason people buy devices,” because both Apple’s iOS and Google Android managed to build large audiences even without their current levels of app mania. After all, most of the sales and free downloads are from a relatively small slice of the available offerings. But the perception of availability of software is important.

Where Chapman goes wrong, I think, is to say that cross-platform development tools are what could aid Microsoft in this. While they could, he’s discounting just how large the Microsoft Windows development camp is. Virtually all corporations putting programmers to work for custom software or to adapt third-party applications have deep Microsoft experience. The most popular software packages, period, have versions for Windows. That’s the app strength that Microsoft hopes to leverage, whether on an Intel-based desktop or a tablet or even phone with an ARM chip. Porting isn’t an afterthought, but going from one versions of Windows to another? A much easier jump.

Home TV tie-in
Work tie-in is important, but so is home entertainment. That’s one place where Microsoft is far better established than Apple because of the Xbox. It’s a major streaming platform and has lots of content available. Microsoft is pushing a cheap-up-front Xbox ($99) with an ongoing Xbox Live paid account, plus it has a full motion detection and navigation system, which makes a multi-touch interface look passé.

So the tablet becomes an extension of TV. For the millions of households that already have an online account with Microsoft, it could be a compelling choice.

Unusual determination
Microsoft has screwed up on consumer devices many times. (Can you say Zune or Kin?) But one thing the company has going for it is determination and patience that actually matches Apple’s. Yes, there are companies that have eventually beaten Microsoft badly enough that it gave up. The personal finance software category comes to mind.

But it took Microsoft a decade to drop its desktop finance programs. You could call that a waste of time and resources, but it shows how long the company is willing to go to eventually come out on top. The Xbox platform was a major money loser for many years. But Microsoft, like Apple, is in it for the long haul.

Wide range of innovation
Microsoft is one of the largest patent holders in the world, second to IBM. Patents aren’t the same as innovation, but the number it holds shows how much investment the companies does in that area. Even rule out many of the piddling patents, and Microsoft has done foundational work in a lot of areas. Much of what it does is invisible to people looking at the consumer electronics space. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or has no usefulness.

This isn’t about a potential legal battle; Apple and Microsoft wisely made peace with each other years ago. But Microsoft has tried often and succeeded a fair amount of time. So, what new things could it bring to a tablet? Hard to tell, but it opens the possibility of approaches that will attract users.

New Borg strategy
The new SmartGlass technology shows how Microsoft has begun to move past the “Windows only, Windows often” approach. Sure, it still wants to sell Windows to everyone multiple times, but as the computing world has changed, the company has been morphing a longtime basic strategy. When you’re willing to surround and absorb anyone and everything else, you stand a much greater chance of success, particularly if you want to sell to corporations that aren’t crazy about single-vendor solutions anymore and then extend corporate use to the home. …”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57455077/7-reasons-microsofts-new-tablet-could-worry-apple/

Background Information and Videos

Top 5 tablets (May 2012)

What’s The Best 10″ Tablet Under $400?

10 top tablets 2012

Tablet PC Comparison

Compare all tablets

http://www.tabletpccomparison.net/

Side by side tablets comparison

http://www.tabletpccomparison.net/side-by-side/items/1

Background Articles and Videos

Benjamin Banneker 279th Birthday Celebration

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The War of 1812–Videos

Posted on June 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: American history, Battle of New Orleans, The War of 1812, Videos |

The War of 1812

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Joanne Freeman–The American Revolution–Yale University–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: American history, American History Course, Articles of Confederation, College Course, Colonial America, Freeman, George III, George Washington, history, James Madison, Joanne Freeman, John Adams, Lectures, Sam Adams, The American Revolution, The Stamp Act, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Constitution, Videos, Yale University |

1. Introduction: Freeman’s Top Five Tips for Studying the Revolution

Professor Freeman offers an introduction to the course, summarizing the readings and discussing the course’s main goals. She also offers five tips for studying the Revolution: 1) Avoid thinking about the Revolution as a story about facts and dates; 2) Remember that words we take for granted today, like “democracy,” had very different meanings; 3) Think of the “Founders” as real people rather than mythic historic figures; 4) Remember that the “Founders” aren’t the only people who count in the Revolution; 5) Remember the importance of historical contingency: that anything could have happened during the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Is the War Part of the American Revolution?
08:24 – Chapter 2. Reading Materials for the Course
13:45 – Chapter 3. Freeman’s Tips One and Two: Facts and Meanings
22:13 – Chapter 4. Freeman’s Tip Three: The Founders Were Human, Too
31:33 – Chapter 5. Freeman’s Tip Four: The Other Revolutionaries
37:48 – Chapter 6. Freeman’s Tip Five and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

2. Being a British Colonist

Professor Freeman discusses what it meant to be a British colonist in America in the eighteenth century. She explains how American colonists had deep bonds of tradition and culture with Great Britain. She argues that, as British colonists with a strong sense of their British liberties, settlers in America valued their liberties above all else. She also explains that many Americans had a sense of inferiority when they compared their colonial lifestyles to the sophistication of Europe. Professor Freeman discusses the social order in America during the eighteenth century, and suggests that the lack of an entrenched aristocracy made social rank more fluid in America than in Europe. She ends the lecture by suggesting that the great importance that American colonists placed on British liberties and their link with Britain helped pave the way for the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:02 – Chapter 2. Association of Colonists’ Identity to English Monarchy
11:51 – Chapter 3. The British Colonists’ Inferiority Complex
20:34 – Chapter 4. The Fluidity of American Social Order: Gentry Minorities, Prisoners, and Religious Exiles
35:02 – Chapter 5. Salutary Neglect’s Effect on British Liberties in the Colonies and Conclusion

3. Being a British American

Professor Freeman discusses the differences between society in the American colonies and society in Britain in the eighteenth century. She uses examples from colonists’ writings to show that the American colonies differed from British society in three distinct ways: the distinctive character of the people who migrated to the colonies; the distinctive conditions of life in British America; and the nature of British colonial administration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:30 – Chapter 2. From Dr. Hamilton’s Diary: Religiosity, Diversity, and Coloniality
11:56 – Chapter 3. Risk-takers, Landowners, Voters: Life in British America
17:31 – Chapter 4. Door Persuasions and Middling Society
23:33 – Chapter 5. Free Will and Spiritual Equality: The Impact of the Great Awakening
32:13 – Chapter 6. The Power of Colonial Legislatures and the British-American Identity

4. “Ever at Variance and Foolishly Jealous”: Intercolonial Relations

Professor Freeman discusses colonial attempts to unite before the 1760s and the ways in which regional distrust and localism complicated matters. American colonists joined together in union three times before the 1760s. Two of these attempts were inspired by the necessity of self-defense; the third attempt was instigated by the British as a means of asserting British control over the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:52 – Chapter 2. Intercolonial Opinions: Notes from Jefferson, Washington, and Adams
11:44 – Chapter 3. Colony Types, and Differences between New England and Middle Colonies
23:58 – Chapter 4. Education and Social Culture in the Southern Colonies
30:43 – Chapter 5. Dutch Expansion and the English Dominion: The First Two Unions
36:30 – Chapter 6. The French and Indian Threats: The Third Colonial Union

5. Outraged Colonials: The Stamp Act Crisis

Professor Freeman concludes her discussion (from the previous lecture) of the three early instances in which the American colonies joined together to form a union. She then turns to a discussion of the Stamp Act crisis, and how American colonists found a shared bond through their dissatisfaction with the Stamp Act. Faced with massive national debts incurred by the recent war with France, Prime Minister George Grenville instituted several new taxes to generate revenue for Britain and its empire. The colonists saw these taxes as signaling a change in colonial policy, and thought their liberties and rights as British subjects were being abused. These feelings heightened with the Stamp Act of 1765. Finding a shared cause in their protestations against these new British acts, Americans set the foundation for future collaboration between the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Albany Congress of 1754
09:32 – Chapter 2. British Budget Post-French and Indian War, and the Sugar Act
22:24 – Chapter 3. Colonial Responses to the Early Acts, and the Stamp Act
30:49 – Chapter 4. Limited Liberties in Virtual Representation and the Stamp Act
36:02 – Chapter 5. Patrick Henry on the Stamp Act and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010

6. Resistance or Rebellion? (Or, What the Heck is Happening in Boston?)

Professor Freeman discusses the mounting tensions between the colonists and the British in the late 1760s and early 1770s. The Virginia Resolves were published and read throughout the colonies in 1765, and generated discussion about colonial rights and liberties. Colonies began working together to resolve their problems, and formed the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. Meanwhile, Boston was becoming more radicalized and mobs began acting out their frustration with British policies. Colonists began to believe that the British were conspiring to oppress their liberties, a belief that seemed to be confirmed when the British stationed troops in Boston. The mounting tension between the Bostonians and British troops culminated in the violence of the Boston Massacre in March 1770.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Circulation of the Virginia Resolves
03:47 – Chapter 2. The Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Thoughts on the Stamp Act
10:11 – Chapter 3. Mob Protests by the Sons of Liberty
15:41 – Chapter 4. The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Complications of the Declaratory Act
19:39 – Chapter 5. Reactions to the Townshend Acts and Samuel Adams’s Propaganda
31:48 – Chapter 6. Different Viewpoints on the Boston Massacre

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010.

7. Being a Revolutionary

Professor Freeman continues her discussion of the Boston Massacre and how it represented a growing sense of alienation between the American colonists and the British authorities. The Americans and British both felt that the colonies were subordinate to Parliament in some way, but differed in their ideas of the exact nature of the imperial relationship. This period saw the formation of non-importation associations to discourage merchants from importing British goods, as well as committees of correspondence to coordinate resistance. One instance of such resistance occurred in December 1773, when Boston radicals who were frustrated with the Tea Act threw shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Different Conceptions of Colonists’ Relationship to Britain
07:55 – Chapter 2. The Growth of Non-Importation Associations in the Colonies
19:05 – Chapter 3. Taxing as Display of British Supremacy: Parliament’s Reactions
26:34 – Chapter 4. The Impact of the Tea Tax and the Development of Committees of Correspondence
33:50 – Chapter 5. Colonial Interpretation of and Reactions to the Tea Act: The Boston Tea Party
43:09 – Chapter 6. British Dismantling of Colonial Governance and Conclusion

8. The Logic of Resistance

Professor Freeman lays out the logic of American resistance to British imperial policy during the 1770s. Prime Minister Lord North imposed the Intolerable Acts on Massachusetts to punish the radicals for the Boston Tea Party, and hoped that the act would divide the colonies. Instead, the colonies rallied around Massachusetts because they were worried that the Intolerable Acts set a new threatening precedent in the imperial relationship. In response to this seeming threat, the colonists formed the First Continental Congress in 1774 to determine a joint course of action. The meeting of the First Continental Congress is important for four reasons: it forced the colonists to clarify and define their grievances with Britain; it helped to form ties between the colonies; it served as a training ground for young colonial politicians; and in British eyes, it symbolized a step towards rebellion. The lecture concludes with a look at the importance of historical lessons for the colonists, and how these lessons helped form a “logic of resistance” against the new measures that Parliament was imposing upon the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Logic of Resistance
03:23 – Chapter 2. North’s Intolerable Acts and Colonial Solidarity
11:28 – Chapter 3. The First Continental Congress
19:14 – Chapter 4. Jefferson’s Dinner Party and the Influence of Enlightenment Thought on the Colonists
27:24 – Chapter 5. Jefferson’s Reflection on Hamilton’s Favorite Hero
35:58 – Chapter 6. The Logic of Colonial Unity from the British Perspective
45:48 – Chapter 7. Edmund Burke’s Warning and Conclusion

9. Who Were the Loyalists?

The lecture first concludes the discussion of the First Continental Congress, which met in 1774. Ultimately, although its delegates represented a range of opinions, the voices of the political radicals in the Congress were the loudest. In October 1774, the Continental Congress passed both the radical Suffolk Resolves and the Declaration and Resolves, which laid out the colonists’ grievances with Parliament. The Congress also sent a petition to the King which warned him that the British Parliament was stripping the American colonists of their rights as English citizens. Given such radical measures, by early 1775, many American colonists were choosing sides in the growing conflict, and many chose to be Loyalists. Professor Freeman concludes her lecture with a discussion of the varied reasons why different Loyalists chose to support the British Crown, and what kinds of people tended to be Loyalists in the American Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Loyalists
01:32 – Chapter 2. Radical Voices in the First Continental Congress: the Grand Council and the Suffolk Resolves
17:23 – Chapter 3. Deliberations over Declaration and Resolves, and the Impact of the Continental Association
27:49 – Chapter 4. Taking Sides: The King’s Friends, or the Loyalists
37:53 – Chapter 5. Loyalist Demographics
44:46 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

10. Common Sense

This lecture focuses on the best-selling pamphlet of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, discussing Paine’s life and the events that led him to write his pamphlet. Published in January of 1776, it condemned monarchy as a bad form of government, and urged the colonies to declare independence and establish their own form of republican government. Its incendiary language and simple format made it popular throughout the colonies, helping to radicalize many Americans and pushing them to seriously consider the idea of declaring independence from Britain.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Voting on Voting
01:40 – Chapter 2. On Paine’s Burial
05:52 – Chapter 3. Colonial Mindset during the Second Continental Congress
12:28 – Chapter 4. Serendipity and Passion: The Early Life of Thomas Paine
21:53 – Chapter 5. Major Arguments and Rhetorical Styles in Common Sense
33:45 – Chapter 6. Common Sense’s Popularity and Founders’ Reactions
39:16 – Chapter 7. Social Impact of the Pamphlet and Conclusion

11. Independence

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Declaration of Independence and sets the document in its historical context. The Declaration was not the main focus of the Second Continental Congress, which was largely concerned with organizing the defensive war effort. The Congress had sent King George III the Olive Branch Petition in a last attempt at reconciliation in August 1775, but the King ignored the petition and declared the colonies to be in rebellion. Throughout the colonies, local communities began debating the issue of independence on their own, often at the instruction of their colonial legislatures, and these local declarations of independence contributed to the formal declaration of independence by the Continental Congress in July 1776. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by describing the decision to have Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Independence
03:38 – Chapter 2. Organizing for War during the Second Continental Congress
10:46 – Chapter 3. King George III’s Response to the Olive Branch Petition and the Release of Common Sense
18:01 – Chapter 4. The General Populace’s Thoughts on Cries for Independence
28:35 – Chapter 5. Debates on Drafting a Formal Declaration of Independence
39:33 – Chapter 6. Editing the Declaration and Conclusion

12. Civil War

Professor Freeman concludes the discussion of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was widely circulated and read aloud throughout the colonies. Professor Freeman argues that by 1775-1776, British and American citizens were operating under different assumptions about how the conflict between them could be resolved. The American colonists began to organize themselves for defensive measures against an aggressive British state. Meanwhile, the British assumed that the rebels were a minority group, and if they could suppress this radical minority through an impressive display of force, the rest of the colonists would submit to their governance again. Spring of 1775 saw the beginnings of military conflict between the British army and colonial militias, with fighting at Lexington, Concord, and Breed’s Hill. As a result, the colonists began to seriously consider the need for independence, and the Continental Congress began the process of organizing a war.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Editing Process of the Declaration of Independence
04:26 – Chapter 2. Short Cheers for Independence, Looming Plans for War
10:16 – Chapter 3. British Thoughts on Colonial Radicalism and Plans for Display of Force
19:19 – Chapter 4. The Symbolic Battle at Salem
25:07 – Chapter 5. The Conciliatory Resolution and Gunshots at Lexington and Concord
35:23 – Chapter 6. Changing British and Americans Opinions at Breed’s Hill
41:42 – Chapter 7. Congress’s Efforts to Organize War Efforts and Conclusion

13. Organizing a War

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses four difficulties that the Continental Congress faced in organizing the colonial war effort: regionalism, localism, the supply shortage that the Continental Army faced in providing for its troops, and the Continental Congress’s inexperience in organizing an army. The lecture concludes with a discussion of a Connecticut newspaper from July 1776.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Organizing a War
02:54 – Chapter 2. Regionalism in Leadership and Military Makeup: The Promotion of George Washington
21:50 – Chapter 3. Localism and Supply Shortages: Issues in Fighting for a National Cause and in Fighting with Proper Equipment
29:31 – Chapter 4. Continental Congress’s Inexperience in Organizing an Army
42:31 – Chapter 5. Snapshot of Early Communication in the States: The Connecticut Courant

14. Heroes and Villains

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses Benedict Arnold as a case study of the ways in which ideas about regionalism, social rank, and gender – and the realities of the Continental Congress and the Continental Army – played out in this period. Like many Americans during this period, Benedict Arnold thought that he could improve his social rank and reputation in the military, but he was unable to advance due to the Continental Congress’s policy on military promotions. Frustrated and facing mounting personal debts, he decided to aid the British in exchange for a reward. Arnold and his wife Peggy developed a plan for Arnold to smuggle American military plans to the British with the help of a young British soldier named John André. However, André was captured while smuggling Arnold’s papers and the plot quickly unraveled. In the end, Arnold fled; his wife played upon conventional stereotypes of women to avoid punishment; and André was executed but idealized in the process.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Complications within the Continental Congress
06:48 – Chapter 2. Opportunities for Social Mobility in the American Revolution
14:20 – Chapter 3. Benedict Arnold’s Early Frustrating Military Career
23:36 – Chapter 4. Arnold’s Marriage with Peggy Shippen and Plans for Spying
37:39 – Chapter 5. The Unraveling of Arnold’s Plot
44:17 – Chapter 6. An Example out of John Andre and the Fate of the Arnolds

15. Citizens and Choices: Experiencing the Revolution in New Haven

To show how Americans experienced the war and made difficult choices, Professor Freeman offers a spur-of-the-moment lecture on New Haven during the Revolution, discussing how Yale College students and New Haven townspeople gradually became caught up in the war. Warfare finally came to New Haven in July 1779 when the British army invaded the town. Professor Freeman draws on first-hand accounts to provide a narrative of the invasion of New Haven.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution in New Haven
06:16 – Chapter 2. Yale College as the Seedbed of Political Protest and its Relation with the New Haven Community
17:18 – Chapter 3. Diversity of Colonial Opinions at Yale and the Formation of New Haven Military Units
26:05 – Chapter 4. British Landing in New Haven and Yale’s Call to Arms
41:08 – Chapter 5. The Influence of the Revolution on Citizenship and Leadership in the Common Person

16. The Importance of George Washington

This lecture focuses on George Washington and the combined qualities that made him a key figure in Revolutionary America, arguing that the most crucial reason for his success as a national leader was that he proved repeatedly that he could be trusted with power – a vital quality in a nation fearful of the collapse of republican governance at the hands of a tyrant.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Importance of George Washington
03:36 – Chapter 2. The Many Merits of Washington from the Letters of Hamilton and Adams
15:42 – Chapter 3. Ingredients of the Washington Phenomenon: Self-Presentation, Fortune, and the Need for a King
25:07 – Chapter 4. Balancing Solemnity with Humility: Washington as the Reluctant Leader
30:13 – Chapter 5. Washington’s Symbolic Gestures as Commander-in-Chief of a Republican Army
43:08 – Chapter 6. Washington’s Legacy as a Leader

17. The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)

In this lecture, Professor Freeman explains the logic behind American and British military strategy during the early phases of the Revolution. First, she discusses the logistic disadvantages of the British during the war: the difficulties shipping men and supplies from more than three thousand miles away; the vast expanse of countryside with no one central target to attack; difficulties in recruiting British soldiers to fight in America; and the fact that the British faced a citizen army comprised of highly motivated soldiers who didn’t act in predictable ways. In addition, the British consistently underestimated the revolutionaries in America, and overestimated Loyalist support. Professor Freeman also discusses the four main phases of the Revolutionary War, differentiated by shifts in British strategy. During the earliest phase of the war, the British thought that a show of military force would quickly lead to reconciliation with the colonists. During the second phase, the British resolved to seize a major city – New York – in the hope that isolating New England from the rest of the colonies would end hostilities. By 1777, the war had entered its third phase, and the British set their sights on seizing Philadelphia and defeating George Washington. This phase ended with the Battle of Saratoga in late 1777.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
04:14 – Chapter 2. British Disadvantages in the War
10:39 – Chapter 3. British Assumptions of Citizen Armies and Loyalists
18:45 – Chapter 4. The First Phase: British Displays of Force
29:31 – Chapter 5. The Second Phase: Capturing New York
41:42 – Chapter 6. Third Phase: Defeating Washington and the Battle at Saratoga

18. Fighting the Revolution: The Big Picture

Today’s lecture concludes Professor Freeman’s discussion of the four phases of the Revolutionary War. America’s victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 marked the end of the third phase of the war, and led to a turning point in the conflict: France’s decision to recognize American independence and enter into an alliance with the fledging nation. Although the British made one final attempt at reconciliation in 1778 with the Conciliatory Propositions, they were rejected by the Continental Congress. The fourth and final phase of the war lasted from 1779 to 1781, as the British Army focused its attention on the American South. The British seized Charleston and South Carolina, and defeated the Continental Army in a series of battles. But with the help of the French fleet, Washington was able to defeat Cornwallis’s army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. Peace negotiations to end the Revolutionary War began in Paris in June of 1782.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution was Not Inevitable
04:46 – Chapter 2. Summary of the First Three Phases of the War
12:13 – Chapter 3. Franklin in Paris and France’s Recognition of America
21:20 – Chapter 4. The British Conciliatory Propositions and their Rejection
25:09 – Chapter 5. The Final Phase: Valley Forge and the American South
39:04 – Chapter 6. The French Impact on the War and Peace Negotiations in Paris
45:08 – Chapter 7. Victory, Independence, and Uncertainty

19. War and Society

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the experiences of African Americans, women, and Native Americans during the Revolution, framing her discussion within a larger historical debate over whether or not the Revolution was “radical.” Freeman ultimately concludes that while white American males improved their position in society as a result of the Revolution, women, African Americans, and Native Americans did not benefit in the same ways.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: War and Society
01:53 – Chapter 2. How Radical was the Revolution?
08:52 – Chapter 3. African Americans during the American Revolution: Issues on Fighting and Slavery
24:02 – Chapter 4. The Extent of Inclusion of Women in the Political Community
34:24 – Chapter 5. Native Americans’ Relations with the British and the Americans
41:34 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

20. Confederation

This lecture discusses the ongoing political experimentation involved in creating new constitutions for the new American states. Having declared independence from Great Britain, Americans had to determine what kind of government best suited their individual states as well as the nation at large; to many, this was the “whole object” of their revolutionary turmoil. Different people had different ideas about what kind of republican government would work best for their state. Should there be a unicameral or a bicameral legislature? How should political representation be organized and effected? How far should the principle of popular sovereignty be taken?

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Confederation
03:13 – Chapter 2. An Atmosphere of Experimentation with Governance
07:47 – Chapter 3. Congressional Encouragement of New State Constitutions
13:38 – Chapter 4. Adams’s Thoughts on Government: Support for Bicameral Legislature
20:12 – Chapter 5. Core Tenets and Ideas in the State Constitutions
32:30 – Chapter 6. The Development of the Articles of Confederation
41:31 – Chapter 7. Conclusion

21. A Union Without Power

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Articles of Confederation. Although they seem hopelessly weak in the long view of history, the Articles made perfect sense as a first stab at a national government by a people who deeply distrusted centralized power – a direct product of their recent experience of the British monarchy. Among the many issues that complicated the drafting of the Articles, three central issues included: how war debts to European nations would be divided among the states; whether western territories should be sold by the national government to pay for those debts; and how large and small states would compromise on representation. When a series of events – like Shays’ Rebellion – highlighted the weaknesses of the Articles, some Americans felt ready to consider a stronger national government.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: A Union Without Power
02:12 – Chapter 2. Representation, Taxation, Western Lands: Debates on the Articles of Confederation
10:03 – Chapter 3. The Immediate Effects of the Articles
17:15 – Chapter 4. Frail Foreign Relations, Weak Congress, Splitting States: Weaknesses in the Confederation in the 1780s
30:40 – Chapter 5. Shays’ Rebellion and Newbough Conspiracy: Their Impacts on Thoughts for a Stronger, National Government
40:02 – Chapter 6. How Can the States be United? Debates on the National Constitution

22. The Road to a Constitutional Convention

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses how the new nation moved towards creating a stronger, more centralized national government than the Articles of Confederation. Complications of commerce between individual states – a factor that wasn’t regulated by the Articles – led to a series of interstate gatherings, like the Mount Vernon Conference of March 1785. Some strong nationalists saw these meetings as an ideal opportunity to push towards revising the Articles of Confederation. Professor Freeman ends with a discussion of James Madison’s preparations for the Federal Convention, and the importance of his notes in understanding the process by which delegates drafted a new Constitution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Road to the Constitutional Convention
06:07 – Chapter 2. Complications of Interstate Commerce and the Mount Vernon Conference
13:11 – Chapter 3. Nationalist Hopes to the Revise the Articles of Confederation
23:29 – Chapter 4. Madison’s Historical Analyses of Republics and the Results of the Annapolis Convention
37:27 – Chapter 5. Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention

23. Creating a Constitution

Professor Freeman discusses the national debate over the proposed Constitution, arguing that in many ways, when Americans debated its ratification, they were debating the consequences and meaning of the Revolution. Some feared that a stronger, more centralized government would trample on the rights and liberties that had been won through warfare, pushing the new nation back into tyranny, monarchy, or aristocracy. The Federalist essays represented one particularly ambitious attempt to quash Anti-Federalist criticism of the Constitution. In the end, the Anti-Federalists did have one significant victory, securing a Bill of Rights to be added after the new Constitution had been ratified by the states.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Constitution was Not Inevitable
08:48 – Chapter 2. State Fears of Monarchy: Attendees of the Constitutional Convention
22:24 – Chapter 3. Initial Plans to Revise the Articles and Madison’s Virginia Plan
29:11 – Chapter 4. The New Jersey Plan and Hamilton’s Praise of British Governance
34:56 – Chapter 5. Debates on State Representation, Slavery, and the Executive Branch
44:44 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

24. Creating a Nation

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Creating a Nation
02:53 – Chapter 2. Difficulties in Ratifying the Constitution: Exchanges between Jefferson and Madison, and Ezra Stiles’s Diary
14:20 – Chapter 3. Debates on Balance of Power between Anti-Federalists and Federalists
22:32 – Chapter 4. In Defense of the Constitution: The Federalist Essays
28:54 – Chapter 5. The Anti-Federalists’ Push for Bill of Rights
36:04 – Chapter 6. General Consensus on Experimenting with Republican Government and Conclusion

25. Being an American: The Legacy of the Revolution

Professor Freeman discusses when we can consider a revolution to have ended, arguing that a revolution is finally complete when a new political regime gains general acceptance throughout society – and that, for this reason, it is the American citizenry who truly decided the fate and trajectory of the American Revolution. Yet, in deciding the meaning of the Revolution, the evolving popular memory of its meaning counts as well. Founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams frequently told younger Americans not to revere the Revolution and its leaders as demigods, insisting that future generations were just as capable, if not more so, of continuing and improving America’s experiment in government. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by suggesting that the ultimate lesson of the American Revolution is that America’s experiment in government was supposed to be an ongoing process; that the Revolution taught Americans that their political opinions and actions mattered a great deal – and that they still do.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The End of the Revolution
02:21 – Chapter 2. Change and Acceptance of Revolutionary Principles between the 1770s and 1790s
15:00 – Chapter 3. Gauging Change in Public Opinion and Acceptance of New Governance: Eyewitness Accounts
24:29 – Chapter 4. Reconstructing and Remembering the American Revolution: The Founders’ Reflections
39:27 – Chapter 5. Revolution Runs in the People: A Conclusion

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Townshend Act of 1767–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, European History, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Tax Policy | Tags: American history, Boston Massacre, history, The Townshend Acts of 1767, Videos |

The Townshend Acts of 1767

The Townshend Acts and the Boston Massacre

The Townshend Acts

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Stamp Act–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, European History, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: American history, Stamp Act 0f 1765, Videos |

Stamp Act Part 1

Stamp Act Part 2

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History-Royal Proclamation of 1763–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: American history, Colonial History, English History, history, Royal Proclamation of 1763, United Kiingdom, Videos |

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Sugar Act 1764–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, European History, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Links, media, People, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: American history, history, The Sugar Act of 1764, Videos |

The Sugar Act 1764

Background Articles and Videos

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Ronald Reagan on Communism in Hollywood–Glenn Beck on Communism in the White House–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Economics, Federal Government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: communism, Hollywood, Ronald Reagan, subversion, The Hollywood Ten, Videos |

Ronald Reagan on Communism in Hollywood

Communism in America

Barack Obama: The Marxist Communist in the White House

Why did the Liberal Media ignore Obama’s Marxist upbringing?

OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!! – CommieTunes – Episode 11 – Marxist / Socialist US President

Glenn Beck-McCarthy and the Venona papers

Dr John Drew Speaks on Young Marxist Obama – Part 1

Dr John Drew Speaks on Young Marxist Obama – Part 2

Dr. John Drew’s Speech on Young Barak Obama

Mark Levin: Obama is a Marxist

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt1

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt2

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt3

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt4

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt5

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt6

]

Background Articles and Videos

Committee On Un-American Activities

Are you a commie, or a citizen?

Red Nightmare – 1962 – Communist takeover of America

The Hollywood Ten (1950)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Flip Flops On Illegal Immigration and Fails To Enforce Immigration Law–Breaks Oath of Office–Back Door Amnesty–No More Years–Out Obama–Videos

Posted on June 15, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Education, Employment, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Back Door Amnesty, Barack Obama, illegal immigration, Legal Immigration, Mitt Romney, Oath of Office, Out Obama, President Obama, Rubio, rule of law, Rule of Men |

Obama Bribes Illegal Aliens for Votes – 6/15/2012

Flip

Flashback: President Obama says he has to use the legislative process to change immigration law

Flop

Obama: Young Illegals Are Americans In Every Way Except “On Paper”

Obama interrupted at ‘Dream Act’ speech

Should DREAM Students Believe Obama?

Charles Krauthammer calls Obama Lawless!

Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration

Watch President Obama’s Remarks on New Immigration Policy

Mitt Romney Responds to Obama’s New Immigration Policy, Suggests Voting Romney 2012 to Stop it!

Romney says immigration decision complicates issue

Rubio Discusses the DREAM Act, Romney’s Immigration Policy, and the Latino Vote

Romney’s stance on immigration issues

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2

2/23/12 Webcast – E-Verify Self Check

Background Articles and Videos

Support a Moratorium on All Immigration, Legal and Illegal

Obama Eases Deportation Rules – Obama halts deportations – immigration

Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Ambassador Alan Keyes on Stopping Illegal Immigration

Dr. Alan Keyes – “Obama is a Radical Communist – Will Destroy America!”

Obama Vs. Keyes: Christianity

Alan Keyes and Barack Obama speak about homosexuality

Jay Sekulow on Fox News Discussing Illegal Immigration at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reviews Arizona Immigration Law

Immigration law: an overview

“…Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.

By controlling the visa process, the federal government can achieve the goals of its immigration policies. There are two types of visas: immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visas. The government primarily issues nonimmigrant visas to tourists and temporary business visitors. The government divides nonimmigrant visas into eighteen different types, but for most types, does not impose a cap on the number that may be granted in a year. Only a few categories of non-immigrant visas allow their holders to work in the United States. Immigrant visas, on the other hand, permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and eventually to apply for citizenship. Aliens with immigrant visas can also work in the United States. Congress limits the quantity of immigrant visas, which numbered 675,000 in 1995. Many immigrant visas remain subject to per-country caps.

Early history of American immigration law

Congress’s first attempt to set immigration policy came in 1790 with the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1790. This Act restricted naturalization to “free white persons” of “good moral character” and required the applicant to have lived in the country for two years prior to becoming naturalized. In 1795 an amendment increased the residency requirement to five years. The five-year requirement remains on the books to this day.

Upon ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, all children born within the United States received citizenship at birth. In 1870 Congress broadened naturalization laws to allow African-Americans the right to become naturalized citizens. Asian Americans, however, did not receive such a right for many years. Xenophobia from an influx of Asians between 1850 and 1882 prompted Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted further Chinese immigration.

In 1921 Congress passed the Emergency Immigration Act, creating national immigration quotas, which gave way to the Immigration Act of 1924, capping the number of permissible immigrants from each country in a manner proportional to the number already living within the United States. The aggregate number from the eastern hemisphere could not eclipse 154,227 immigrants. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration essentially closed to the country to immigration essentially during the Great depression, drastically reducing the numbers per country that could enter the United States.

Modern immigration law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas. The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law. To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S. Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit. The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States. The IIRIRA eliminated the term “entry,” replacing it with “admission.” An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa. The IIRIRA also employs the term “arriving alien” to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS. The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism. Within the Department, three different agencies – U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – now handle the duties formerly held by the INS. Currently, the CBE handles the INS’s border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS’s deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and asylum seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants. Under the Refugee Act, the term “refugee” refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions. Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group. As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer. For refugees who have “firmly resettled” in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission. The government considers refugees “firmly resettled” if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States. The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear. A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test. The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality. Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning. The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deportation

Deportation refers to the official removal of an alien from the United States. The U.S. government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens admitted under the INA that commit an aggravated felony within the United States after being admitted. An alien’s failure to register a change of address renders the alien deportable, unless the failure resulted from an excusable circumstance or mistake. If the government determines that a particular alien gained entry into the country through the use of a falsified document or otherwise fraudulent means, the government has the grounds to deport.

Other common grounds for deportation include the following: aiding or encouraging another alien to enter the country illegally; engaging in marriage fraud to gain U.S. admission; participating in an activity that threatens the U.S.’s national security; voting unlawfully; and failing to update the government with a residential address every three months, regardless of whether the address has changed. The last of these policies served as the grounds for the government to deport 2,000 Pakistanis following the September 11th attacks.

If the government brings a proceeding for deportation because of fraud or falsification, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that alleged falsification or fraud occurred and that the falsification or fraud proved material to the granting of admission to the alien. Upon such a proof, the government has established a rebuttable presumption that the alien gained admission through material falsification or fraud. To rebut the presumption, the alien must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that admission would have been granted even without the falsification or fraud. …”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Immigration

Archive for June, 2012

American History–Pontaic Rebellion–Videos

Battle of Ste-Foy and Pontiac

American History-Royal Proclamation of 1763–Videos

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Pages

Email Subscription

Search

Blogroll

WordPress

Archive for June, 2012

EXPANDED UPDATED: July 5, 2012

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Tea Party Alert–Tax Revolt–March On Washington D.C.–Tea Party–July 4, 2012–Protest The Supreme Court Obamacare Decision–Repeal Obamacare’s Massive Tax Increase!–Economy Goes Into Recession–Unemployment Skyrockets–Obama Lied–The Economy Died–Videos

Full Text of Supreme Court Decision

Chief Justice John Roberts Comes Out of The Progressive Closet

Obama Goes Toe-To-Toe With Stephanopoulos On “Tax Increases”

Mitt Romney reacts to the health care ruling

Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax

Rush Limbaugh on fighting to defeat Obamacare

Outrage Over Judicial Activism and Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh on fighting to defeat Obamacare

Background Articles and Videos

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!

Mark Meckler on the Tea Party Movement

Judge Napolitano: “Individual Mandate Most Bizarre Tax in the History of the Country”

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare – Conservative Reaction Absurd

Obama reacts to health care supreme court ruling. 6/28/12

Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009

Who knew individual mandate was a tax? NOT Obama!

CNBC: Senator Rubio Comments on Supreme Court’s Decision on ObamaCare

The Meaning of Independence Day – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Obamacare and the Supreme Court with Richard Epstein and John Yoo

Obamacare Ruling May Be Bad News For Stressed Tax Code

Howard Gleckman, Contributor

A Vast New Taxing Power

The Chief Justice’s ObamaCare ruling is far from the check on Congress of right-left myth.

The Roberts Rules

The Chief Justice rewrites ObamaCare in order to save it.

Bachmann: Obamacare Likely Largest Middle Class Tax Hike Ever

Saylor HIST211: The Second Awakening and Antebellum Reform Pt. 1

Saylor HIST211: The Second Awakening and Antebellum Reform Pt. 2

President Martin Van Buren Biography

Andrew Jackson – 1 of 10

John Quincy Adams and the Corrupt Bargain

Election of 1824

The Presidents: Number 6: John Quincy Adams-Part 1

America’s Heritage: The Erie Canal (1957)

The Erie Canal – the Nation’s First Superhighway

National Road Museum Visit

National Road

Maryland’s Historic National Road

GBR: Matt Kibbe

Matt Kibbe – Hostile Takeover

Background Articles and Videos

Kibbe Previews “Hostile Takeover” Tea Party Book

UPDATED Septmeber 27, 2012

True Wireless TV Spot – Got Food Stamps? Get A Free Cell Phone Too!

Free Obama Cell Phones

4409 — OBAMA PHONE: Obama giving away FREE cellphones

The Battle of Lexington and Concord: America the Story of Us

Battle of Lexington

The Battle of Lexington

The Battle of Bunker Hill and Breed’s Hill

The Battle of Bunker Hill

Battle of Ste-Foy and Pontiac

Microsoft Surface – Keynote (Re-live the mystery)

Microsoft Surface Pro vs Surface RT

First Thoughts: Microsoft Surface Tablet

Microsoft Surface Tablet Specifications,Price and Photos – For Windows OS

Surface by Microsoft

Microsoft Surface Tablet Windows 8 – Hands on with Touch cover Keyboard – iPad Killer

Microsoft Surface Tablet – Windows RT / Windows 8

Microsoft Surface tablet release date, news and price