Sunday, October 13, 2013

Obama Administration Proposes 2,300-Page ‘New Constitution’ (Parody)

Obama Administration Proposes 2,300-Page ‘New Constitution’

by CHARLES HUGH SMITH
The U.S. Constitution leaves too many areas open to interpretation; a New Constituion of 2,300 pages (+ 200 redacted secret pages) is the solution.
The Obama Administration has proposed replacing the current U.S. Constitution (4,543 words, including the signatures) with a 2,300-page "new Constitution" that in the words of an administration spokesperson, "clears up the gray areas in the current Constitution."
The proposal was launched after the success of two recent 1,000+ page pieces of legislation, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.
An additional 200+ pages of the "new Constitution" are redacted due to the sensitive nature of the National Security-related amendments.
Lobbyists from key industries were invited to contribute amendments to the new Constitution;" constitutional legal experts were also invited to submit improvements to the current law of the land.
Some critics who have reviewed the 2,300 pages of the proposed "new Constitution" have stated that the document is impenetrable even to those with law degrees. Average citizens "will be unable to understand the laws that govern their lives."
Other observers note that the complexity and length of legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act are already beyond the comprehension of all but a handful of experts.
An administration spokesperson defended the proposed re-write on the grounds that "the new Constitution will provide the clarity that people want in their Constitution."

source:  http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct13/constitution-parody10-13.html

Obamacare: the 2,300-page monstrosity

The most important six hours of recent American history will start to unfold on Monday. That day, the Supreme Court begins three days of oral argument on the legal challenge to President Barack Obama's health care reform law ("Obamacare").
The Court's decision will have a profound impact on the quality of American health care. The political repercussions will be equally strong: The decision will either reinvigorate an Obama campaign looking to make good on its signature legislative initiative or fuel a united Republican counterattack along the lines of, "We told you so."
Casual observers may not realize there are 26 states and one business organization (The National Federation of Independent Business) acting as plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Separate suits (representing constitutional challenges to the law's requirement that individuals purchase insurance) have been filed by the state of Virginia, Liberty University, and the Thomas Mann Center. Numerous other court challenges have been dismissed, mostly on procedural grounds.
The political stakes are high and trending Republican: Obamacare's myriad complexities and federal overreach was the rallying cry of a midterm election cycle that saw Democrats lose their House majority and six net Senate seats. More recent polling reflects equally ominous news for the president. A February USA Today/Gallup Poll showed 53 percent of voters in swing states viewed Obamacare as a "bad thing." Only 38 percent of respondents approved. Among independents, the news was even worse: 35 percent said the law makes them less likely to support the president's re-election, as opposed to 16 percent who said it makes them more likely. Recall that substantial GOP gains among independents fueled the 2010 midterms.
My next 50 columns could be taken up with political analysis surrounding this 2,300-page monstrosity. Recall then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plea "to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"? The good news: I will not devote my remaining 2012 columns to such a task. The bad news: You may not be so pleased to read what the president and congressional leadership blithely did to the health care consumer in the name of "reform."
With regard to process, let me assure you the average member of Congress did not follow the daily drafting process in great detail. The consumption and interpretation of 2,300 pages of constantly changing, arcane policy language is indeed a Herculean task. Most relied on "talking points memos" issued by the respective caucus staffs or bill writing committees. Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi's inartful comment failed to convey a sense of order and competence rightfully expected by the general public.
Another bit of procedural news: The law's more than 700 pages of individual directives have already spawned 2,163,744 words (Fox News describes the volume as 21/2 times the size of the Bible) of regulatory interpretation (as of May) from federal agencies, mostly the Department of Health and Human Services. In other words, Obamacare is bureaucratic heaven on Earth; its regulations will be issued (and become the subject of countless lawsuits) for decades to come. This, of course, is one of the primary attractions for Obamacare's advocates, as federal health care policy gradually becomes more a function of government dictate than market-generated demand.
Alas, Obamacare dictates are not meant for all, especially those labor unions that were candidate Obama's most vociferous supporters in 2008. Indeed, the Obama administration had granted 1,231 waivers of participation as of January, when political pressure finally ground the waiver mill to a halt. Labor unions received fully 50 percent of the administration's largesse, a revealing fact in light of organized labor's enthusiasm for the bill. Two further anomalies: Nearly 20 percent of the waivers approved in April, 2011, emanated from former Speaker Pelosi's district, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a waiver for all insurers operating in the individual market in the entire state of Nevada.


Indeed, it would be the ultimate “fundamental transformation” Obama promised at the beginning of his presidency.
Related: 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)