Jun 012012
 
SCOTUS Justices

Time flies!  It’s been nearly two whole months since my last post.  Please forgive me, dear readers, but since my last post I wrapped up law school and I am currently studying for the bar exam . . . no rest for the weary.  However, while I have not been blogging much, I have been thinking about a few things . . .

The subtitle of Wake Up Winston! is “the echoes of the 1930′s are stirring.”  Current events support this idea, including, among other things, the massive expansion of the United States government evidenced by the extent of GDP that the government spends (the highest since WWII), and tyrants threatening war and genocide.  So, with that in mind, I plan to produce posts that touch on some of these events, beginning with this one.  Accordingly, here are some musings, predictions, and whatnot regarding the coming SCOTUS decision on “Obamacare” and the coming Iran-caused Middle East crisis.

“Obamacare” and the United States Supreme Court

Predicting Supreme Court decisions is difficult, despite what goes on at oral argument, however, I predict that Obamacare’s mandate will go down in flames (metaphorically speaking) and will probably take the whole law with it.  Ultimately, there is no limiting principle that renders health insurance so unique that it would prevent the federal government from whimsically mandating American citizens to purchase any product.  On this point, even President Obama apparently agrees.

The Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)), but never has the government forced individuals to purchase a product to create a market that it can then regulate.  If the feds can do this, they can tell you what to eat.  Ain’t gonna happen.

Prediction: The decision will be at least 6-3 to overturn the mandate (and probably the whole law, but certainly the mandate).  At least one of the four liberal justices will vote to overturn the mandate.

Further prediction: The liberal justice(s) who joins the majority, will write his/her own opinion(s) in which they concur in the majority decision but reason that, while the United States may not nationalize health insurance/medical care under the commerce clause, it may do so pursuant to its taxing/spending power.  As a side note, while this may be a more legitimate constitutional argument then the commerce clause justification, it will require politicians selling it to the American people.  Remember “Hillarycare?”  Not bloody likely.

Israel and the Iranian Threat to Its Existence

Israel will likely launch a preemptive attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities this summer.  Israel has no choice but to do so because a nuclear Iran presents an existential, genocidal threat to the Jewish nation.

Israels’ raison d’ état is to provide a safe haven and protection for the Jewish people.  Political Zionism arose in 1894 in the wake of the “Dreyfus Affair,” which involved an innocent French military officer falsely accused of treason merely because he was a Jew.  Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, understood the prevalence and intractability of anti-Semitism and accordingly endeavored to establish “a secure haven, under public law, for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.”  In his 1896 book, Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Herzl wrote:

We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. . .

Since its modern incarnation, Israel has always acted to protect her people.  A few examples: In 1976, Israel successfully executed a daring raid in Uganda – 2,500 miles from Israel – to free 85 Jewish hostages from Arab terrorists.  Many of the 85 hostages were Israeli Jews, some were non-Israeli Jews (the hostages also included the Air France flight crew that bravely refused to abandon their passengers that were taken hostage).  In 1981, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, an action which was as widely condemned as it was right.  It is also widely-believed that, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria.

The Islamo-Fascist Iranian regime has long-voiced its desire to annihilate Israel.  Within the last month,  the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, reiterate that Israel’s destruction is Iran’s goal.  Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program for decades.  Israel is obligated to protect its citizens from this Iranian threat.  It is prudent to take genocidal tyrants at their word in these matters; history is littered with the grave consequences of not taking such threats seriously.

The Obama administration’s stance toward Israel is the most hostile since Jimmy Carter’s administration.  His reelection would put a great deal of pressure on Israel not to act.  However, in the midst of a political campaign for the presidency of a clearly pro-Israel country, Obama will reluctantly support Israeli action against Iran and, in the event that he is reelected, the president will not be able to walk back that support.  The GOP convention is the last week of August of this year.  The Democratic Party convention is the first week of September.  Only two months will stand between the Democratic convention and the election of our next president.  Time is short for Israel to take action.  When Jewish lives are at stake, Israel acts . . . as it must.  And it will.

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera