As the new year begins, everyone's attention is intently focused on the 2012 elections this fall and the direction of the nation. But while we parse the primaries and assess the candidates, there is another battle about to take place in this nation's highest court that is just as vital.
They are two cases set to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in the early part of this year, and the outcome of both will determine whether we are a cohesive country of laws or whether we are a divided states that would like to make up our own rules as we go along. It is the ultimate test for many of the rights we garnered throughout the decades, and the results of these rulings will directly impact each and every one of us as Americans and the values that we hold so dearly. The two pertinent cases involve Obama's health care reform legislation and the federal government's ability to supersede states when it comes to the notion of immigration.
By taking these two issues to the Supreme Court, some conservatives are making a feeble attempt to undo many of our civil liberties, but we, the people, refuse to stay silent. They may think they're slick, but guess what, Republicans, we know your games all too well.
On March 26th, my organization, National Action Network, will be rallying in front of the Supreme Court as it begins hearings on the ability of the federal government to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. While this is merely politics for a Party struggling for relevance in an increasingly diverse nation, this case and health care reform are no laughing matter to millions of Americans living with little to no coverage. More than 2.5 million adults younger than 26 have already been able to stay on their parents' insurance plan, and millions of children with pre-existing conditions have not been denied coverage thanks to this Affordable Care Act. In essence, that is what this legislation is all about -- creating affordable options. It is the ability of millions of Americans to purchase insurance coverage at reasonable rates at a time when so many are either unemployed, underemployed or simply losing benefits as their employers cut costs.
Perhaps those pushing for an end to this health care reform bill have never felt the pain of deciding whether to take a young child to the doctor or buy groceries to put food on the table. Maybe they don't know the anguish of watching loved ones suffer because you can't afford the right medication or the necessary treatment that could possibly save his/her life. Too busy conjuring up politically divisive terms like "Obamacare," many on the extreme right have attempted to hide the tremendous benefits of this program that begins to rectify an unfair health care system. There is no reason why in the most powerful nation on Earth so many of its citizens are living without proper health care. As the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act reaches the Supreme Court, we will be there letting our collective voices be heard. Be sure to join us on March 26th.
The other case sadly finding its way to the Supreme Court this year is the regressive attempt by Republican-led states to enforce blatantly racist immigration laws. After Attorney General Eric Holder led the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona's SB 1070 immigration bill, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked much of the AZ law from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her decision in a 2-1 vote. Still unable to accept these rulings, AZ Gov. Jan Brewar is now taking the issue to the Supreme Court, as she and other harsh immigration law proponents are screaming states' rights and denouncing the federal government. Last time I checked, the federal government trumped states' rights -- and good thing they did or else we would still be sitting in "separate but equal" facilities, and still be barred from participating in much of society. With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, we all need to pay extra attention to their findings and their rulings scheduled for later this year. And with Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself from this case, and with Justices Thomas and Scalia not recusing themselves from the health care case, we must wake up and see the bigger the picture.
Make no mistake, these two Supreme Court cases are clear attempts to diminish our federal government and lay the groundwork to give states more authority to do as they please. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it was the federal government that enforced the Civil Rights Act of '64, and it was the federal government that ended open discriminatory practices throughout the country. Without federal laws ensuring that varying states couldn't ignore progressive regulation, women and people of color would not have many of the civil liberties we cherish today. These two Supreme Court cases are an attempt by some to slowly undo the very foundation of justice and equality in the country. They are an attempt to slowly reverse the Civil Rights Act and eliminate everything we have so consistently fought to attain.
Join us on March 26th as we begin our rally in front of the Supreme Court to show our support for health care reform. As we diligently monitor both pertinent cases, and all rulings that emerge, we will be planning more action throughout the year. This may just be politics to those seeking a victory in Nov., but it is our lives and our children's lives they are holding in the balance. Democracy is the ability of everyone to have a voice, and to have an opportunity to dictate what they want their future to look like. Make sure yours is heard.
Follow Rev. Al Sharpton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheRevAl
Almost correct, but not quit right Al. The States already have nearly unlimited authority to "do as they please" as recognized by the 10th Amendment. These cases are simply an effort to enforce the balance of powers between the Feds and the States as enshrined in the Constitution. The Fed have been over-reaching its enumerated powers for decades. The tide is turning.
Our Constitutional system establishes a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. It reserves the balance of power to the States, including the general police power. Sharpton knows this full well, but you never hear him address this simple, yet dispositive, constitutional issue. Why is that?
Regardless of Sharpton's unwillingness and apparant inability to meet this issue head on, the Supremes WILL engage the issue and decide it in accordance with the Constitution.
That's how it works and hat's how it will be, despite the Left's anticipatory angst in the interim.
What we need is an internet site where you can compare all insurance programs apples-to-apples and find the best policy for you. The entrepreneur who sets up this site will be immediately vaulted into the 1% with everyone's blessing.
Healthcare is almost a monopoly, controlled by a limited number of businesses and supported by a legion of government regulations and protected by law suits that have boosted the cost of malpractice insurance so high that the independent health care small businesses can no longer survive.
Big Business loves Big Government and the monopoly that Big Government can grant with over-regulation. With ObamaCare healthcare is regulated with a legion of bureaucrats, all of whom must be paid. Why is this assumed to make healthcare less expensive?
Just try to get cheap health care coverage that only covers preventative care and hook it in with a catastrophic insurance policy for severe illness. It cannot be done. Every state has regulations that require you to have many types of coverage you do not need called "mandates".
Remember the old Family Doctor who made house calls and lived up the street? Such individuals have been sued out of existence. And restrictions on how many medical doctors can be trained each year and the training cost limits the number of new doctors to keep wages high. It is a tragedy that healthcare is a business so thoroughly messed up by the politicians and protectionists that the incompetence of government control actually begins to look appealing.
The Patriot Act was bad enough, the NDAA sealed the deal. Amazing there's been no real outcry in the media about it.
For those who still believe it does not apply to US citizens - ask yourself why Obama himself said his administration wouldn't use the power? Or perhaps the words of a professor at Georgetown University of Law might help -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR7aIzII5LU&feature=youtu.be
Some chilling predictions made in 2002 that have become reality -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtu.be
According to the Pew Center the jobs where Illegal Immigrant Workers are most prevalent in the USA are Farming, Construction, Transportation and Material Moving, Food Service, and Cleaning. By their very definition these jobs are and always will be American Jobs. NONE can be outsourced. For example, try out-sourcing the construction of buildings to China. Buildings are really hard to air or ocean ship once they are built. Try harvesting American crops, mining American ore, preparing American food, cleaning American buildings, or moving goods in America with workers living in China or India or even Mexico. It cannot be done.
From 1979 when there were few Illegal Immigrants in the USA to prerecession 2006 when there were many, real wages for Construction Workers fell 11%, for Material Moving Worker real pay fell 13%, Meat Worker pay has fallen 22%, and Farm Labor Workers now earn less than Parking Lot Attendants. Why no tears for these impoverished Americans?
Illegal immigration replaces USA Workers on USA soil in jobs that can NEVER be outsourced with cheap illegal labor. That makes illegal immigration supporters facilitators of exploitation.
There is value in leadership, and there is no leadership value in the incumbent.
As the POTUS has said many times: any state which opts to refrain from the law may do so so long as they cover as many people and conditions as the current law covers within the state.
SO WHERE IS THE PROBLEM???
The cohesive country of laws applies to all the lowly citizens who are expected to abide by them and be incarcerated when we don't.
The divided states also apply to all the lowly citizens who are expected to remain divided so as to be controlled.
Now what you left out was the Privileged Few; this applies to all of about 1% who have what is called estate money. Money handed down through the generations that is expected to keep control of the divided states and set laws for the cohesive portion of the country to follow.
Do you know you are lying or is it pathological?
:-)
That’s right Reverend. You would think this one has already been decided. Precedence has already been established here. But we know the right wingers will proclaim up is down day is night and 5 cents is equal to 5 dollars if it means they get what they want and deny others the benefits of the truth.
I reject this notion of ” states rights” in all but a miniscule amount of cases. It is a dysfunctional situation in which a gay married couple are married in Massachusetts but are less than human in Alabama. Or that .005% Mercury is allowed in clean water sources in Illinois but .5% is allowed in Mississippi. Or that there are almost no protections on coal miners in WV but far more in PA and even farther more in Canada.
There are some thing’s that are simply right or wrong. False equivalence should not be a factor. To the point that they are, we are as you say, a nation of Divided States. That’s a status that is still crazy, after all these years.
Nothing could have been more disparate than the regional core beliefs when the Constitution was adopted. That was the whole point of the 10th Amendment, without which we would be several countries today rather than a gaggle of squabbling states. The residents of various regions would never stand for ultimate federal power and would have split up somewhere around 1810.
States do have rights--any not specifically awarded to the federal government in the Constitution, which in theory leaves states a great deal of leeway. In practice Washington has been on a 222 year mission to amass as much power as possible. Many think this trend needs to be speedily reversed.
Thusly it is written. But this is a matter the federal Government leaving some common sense to the states and assuming they have it. The framers did not want to sit down to iron-handedly write down EVERY single possible, imaginable and unimaginable law. That would in deed present an authoritarian tendency.
“ In practice Washington has been on a 222 year mission to amass as much power as possible. Many think this trend needs to be speedily reversed”
In history people with power like to both keep and expand it. 222 years is a long time to sit with your legs crossed? But this is why government is made up of “we the people” or should be more representative of such. Your opinion of the federal government is a valid concern. However it is also devoid of balance with regards to runaway state governments like in the civil right era Or corporate own state legislatures like WV.
The only part of your half-truth and Straw Man Argument ladden rant that was true is "There are some thing’s that are simply right or wrong." The APA says that is not true though. So you disagree with the APA I guess.
:-)