The Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-6

Insignificance & Inspiration

It is a lovely evening in the South and as I venture outside to enjoy the cool air and a clear sky full of bright stars that give me a peek into a distant past that only a time traveller could know, I get inspired to think of our small selves and how little we know about eternity.

We travel a time machine that warps the truth about existence. We think of ourselves as immeasurable to the importance of our awareness. The center of this vast universe exists only within our limited ability to understand what we glean from our senses. There is more than what we see, but we cannot see it. There's more to what we know, but we cannot know it. I am an insignificant pebble on a beach of a million billion pebbles, but I think of myself as all important.

I will live a short number of years compared to what the rocks and the sky and the sea will know. I'll believe in many things and accept little as definite truth. A pity, to be sure, but I must push on to believe that my time spent is spent well. We have too few chances to leave our inner selves open to inspection for our fellow men. Their chance to view our souls is only this brief moment and then the stars move on to cast their light on other worlds and other life, life that we cannot know.

As I return to my home and leave the world, and the stars, and the worlds that exist beyond, I feel the beauty of being inspired by their quiet presence that has fed my soul. Be open to wonder, to know what you cannot know, to see what cannot be seen, to understand how quickly the days go by.

Live today, and tomorrow, inspired.

The Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-5

Unprecedented, or untruthful?

President Obama is hitting the airwaves letting it be known that he will not be happy if the Supreme Court overturns his healthcare law. Just recently he made the following statement to the press: " Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

You have to wonder who he's talking to and if he even understands what he's saying. This coming, mind you, from a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

Let's dissect the statement, shall we?

First, is the word 'unprecedented.' As Prof. Obama should know there are several examples of precedent regarding the Court striking down legislation not in line with the Constitution. The most famous is the 1803 decision by the Court, articulated by the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, known as Marbury v Madison. This case set the standard which allowed the Court to implement judicial review. Any first year law student is familiar with this case and would site it as precedent for overturning the healthcare law.

A second case would be Schecther v US in 1935 which rendered FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. This case would have been well known to Prof. Obama, especially since he likes to compare himself in importance to FDR with respect to effecting, or transforming America to a more enlightened State.

Next we look to the "strong majority" he feels existed when the law was passed. The word strong would indicate something more than just barely enough votes, or what a person would consider a 'slim majority.' The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 60-39 with NO Republican votes. Now this could be considered 'strong' by count alone, but the fact that there were no Republicans voting for the bill begs the question as to it's true strength. The House of Representatives passed the law by a vote of 219-212. Once again, NO Republicans voted for the bill and in any event this certainly cannot be considered a 'strong majority.'

The last point is his reference is to a democratically elected Congress. Exactly what does this have to do with the Court's ability to review legislation produced by Congress? As stated previously, the Court has struck down legislation passed by a 'democratically elected Congress' and will continue to do so if necessary. The entire statement appears to be grandstanding to those not familiar with judicial review. Some commentators have referred to it as an attempt to bully the Court in not overturning the law, but I believe it involves more.

It is unthinkable that President Obama would not be aware of Supreme Court precedent in determining a law's constitutionality. The only logical explanation is that he knew what he said was not accurate. Are we looking at an individual who purposefully misstated the facts? Is President Obama playing to his base constituency in the hope that political pressure can be applied to the Supreme Court? The Court doesn't operate in a vacuum and those Justices he nominated, and we're appointed, to the Court could be especially susceptible to outside pressure.

When all is said and done I can only respond to the President's statement this way: Liar, liar, pants on fire. Intentionally misstating facts is, most decidedly, un-presidential. Start acting like an adult, Mr. President, and be a leader. Not a pseudo Constitutional Law professor who sounds ridiculous.

The Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-4

ObamaCare & judicial review

The United States Supreme Court began hearings yesterday on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care act, a.k.a. ObamaCare.

The first day consisted of listening to lawyers(now there's a dreadful thought) drone on about the 1867 anti-injunction law concerning taxing power etc., etc. I don't get a lot of it, but the basic argument is you can't hear a plaintiff's case if the law hasn't affected them yet. Since no one would be fined by not having health insurance until at least 2014, then the law can't be challenged until that time. Apparently, the Justices, including Kagan & Breyer, both considered liberal in their views, are having none of it and are willing to have the case proceed.

The real meat of the argument comes today when the mandate to purchase insurance is presented before the court. The Government will offer the opinion that a mandate is constitutional under the right of the legislature to regulate interstate commerce. The government claims that by not purchasing health insurance a burden would be placed on all other individuals in society to pay for individuals who do not have insurance. Costs would be borne by those who have insurance spread across the entire country, thereby affecting commerce. The plaintiffs(those suing to negate the law) argue that the legislature cannot compel individuals to take part in commerce. In other words, the government is compelling individuals to purchase a product whether they want to or not.

If the government wins, then ObamaCare remains intact. If the plaintiffs prevail, in whole, or in part, then ObamaCare will either be re-written or scrapped.

The more interesting point to be considered is what happens to the ability of the Supreme Court to enact judicial review should ObamaCare prevail.

Judicial review was first employed in the Supreme Court case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. What made this case revolutionary was the fact that the Constitution does not mention judicial review as a legitimate function of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was able to use this tactic through some skillful wording and political gamesmanship. After all, if the Court says something can be reviewed can Congress overrule the Court? It might be possible, but Congress has never attempted to do so.

In any event, if the Court upholds ObamaCare, and individuals will be forced to take part in commerce, then what is to stop the Congress from forcing people to purchase a certain vehicle, or purchase a certain kind of house, or, to purchase ANYTHING that Congress deems necessary that applies to a proper regulation of commerce? The logical extension of this thinking is that contesting these laws would no longer be possible. In essence, the United States Supreme Court, with respect to any question regarding commerce, would be out of a job. Judicial review, for all intents and purposes, would be dead.

Interesting question, n'est pas?

The answer as to whether we become wards of the state will be answered in June, when the Court renders its decision. Our basic freedoms as citizens will either stand or fall. Good luck, America.

The Pete Morin EDitorial Review 2012-3

A Nation worth saving

Tonight on the Mark Levin radio talk show, Mark will ask his callers to respond to whether or not the United States of America can be returned to a Constitutional Republic; in essence, can it be saved from Progressives, Liberalism and ultimately, Socialism.

I've thought long and hard about this question and have written many articles extolling the virtues of a free economy in a Constitutional Republic along with a genuine reading of the Constitution as the Founders intended. This last statement carries with it the usual opprobrium from leftists that the Founders could not have foreseen the problems facing America in the 21st century, and therefore, a more relaxed reading of the document offers us the best hope to contend with such problems.

OF COURSE THEY COULDN'T FORESEE SUCH PROBLEMS. ANY SUCH ATTEMPT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OFF AS NONSENSICAL!

The Founders didn't write a document especially for their time, but a document they intended to explain what, and how, a government should interact with the citizenry. It was a compact, if you will, between the power of the State and the people who would invest it with such a power. It was NEVER intended to answer any pressing social questions, either then, or in the future. It's content and genius was born of the ideal of Federalism; i.e. most governing would take place at the State, or local, level. The more serious points of debt repayment to the States and making commerce 'regular' would be the extreme points to be argued. It even left slavery to be settled by future generations with the importing of slaves being the only point garnering mutual agreement.

But back to the original statement at the beginning of the post.

I believe we have reached a tipping point, if you will, where a majority of Americans re lie on government handouts for their daily sustenance. I'm there myself, having received my first social security check this month. I have to admit that it felt good, but I also know where it comes from; not from some beneficent government concerned with my welfare, but from hard working people contributing from their well earned paychecks. As a matter of jocularity, I remind my nieces and nephews to work hard since I expect the payments to continue. It is no laughing matter, however, that future generations will be expected to pay all bills remitted to them.

And so it is that we are now a handout nation, a majority looking for easy street through a future of toil and sweat from those yet unborn. Liberals have their new Constitution today and will remake it again tomorrow to address a new set of social questions. The roles of the dependents will increase, and freedom , self reliance and limited government will wilt and die.

"What kind of government do we have Mr. Franklin." His answer should have been," a Republic, but I doubt you'll keep it."

The Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-2

A Ward of the State

In approximately three weeks something new, and different, will happen to me; I officially become a ward of the state! At the end of February I will receive my first social security check. When I started paying into the 'trust fund' almost fifty years ago the thought of actually receiving this money never really occurred to me. Now it's about to happen and I couldn't be more proud to proclaim that I am now affiliated with the trough feeders that support the Democrat Party.

Let me be very clear about something--you hard working productive members of society better keep your noses to the grindstone so I can maintain the lifestyle that I'm accustomed to. I won't brook any more talk of downsizing government, or making cuts in retirement programs. No sir, no more ridiculous nonsense about cutting social security, or Medicare. I won't listen to any 'conservative' who champions the idea of fiscal restraint. I want my money and I want it now!!

Thank God for the progressives of the Democratic party. Thank God for all the liberals who stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are concerned only for welfare of our fellow Americans. Those mean, dastardly Republicans lead by their out of touch conservative talk show radio hosts and their lackeys in Congress should be ashamed of what they're trying to do to the poor and dependent people struggling to get by in this terrible capitalist environment. Long live the Democrat Party! Long live Progressives who strengthened our future by providing us with security!

Ain't it great to be a 'Ward of the State.'

Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-1

Southern Exposure

Man, it's been tough trying to find things to write about. Especially when you have all day, everyday to think about a world spinning out of control.

October 1, 2011 saw a new era in my life as I gave up the world of work. Retirement has been a blessing and a curse. I told myself I would do NOTHING for at least 6 months and I am now in my 4th month of nothingness. The only thing that has remained a constant is my writers block. I could write about politics, but it remains as stupid a profession that it has ever been. President Obama continues on his road to be placed at the head of the class with respect to political dunces; the Republican Congress continues to play into his very capable community organizing hands; Democrats continue to be irresponsible numb skulls. But other than these minor issues, all has changed.

I now reside in Richmond Hill, GA amid the land of eternal sunshine and warm breezes. Along with the copious amounts of warmth I sit astride a new toy designed for pleasure cruising; Honda VT750C Shadow Aero motorcycle will grace the back roads of Bryan County and provide a getaway from a troubled world. Sue hates it, but accepts it as a sign of an aging boomer intent upon a simple pleasure to pass the time.

Anyway, perhaps this mental block will pass. At least enough to give me good things to write (if I can only get up the nerve to clear my head). So, here I go--put your helmet on and join me on the road; the road to fresh thoughts and a warm breeze grazing the windscreen.

Thoughts of Summer

I wrote this little piece about 20 years ago and didn't want to have it disappear, so, here it is.

Summer

Summer turns its warm breath on me
A chance to see her revelry.
Summer plays its games untold
A time to see the leaves unfold

Summer haunts my distant past
Straining cracks in a schooner's mast.
Summer hurls her bolts at me
A time to feel the revelry.

Summer can give, but also take,
Of fresh corn and love to make.
Summer lights my heart a fire
Of which my mind will never tire.