Defending the Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & the American Constitution
Wednesday October 1st 2014

Self-Educated Man


lincoln family bible study


Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion


Federalist 58 by James Madison. 1. Under the proposed Constitution whose interests were represented by the U.S. Senate? Is it so today? If not, how might it be remedied & by what means? 2. How did the Constitution provide for updating representation in Congress? 3. Madison credits the U.S Constitution with assigning the greatest power, that of the “purse strings” to the U.S. House. In your opinion, how might the House assert that power to reduce the size & cost of government today? 4. Explain in your own words Madison’s warning against too many men serving in the House. How might his warning be applied today as calls abound for a more direct democracy & for scrapping the electoral college system? 5. Is democracy the form of government our Founders gave us or was it a republican form? Explain the difference.


TML is syndicated by:

Google News (Internet)

Newstex - No. 1 Rated Authoritative Content

High Court May Strike Down Healthcare Reform Law

OBAMACARE, NEWSROOM AMERICA

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to strike down all or part of President Obama’s highly controversial healthcare reform law, as questions posed to government lawyers by the court’s conservative justices seemed to indicate they were at least leaning towards rejecting the individual mandate provision, the law’s most important requirement.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the court’s conservative justices appeared to conclude that the 2,700-page law must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

In agreeing with his colleague, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down, the paper said.

Liberal justices on the court, meanwhile, argued for restraint, opting to “salvage” the law rather than scrap it entirely. Led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, they said the court should not conduct a “wrecking operation” on the law.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they agreed with Kennedy and Scalia that the law should stand or fall in total. If Justice Clarence Thomas were to agree, the paper said, that would mean the majority would likely vote to strike down the entire law as unconstitutional.

Edwin Kneedler, an administration lawyer, urged restraint, pointing out that because of the law, about 2.6 million people under the age of 26 are currently on their parents’ insurance. Striking down the entire law would mean “2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls.”


Copyright @ 2012 Newsroom America.