I was planning two specific posts for today and tomorrow, when the above headline caught my eye. I bring that article to you now, from MediaIte.com:
by Noah Rothman
During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.
Apparently one person, named Michael Cannon, seems to “get it.” Continuing:
On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.
“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
And, in concert with Lincoln, JFK said:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Mr Cannon’s most important sentence:
“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”
I have written, essentially, the same thing before on this very blog, but with regard to illegal immigration. Now, we have the additional issue of ObamaKare.
Michael F. Cannon is the Director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute think tank. Check their site here.
Do you believe that? If Obama fired Sebelius, he would have to nominate a new HHS secretary to be confirmed by the Senate. The confirmation hearings would be a “bloodbath.” And all the powers of the ACA would fall to her. Except now? It is a filibuster-LESS Senate. 51 votes.
Unpacking Mr Cannon’s words from above: as I wrote a number of times earlier with regard to illegal immigrants and the government’s decision to NOT enforce laws on the books –
If the government can decide to avoid and disregard its own laws — essentially picking and choosing which laws it wishes to enforce (without eliminating those laws statutorily) — then what keeps any other actual citizen from deciding to pick and choose which laws he or she wishes to obey when they become inconvenient?
If Mr Obama disregards the law, then why should Americans keep the law?
You tell me.