![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaConstitutionObamacare.jpg\"\/)
The Politico headline: “A Hugely Consequential Week.” This week is about who and what we are as a country. I saw the other day Politico\u2019s losing readership. It doesn\u2019t surprise me. You want consequential? Let me give you consequential. Try asking these questions. What will the commerce clause mean after this week? Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law, and if we don\u2019t, to be subjected to fines and imprisonment? That\u2019s pretty consequential to me. If the federal government will be granted that power. And, by the way, I don\u2019t say this jocularly.<\/p>\n
If we have laws on the books that the federal government\u2019s not gonna enforce regarding immigration, why should election law be enforced? No, no, no, seriously. We\u2019ve got precedent, folks, from this administration. We have it. DOMA, immigration law, any number of other instances. What if Obama decides that the 22nd Amendment\u2019s no longer relevant, limiting presidents to two terms? What if he just decides it\u2019s not relevant anymore, that that\u2019s part of this antiquated constitution, doesn\u2019t take into account the will of the people. Well, I think it\u2019s worth throwing out. You might say, “Come on, Rush, there\u2019s no way Obama would ever dispense with elections.”<\/p>\n
Yeah, there\u2019s no way Obama would ever not enforce immigration law. There\u2019s no way Obama would ignore the Constitution and just write a health care law that basically pees all over it. No way, Obama wouldn\u2019t do any of that, Democrat Party, no, they respect the rule, they wouldn\u2019t do anything like that. No, of course they wouldn\u2019t. Why should civil rights laws be enforced? Once you start cherry-picking these things and once the laws you enforce or don\u2019t enforce strictly because whether you like \u2019em or not, what if we started obeying laws on that basis or not? If the president of the United States can choose to enforce or not enforce law because he likes them or doesn\u2019t like them, what about us? What if we disagree with the speeding law? What if we disagree with the driving while drinking law? What if we disagree with the drug laws?<\/p>\n
Mr. President, I don\u2019t like that law. I don\u2019t like the law that says I can\u2019t smoke all the marijuana I want. Screw you. Well, we know what would happen to us. We don\u2019t have the ability to choose which laws we obey or not, without consequence. He does. The only consequence for him is at the ballot box. It\u2019s the only consequence he faces. And that\u2019s once every four years. Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law? Will we have private health care in five years if Obamacare is upheld? Who will be the first American negatively affected by a death panel?<\/p>\n
There was story last week out of the UK that\u2019s its been discovered — shouldn\u2019t be a surprise — that the health system, national health, whatever they call their health care system in Great Britain, 130,000 people are dying every year simply because they\u2019re not being treated. It\u2019s a form of euthanasia. They already have the death panels. It\u2019s the doctors. Cost control. Exactly right. They just determine, “That patient, no prayer, unplug \u2019em. Tell the family that we did everything we could.” “Thank you, doctor.” “Any time.” One hundred and thirty thousand times, I think is what I read. What if we don\u2019t like paying income tax? ‘Cause frankly I hate it. What if I just decide, screw it? Well, what happens is they come after me \u2019til they get me. I\u2019ll be sitting next to Wesley Snipes, wherever he is, with Nicholas Cage due in soon. Well, it\u2019s what\u2019s happening.<\/p>\n
The New York Times has a story here: “Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law\u2019s Legal Risks.” Peter Baker, came out on Saturday. “Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law\u2019s Legal Risks.” Just one of at least a dozen articles in the mainstream press over the weekend that are second-guessing Obama\u2019s legal strategy in defending Obamacare if it loses. And this piece from the Times is in their second-column lead, which, even The Politico notes is unusual for a nonbreaking story. This is all anticipating losing health care. Oh, no, what\u2019s Obama gonna do? Oh, no what are Obama\u2019s supporters gonna do? Oh, no, Obama\u2019s supporters are slow to grasp the legal risks.<\/p>\n
In a nutshell, the New York Times is claiming that nobody ever questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare because it\u2019s so constitutional, even Pelosi sees it as Constitution. Now, what the Times is doing in their story from Saturday, they\u2019re pushing the Kardashian regime talking point, and the only problem is that nobody imagined how activist the conservatives on the court would be. That\u2019s right, when they were sitting down to write Obamacare, they never thought about whether or not it was constitutional. They arrived at that late after oral argument \u2019cause they didn\u2019t think that the right wing had gone that nutcase, until they heard oral arguments. And now, according to the New York Times, Obama\u2019s supporters are not prepared, \u2019cause they knew their law was constitutional. Now we\u2019re gonna have a bunch of fruitcakes on the right that might say it isn\u2019t. And poor old Obama and his supporters aren\u2019t ready for this. So, as I say, numerous articles like this, where they are wringing their hands.<\/p>\n
Audio sound bite. Grab number seven. It\u2019s Jan Crawford, the former Jan Crawford Greenburg (as you might know her). She\u2019s at CBS News. She was on CBS This Morning. She had a report about the possibility the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare. Charlie Rose said, “Jan (panting), if the Supreme Court does say it\u2019s unconstitutional in part or whole, who are the winners and the losers?”<\/p>\n
CRAWFORD: No one really agrees. There are a lot of people who say, and I mean Republicans who say this, that while it would be a humiliating defeat for the president — his signature legislation; he\u2019s a constitutional law scholar — if the court repudiated this law that he staked his first term on, it also wouldn\u2019t be so great for Mitt Romney either. Remember, Romney has campaigned against this law. He\u2019s saying that he\u2019s the only thing that stands between Americans and socialized medicine. So not really a clear call on who this would benefit.<\/p>\n
RUSH: What?<\/p>\n
What?<\/p>\n
What about the American people?<\/p>\n
If Romney has said he\u2019s the only guy that stands between Americans and socialized medicine and the law\u2019s struck down, how is that not a win for Romney? Because it is socialized medicine! And what good is Obama being “a constitutional law scholar” when he cherry-picks it? He\u2019s a constitutional law scholar who taught people how to get around it! That\u2019s what he\u2019s good at. (impression) “Thaaaat\u2019s right. All you gotta do is be elected and then pick and choose what you like. It\u2019s easy!” That\u2019s all you gotta do.<\/p>\n
Obamacare loss bad for Romney? “Oh, it\u2019s bad for everybody!” No, it\u2019s not bad. It would be a day of celebration. You know we had a call on Friday. We had a call here. Who was it? Boehner on Thursday said they were not gonna spike the football if they won. I said we can do that if he want, but I encourage people to celebrate. We don\u2019t get to celebrate liberty much anymore. I said go for it. And there were stories over the weekend about how out of touch I am. That was not good for me to say that. That was tantamount to throwing raw meat to a bunch of be savages.<\/p>\n
I kid you not.<\/p>\n
“Limbaugh Ginning up Fears!” or whatever the hell it was. Constitutional law scholar? Give me a break! Can these people really be this stupid? Ignorant, I mean. Are they really this uninformed? I guess so. Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico was on Meet the Press on Sunday. They were having a discussion about the possibility the court overturning the health care reform law. Liberals are paranoid, folks. That was before this morning. They\u2019re paranoid. They\u2019re going off oral arguments. They\u2019re paranoid. Here\u2019s what Richardson said…<\/p>\n
RICHARDSON: I think it\u2019s a huge defeat if the Supreme Court moves forward to strike any part down, even just the individual mandate, for the American people. Just this week several million kids got their health insurance. I think there\u2019s gonna be a — a real uproar against a politicized Supreme Court. You know, here they\u2019re making political decisions. This is a clear constitutional issue. The interstate commerce clause or the Congress dictates that this can happen. It\u2019s gonna energize the Democratic base, and that is important.<\/p>\n
RUSH: I\u2019ll tell you what\u2019s gonna energize the base. The Supreme Court decision today is what\u2019s gonna energize the base. This Supreme Court decision this morning is gonna guarantee even more Republican turnout in November. You wait! What do you mean, “politicized court,” governor? The political class has turned every controversial decision over to the Supreme Court! They don\u2019t want the final result in their lap. This is exactly… Folks, it\u2019s exactly what I told you they would say: A bunch of Republicans on the court are taking your health care away.<\/p>\n
Look, he just said it. “Just this week several million kids got their health insurance.” Just this week! O\u2019Lordy! Just this week, just this week, several kids got care! You see \u2019em there playing in the dust, eating in the dirt? They\u2019re so poor, these scrounging lizards (sobbing), and just this week they got their health care. And here comes the Supreme Court to strip it away!<\/p>\n
That\u2019s exactly what they\u2019re gonna do, and it\u2019s gonna energize the Democrat base. Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times was on Fox News Sunday. Question: “Let\u2019s run through various scenarios. You give me your take on what if this, then that. How does it play if the court strikes down the whole law, Jeff?”<\/p>\n
ZELENY: If the court strikes down the whole law, there\u2019s no question that this is an immediate — eh, at least a short-term — hit for President Obama, and probably a pretty serious one. He had a Democratic House and Senate, and he… It was, uh, supposed to be a central achievement, and it failed.<\/p>\n
RUSH: So no matter what spin you hear, it all ends up on how it\u2019s gonna affect Obama.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s all that matters to \u2019em.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: So, once again we see which side Obama comes down on in the question of whether this is a country of the rule of law or the rule of man. With Obama, it\u2019s not the rule of law. He is implementing law that the Congress defeated, as in the legalization of the amnesty for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n