Selasa, 28 Desember 2010

We want to say thank you, Katrina

Share |

Katrina --

I've been in Washington for almost 40 years. I've seen a lot of Congresses come and go. But I can't remember a group of lawmakers who accomplished more than the folks who just wrapped up their work.

With their help, we repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and ratified the START arms control treaty. We passed a new law to rein in the abuses on Wall Street and protect consumers. We reformed the health care system and passed the Recovery Act to get our economy growing again.

But do you know why all that happened? Because people like you rolled up your sleeves, dug deep, and decided to make a difference. We had a dedicated group of lawmakers -- no doubt -- but they were supported every step of the way by folks from all across this country who were ready for change. People like you.

I know how much that means to me. And I can't even begin tell you how much it means to the President.

So here's the deal: President Obama wants to send you a note to express how grateful we are for all you did.

Would you like to receive one?

Two years ago, we were staring into an abyss. The financial crisis was the worst this country has faced since the Great Depression.

But this Congress passed the largest set of tax cuts for the middle class since President Reagan, the largest education reform since President Johnson, the largest infrastructure investment since President Eisenhower, and the largest clean-energy bill ever.

Now -- even though we still have a ways to go -- the economy is growing again.

Prior to this Congress, lawmakers had talked about reforming health care for almost a century. But with the President leading the way, these folks went out, and -- with you at their side -- they did it. Now 32 million more Americans will have access to health coverage.

When we came into office, just about the entire country had come to realize that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was wrong. More than 14,000 brave men and women had been discharged simply because of who they were. With your help, we struck down that law and made this country a more just place.

Every lawmaker who worked to accomplish these things will talk about their votes -- and the role they played in this progress -- for years. The President and I take great pride in those achievements. But each one belongs to you. You believed in them, you fought for them, and we're darn grateful.

So let the President send you a note to show our appreciation.

Sign up here:

http://my.barackobama.com/ThankYouCard

Thank you -- for everything,

Joe
 

Jumat, 24 Desember 2010

Holidays at The White House 2010



Presidential Press Conference on a Historic Congressional Session



President Obama Signs Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell



President Obama Signs Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell



President Barack Obama

Share |

Katrina --

This time of year, Americans around the country are taking the time to exchange heartfelt messages with friends and loved ones, reflecting on the past year. They write of achievements and setbacks, of births, graduations, promotions, and moves.

These messages allow us to overcome the miles that separate us. And they allow us to continue one of the most basic American traditions that has held folks close for centuries -- the simple sharing of stories.

And as families gather around holiday tables this season, we also have the opportunity to share the stories of the change this movement has achieved together.

It is a narrative woven by individuals across America -- in big cities and small towns, hospitals and classrooms, in auto manufacturing plants and auto supply stores.

These are stories of rebuilding, and of innovation. Stories of communities breathing new life into old roads and bridges, of local plants harnessing alternative fuel into new energy. Stories of small businesses getting up, dusting themselves off, and beginning to grow again. Stories of soldiers who served multiple tours of duty in Iraq now coming home -- and enjoying the holidays this year in the company of loved ones.

These are stories of progress.

They unite us, and they are ours to share.

We've pulled many of them together in one place, PROGRESS. You can see what our reforms have meant to Americans in every state -- block by block, community by community.

Click here to read about stories of progress in your area -- and share them with your friends and family.

The reforms that we fought long and hard for are not talking points.

And their effects don't change based on the whims of politicians in Washington. They are achievements that have a real and meaningful impact on the lives of Americans around the country. They are achievements that would not have been possible without you. PROGRESS localizes them -- and brings them to life.

It tells of how a green technology business in Phoenix, Arizona, is using a grant through the Recovery Act's Transportation Electrification program to bring the first electric-drive vehicles and charging stations to cities around the country.

It tells how, thanks to closing the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage, a diabetic woman in Burlington, Vermont will no longer have to choose between purchasing her monthly groceries or the insulin she needs to survive.

It tells about how 71,000 Indiana residents' jobs were saved or created by the Recovery Act.

And about how, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 13,000 small businesses in Indiana's 1st Congressional District are now eligible for health care tax credits -- and how 12,000 residents in Indiana's 1st with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage.

There are thousands more stories like these.

In the coming days, as we gather with our loved ones at dinner tables around the nation, let's pass them on. Let's celebrate the spirit of service and responsibility that brought them to fruition. And let's steady ourselves with the resolve to continue pressing forward.

Because the coming year will hold new challenges -- battles that have yet to be fought, and stories of progress that have yet to be written.

Take a look at the progress we've made in your area -- and share the stories you read with your friends and family:

http://progress.barackobama.com

Happy holidays, and God bless,

Barack

P.S. -- Last week, seven OFA volunteers joined me at the White House for a special meeting -- and they brought along your feedback from the Vote 2010 campaign. It was incredibly meaningful for me to be able to hear directly from supporters like you. And your input will be front and center as we plot our course moving forward into the new year. Please take a couple minutes to check out some photos and stories from the meeting.
 

Senin, 20 Desember 2010

Weird News, Odd News, Funny News Stories | Reuters.com

Anonymous thief pays for stolen hammer, decades later



President Obama

Share |

Katrina --

Moments ago, the Senate voted to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.

Gay and lesbian service members -- brave Americans who enable our freedoms -- will no longer have to hide who they are.

The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.

This victory belongs to you. Without your commitment, the promise I made as a candidate would have remained just that.

Instead, you helped prove again that no one should underestimate this movement. Every phone call to a senator on the fence, every letter to the editor in a local paper, and every message in a congressional inbox makes it clear to those who would stand in the way of justice: We will not quit.

This victory also belongs to Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and our many allies in Congress who refused to let politics get in the way of what was right.

Like you, they never gave up, and I want them to know how grateful we are for that commitment.

Will you join me in thanking them by adding your name to Organizing for America's letter?

I will make sure these messages are delivered -- you can also add a comment about what the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means to you.

As Commander in Chief, I fought to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because it weakens our national security and military readiness. It violates the fundamental American principles of equality and fairness.

But this victory is also personal.

I will never know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation.

But I know my story would not be possible without the sacrifice and struggle of those who came before me -- many I will never meet, and can never thank.

I know this repeal is a crucial step for civil rights, and that it strengthens our military and national security. I know it is the right thing to do.

But the rightness of our cause does not guarantee success, and today, celebration of this historic step forward is tempered by the defeat of another -- the DREAM Act. I am incredibly disappointed that a minority of senators refused to move forward on this important, commonsense reform that most Americans understand is the right thing for our country. On this issue, our work must continue.

Today, I'm proud that we took these fights on.

Please join me in thanking those in Congress who helped make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal possible:

http://my.barackobama.com/Repealed

Thank you,

Barack
 

9/11 Responders

Share |


                             

Kamis, 16 Desember 2010

Happy Birthday to ME!

Share |

Today is my Birthday, I'm 48 years old and Happy. 

Senin, 06 Desember 2010

The 42 Blockers of President Barack Obama

Share |

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)     Class II
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)     Class I
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Web Form: barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs...

Bennett, Robert F. - (R - UT)     Class III
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Bond, Christopher S. - (R - MO)     Class III
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Con...

Brown, Scott P. - (R - MA)     Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailscottbrown

Brownback, Sam - (R - KS)     Class III
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov/public/contact/emailsam.cfm

Bunning, Jim - (R - KY)     Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...

Burr, Richard - (R - NC)     Class III
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Web Form: burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Conta...

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)     Class II
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Coburn, Tom - (R - OK)     Class III
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Web Form: coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactsenatorcoburn?p...

Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)     Class II
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: cochran.senate.gov/email.html

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME)     Class II
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Corker, Bob - (R - TN)     Class I
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Cornyn, John - (R - TX)     Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

Crapo, Mike - (R - ID)     Class III
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142
Web Form: crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

DeMint, Jim - (R - SC)     Class III
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6121
Web Form: demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactInformation

Ensign, John - (R - NV)     Class I
119 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Enzi, Michael B. - (R - WY)     Class II
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424
Web Form: enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...

Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)     Class II
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...

Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)     Class III
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744
Web Form: grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Gregg, Judd - (R - NH)     Class III
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: gregg.senate.gov/contact/

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT)     Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Cont...

Hutchison, Kay Bailey - (R - TX)     Class I
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Inhofe, James M. - (R - OK)     Class II
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Web Form: inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)     Class III
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Johanns, Mike - (R - NE)     Class II
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=ContactSenatorJohanns

Kirk, Mark - (R - IL)     Class III
387 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854

Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)     Class I
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

LeMieux, George S. - (R - FL)     Class III
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
Web Form: lemieux.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailSenatorLeMieux

Lugar, Richard G. - (R - IN)     Class I
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814
Web Form: lugar.senate.gov/contact/

McCain, John - (R - AZ)     Class III
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Web Form: mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)     Class II
361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)     Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Risch, James E. - (R - ID)     Class II
483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)     Class II
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774
Web Form: www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailPat

Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)     Class II
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Web Form: sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Constitue...

Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL)     Class III
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
Web Form: shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactSenatorShelby

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME)     Class I
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat...

Thune, John - (R - SD)     Class III
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2321
Web Form: thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email

Vitter, David - (R - LA)     Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
Web Form: vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Voinovich, George V. - (R - OH)     Class III
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Web Form: voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....

Wicker, Roger F. - (R - MS)     Class I
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253
Web Form: wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EMa... 

Minggu, 05 Desember 2010

The President's opponents in Congress are gearing up for a fight.

Share |

Katrina --

The President's opponents in Congress are gearing up for a fight.

Their plan? Obstruct progress and delay action on our agenda during these last few weeks of this session of Congress.

Which battles go our way is unknown -- what's certain is that failure to act will hurt the economy, the middle class, the unemployed, the military, and our national security.

Because among other critical items, our agenda includes extending tax cuts for the middle class, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," making sure those who are out of work get the relief they need, passing the DREAM Act, and ratifying the New START Treaty -- a nuclear arms agreement critical to national security.

These issues aren't going away, and we can't afford to let Congress kick them down the road to the next set of legislators -- or the next generation.

Organizing for America is waging a campaign to make sure Congress takes action on these critical priorities before the end of the year -- but we need your help. We're counting on 3 donations from Merrillville to get the job done.

Will you pitch in $3 or more now to support Organizing for America and help continue to push back on obstructionism?

We're talking about legislation that will help Americans of all stripes, in every state. Almost every one has strong bipartisan support.

We're fighting to make sure middle-class Americans don't wake up on January 1st with higher taxes.

We're fighting for an arms agreement that every U.S. president since Reagan has renewed or supported.

We're fighting to repeal legislation that prevents brave Americans from serving openly alongside their fellow troops -- a repeal endorsed by top military leaders that a Pentagon study just confirmed will have no impact on readiness or morale.

We're fighting for unemployment benefits for Americans when they need it most.

If we fail to act on these items, those who will pay for that failure are not politicians in Washington -- they're our neighbors, our troops, our classmates, and our friends and family.

But some in Congress are proving that they're willing to put politics over people, no matter what the cost.

We're making sure they don't get away with it. We're sending a much different message -- one of action, organizing, and progress -- and we're making sure that's the message that reaches Congress.

So organizers and supporters like you are on the ground, reaching out to their communities. We're writing letters to the editors of newspapers across the country. We're pressuring Congress with calls from their constituents.

But this organizing, as always, relies on support from folks like you.

Please donate $3 or more right now to help us fight back:

https://donate.barackobama.com/DecemberPriorities

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
 
Share |

Going Nuclear, Senate Style
Sarah A. Binder,Anthony J. Madonna and Steven S. Smith (2007).

Perspectives on Politics, Volume 5,
Issue 04, December 2007 pp 729-740

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1429592
 

Kamis, 18 November 2010

"Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself": FDR's First Inaugural Address

"Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself": FDR's First Inaugural Address

Protect Whistleblowers

Share|

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

BRIEF FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Share|

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Pensacola Division
STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through )
BILL McCOLLUM, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
BRIEF FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 1 of 20
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICI ..................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................2
I. The Individual Mandate Exceeds The Commerce Power. .................................2
A. The Commerce Clause Power Does Not Authorize Congress To Mandate The Purchase Of A Particular Product, Only To Regulate Commercial Activity In Which People Are Engaged. ....................................................................................4
B. Defendants‟ Efforts To Characterize The Individual Mandate As Regulating “Activity” Fail Because They Destroy All Limits On the Commerce Power. ...........................................10
II. Defendants Would Turn The Commerce Power Into An Impermissible Federal Police Power. .................................................................12
A. The Mandate Is A Classic Exercise Of The Police Power.........................12
B. The Supreme Court Has Foreclosed Conversion of the Commerce Power Into A Federal Police Power. .......................................14
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................16
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 2 of 20
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Fountas v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Revenue, 2009 WL 3792468 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2009)............................................................................................................................. 13
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) ................................................................................... 6
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) ............................................................................. 8, 9
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) .......................................................................... 3
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)............................................................... 12
Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888) .................................................................................... 6
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) ................................................................... 3
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) ............................................. 12
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ................................................................ 9, 10
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ................................................................... 12
Selective Service Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) .................................................................. 13
Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, No. 10-CV-11156, Mem. Op. (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2010)............................................................................................................................... 9
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995) .............................................................. passim
United States v. Morrison, 29 U.S. 598 (2000) .................................................. 3, 6, 11, 14
Virginia v. Sebelius, No. 3:10-cv-188, Mem. Op. (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2010) ....................... 9
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) ............................................................... 5, 6, 8, 9
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ......................................................................... 12
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 3 of 20
iii
STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (2010)
§ 1501(a)(2)(D) ............................................................................................................. 13
§ 1501(b) ......................................................................................................................... 4
§1501(b)(1)...................................................................................................................... 4
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111M, §2 (2008) ............................................................................. 13
U.S. CONST. amend. X ........................................................................................................ 2
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 12 ............................................................................................ 13
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 ................................................................................................ 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Cong. Budget Office, The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance (Aug. 1994) .................................................................................................... 7
Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, July 24, 2009 ........................................................................ 7, 8
Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, October 15, 2010.................................................................. 8, 9
http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/factsheet.cfm ...................................................................... 7
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 985 (10th ed. 1996) ......................................... 4
Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) ........................................ 4
THE FEDERALIST No. 45 (Madison) .............................................................................. 2, 12
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 4 of 20
1
INTEREST OF AMICI
Amici Curiae United States Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senators Orrin Hatch, John Barrasso, Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, George LeMieux, John McCain, James Risch, Pat Roberts, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, John Thune, David Vitter, and Roger Wicker are all United States Senators of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.
As United States Senators, amici have a keen interest in the constitutional issues at stake in this litigation that transcends any opposition they may have voiced to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (2010) (hereinafter “PPACA” or “Act”) on policy grounds. All Members of Congress have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. While our constitutional system is built on both vertical and horizontal checks and balances, Members of Congress are, by virtue of their oath, under a responsibility of their own to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the Legislative Branch stays within the bounds of the powers afforded it by the Constitution.
Amici are cognizant of their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and as a result they raised two constitutional points of order during consideration of the health care bill. On December 23, 2009, Senator Ensign raised a point of order that the bill would violate the Constitution because Congress‟ enumerated powers in Article I, section
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 5 of 20
2
8 do not give it the authority to mandate that people engage in activity (i.e., buy insurance meeting federal requirements) or be fined. The same day, Senator Hutchison raised a point of order that the bill would violate the Tenth Amendment, which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. CONST. amend. X. Each point of order received the support of all senators who voted against the legislation (with the exception of one senator who was absent from the votes on these two points of order).
Where, as in this case with respect to the PPACA‟s Individual Mandate, Congress legislates without authority, it damages its institutional legitimacy and precipitates divisive federalism conflicts like the instant litigation. The long term harms that the PPACA may do to our governmental institutions and constitutional architecture are at least as important as are the specific consequences of the PPACA.
ARGUMENT
I. The Individual Mandate Exceeds The Commerce Power.
This nation was founded on and continues to be characterized by its unique system of dual sovereignty, in which the federal government is limited to exercising the enumerated powers granted it by the Constitution, while states retain the general police power. See generally THE FEDERALIST No. 45 (Madison) (“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined” while “[t]hose which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”). This balance of power was conceived by the Framers of the Constitution to “ensure protection Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 6 of 20
3
of our fundamental liberties” by “prevent[ing] the accumulation of excessive power,” thus “reduc[ing] the risk of tyranny and abuse from either” state or federal government. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). As Chief Justice Marshall observed:
Th[e] [federal] government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it ... is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.”
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) (quoted in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995)). In modern times, debate has arisen particularly over the scope of the power granted to the federal government “[t]o regulate Commerce ... among the several States....” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
While the past century has seen a general expansion of the subject matter committed to the federal government under the Commerce Clause, in recent years the Supreme Court has rejected the notion of an infinitely elastic clause, recognizing the potential for it to be stretched to eliminate any meaningful limits on the federal government‟s power. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 556-57 (1995); United States v. Morrison, 29 U.S. 598, 607-08 (2000). Defendants‟ arguments in this case threaten to undermine the remaining limits on Commerce Clause power, harming the Constitution‟s framework by allowing the federal government to overreach its enumerated powers and invade the legitimate province of the States.
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 7 of 20
4
A. The Commerce Clause Power Does Not Authorize Congress To Mandate The Purchase Of A Particular Product, Only To Regulate Commercial Activity In Which People Are Engaged.
The Individual Mandate provides that, subject to certain very narrow exceptions, “an . . . individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual . . . is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.” See PPACA § 1501(b). Noncompliance results in the assessment of a monetary penalty. See PPACA § 1501(b)(1). The Mandate therefore compels otherwise passive individuals to engage in economic activity against their will, by requiring them to obtain health insurance regardless of whether or not they wish to purchase a policy. As such, the Mandate dramatically oversteps the bounds of the Commerce Power which has always been understood as a power to regulate, and not to compel, economic activity.1
The Supreme Court noted in United States v. Lopez that Congress‟ power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” has three permissible applications:
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate commerce. Finally, Congress‟ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
1 Indeed, this is the only meaning compatible with the plain meaning of the Constitutional text. In the Eighteenth Century, as today, to “regulate” was defined in terms that presuppose action upon some object or activity that already is already extant. See 2 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) (defining “regulate” as “(1) to adjust by rule or method. (2) to direct.”). See also Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 985 (10th ed. 1996) (defining “regulate” variously as “to govern or direct according to rule,” “to bring under the control of law or constituted authority,” “to make regulations for or concerning,” “to bring order, method, or uniformity to,” to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of”). A regulator comes to an existing phenomenon and orders it. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 8 of 20
5
Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-59 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted). Commercial activity that is local and intrastate may be regulated if, in the aggregate, such “activity” exerts a “substantial economic effect” on the interstate economy. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942). Furthermore, under the third prong of Lopez, the test is not whether the regulation itself would substantially affect interstate commerce, but whether the activity regulated so affects commerce.
Congress‟ findings explicitly and exclusively invoke its power under the Commerce Clause as the constitutional authority for the Individual Mandate, and they make clear that it is the third Lopez prong upon which the Mandate is supposedly based. See PPACA §1501(a). However, these findings misstate the Lopez test and strongly suggest that Congress misunderstood the nature of its authority. Compare PPACA §1501(a) (emphasis added) (finding that “The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section . . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce”) with Lopez 514 U.S. at 558-59 (emphasis added) (“Congress‟ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce”). In short, Congress did not find that the “activity” (really, the “inactivity” or lack of activity) substantially affects commerce. Rather, Congress found that the regulation – the Mandate itself – affects commerce. This puts the constitutional cart before the horse, and the Supreme Court has never embraced such reasoning. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 9 of 20
6
Indeed, in more than 200 years of debate as to the proper scope of the Commerce Power, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Commerce Power allows Congress to impose affirmative obligations on passive individuals, or to punish individuals for failing to purchase a particular product. To the contrary, every landmark Commerce Clause case has dealt with congressional efforts to regulate different kinds of activity under the Commerce power. In every significant Commerce Clause case the Supreme Court has always had to decide whether Congress may regulate a given form of activity. See, e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) (considering whether interstate navigation was “commerce”); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888) (whether manufacturing was “commerce”); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), 301 U.S. 1 (whether labor relations could be regulated as “commerce”); Wickard, 317 U.S. 111 (whether economic activity was too “local” to be regulated under the Commerce Power); Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (whether carrying a weapon in a “school zone” could be regulated on the basis of supposed effects on commerce); Morrison, 29 U.S. 598 (whether gender-motivated violence could be regulated under the Commerce Clause). Though the Court‟s decisions in these cases reflect different and evolving views of the Commerce Power, not one can be read to even hint at a power to impose affirmative obligations. All are concerned with the regulation of activity that is already ongoing, not with the antecedent, and frankly unprecedented, question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force someone to engage in commercial activity to begin with. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 10 of 20
7
Inasmuch, then, as the Individual Mandate regulates (and punishes) a decision not to engage in an activity, it falls beyond the settled scope of the Commerce Clause. There is simply no precedent for Congress using the Commerce Power to compel economic activity by inactive persons. Indeed, Congress‟ own analyses have repeatedly recognized this.
For example, Congress has charged the Congressional Budget Office with providing it with objective and nonpartisan analyses of federal programs. See http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/factsheet.cfm. The CBO has noted that in 200 years, Congress has “never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” See Cong. Budget Office, The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, at 1 (Aug. 1994).
More recently, and as this Court has noted, another non-partisan office within Congress has reached much the same conclusion. The Congressional Research Service has been called Congress‟ “think tank.” See State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Order and Memorandum Opinion on motion to dismiss, October 14, 2010 at 61 [hereinafter “10/14/2010 Mem. Op.”]. Among its responsibilities, the CRS provides Congress with non-partisan analyses of the constitutionality of proposed federal laws. It has questioned whether the Commerce Clause “would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance.” Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, July 24, 2009 at 3 (cited in 10/14/2010 Mem. Op.,
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 11 of 20
8
at 61-62). In fact, the CRS has called the constitutionality of the individual mandate “the most challenging question” and moreover has noted that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” Id.
Since the enactment of PPACA, the CRS has reiterated its questions about the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate under the Commerce Clause. In fact, the day after this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion on Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss, the CRS updated its analysis of the PPACA, again noting the novelty of what Congress was doing by way of the Individual Mandate. See Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, October 15, 2010, at 8-9. It then noted that, in „general, Congress has used its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate individuals, employers, and others who voluntarily take part in some type of economic activity.” Id. at 11 (emphasis added). And it questioned whether, like in the PPACA, “regulating a choice to purchase health insurance is” such an activity at all. Id. (emphasis added). In short, the CRS observed that the Individual Mandate in PPACA is a difference in kind, not just in degree, from the type of power that Congress in the past has relied upon the Commerce Clause to exert:
While in Wickard and Raich, the individuals were participating in their own home activities . . . , they were acting on their own volition, and this activity was determined to be economic in nature and affected interstate commerce. However, [under the Individual Mandate] a requirement could be imposed on some individuals who do not engage in any economic activity relating to the health insurance market. This is a novel issue: whether Congress can use its Commerce Clause authority to require a person to buy a good or a service and whether this type of required participation can be considered economic activity. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 12 of 20
9
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Wickard, 317 U.S. 111, and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)). The CRS opined that, quite simply, “it may seem like too much of a bootstrap to force individuals into the health insurance market and then use their participation in that market to say they are engaging in commerce.” Id. at 11-12.
This Court has already found that “the power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent,” and “the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before.” 10/14/2010 Mem. Op., at 61. Likewise, the federal court hearing a similar challenge brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia has ruled that the individual mandate exceeds the “high watermark” of the Commerce Power. See Virginia v. Sebelius, No. 3:10-cv-188, Mem. Op. at 18 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2010).
Indeed, every court to consider this issue has found it to be novel and unprecedented. Even the only court to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate thus far has noted the case as one of "first impression" since "[t]he [Supreme] Court has never needed to address the activity/inactivity distinction advanced by plaintiffs because in every Commerce Clause case presented thus far, there has been some sort of activity." Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, No. 10-CV-11156, Mem. Op. at 15 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2010) (emphasis added).
As the Supreme Court has stated several times, the “utter lack” of such statutes for more than 200 years strongly suggests the “absence of such power.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 908 (1997) (emphasis in original); id. at 905 (if “earlier Congresses Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 13 of 20
10
avoided use of this highly attractive power, we would have reason to believe that the power was thought not to exist”); id. at 907-908 (“the utter lack of statutes imposing obligations [like the one in Printz] (notwithstanding the attractiveness of that course to Congress), suggests an assumed absence of such power”) (emphasis in original); id. at 918 (“almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice [at issue in Printz] tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here”).
B. Defendants’ Efforts To Characterize The Individual Mandate As Regulating “Activity” Fail Because They Destroy All Limits On the Commerce Power.
In defending the Mandate, the Defendants have shied away from arguing that Congress may regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. Instead, Defendants have tried to advance several overlapping theories as to why the decision not to buy insurance is in fact a form of regulable economic activity. They have variously suggested that the choice not to obtain health insurance is activity subject to federal regulation because it is a “volitional economic decision,” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 43, see also Def. Mem. In Support of Mot. For Sum. Judgment at 16, 27-28; or because individuals will “almost certainly” need health care in the future, Def. Mem. In Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 35; or because the failure to obtain insurance is some form of supposedly active “self-insurance,” see Def. Reply Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 18, see also Def. Mem. In Support of Mot. For Sum. Judgment at 41.
These semantically clever arguments must fail because they “prove” far too much. To uphold the Individual Mandate on any of these bases would represent the boldest
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 14 of 20
11
expansion of the Commerce Power in history. It would also defy the Supreme Court‟s clear signal, in cases like Lopez and Morrison, that it will once again police the limits of the Commerce Power. If Congress can use the Commerce Power to punish a decision not to engage in a private activity, on the basis that the future consequences of this choice, in the aggregate, would substantially affect interstate commerce, there is seemingly no private decision Congress could not regulate or no activity it could not force private citizens to undertake (subject, presumably to the protections of the Bill of Rights) when, in the aggregate, it concludes that doing so would benefit the economy. For example, this same rationale would allow Congress to punish individuals for not purchasing health-related products, like vitamin supplements, on the ground that their failure to do so would increase health care costs by not ameliorating or preventing health conditions, like osteoporosis.
This is precisely the type of reasoning criticized by the Supreme Court in Lopez, where it warned that, under the Government‟s theories,
it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government‟s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.
514 U.S. at 564; accord Morrison, 529 U.S. at 613 (to allow regulation of non-economic activity at issue would enable the federal government to regulate almost any activity, including “family law and other areas of traditional state regulation.”). Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 15 of 20
12
Such a result would yield Commerce Clause jurisprudence both unrecognizable and incompatible with the Founder‟s vision of Congress‟ powers being limited and enumerated. See generally THE FEDERALIST No. 45 (Madison) (“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined” while “[t]hose which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”). The Court has warned of the risks that such an expanded Commerce Clause would pose to our system of dual sovereignty:
the scope of the interstate commerce power „must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.‟
Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 at 37 (quoted in Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557).2
II. Defendants Would Turn The Commerce Power Into An Impermissible Federal Police Power.
A. The Mandate Is A Classic Exercise Of The Police Power.
Almost every affirmative legal obligation binding on citizens arises under a state‟s police powers. For example, compulsory vaccination, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 12, 24-25 (1905); drug rehabilitation, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 665 (1962); and the education of children, cf. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972), have all been upheld on the basis of state police powers.
2 Similar consequences would attend acceptance of Defendants‟ apparent theory that Congress may regulate anticipated commerce rather than incidents of actual commerce. See Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 35. Such an understanding would permit Congress to manufacture its own potentially limitless jurisdiction. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 16 of 20
13
A state‟s police power is also the basis for the only other “Individual Mandate” that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. Massachusetts law requires most adult residents to obtain health insurance amounting to “creditable coverage” and, analogously to the PPACA, imposes a penalty for failure to do so. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111M, §2 (2008) (upheld pursuant to state “police power” in Fountas v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Revenue, 2009 WL 3792468 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2009) (dismissing suit), aff’d, 922 N.E.2d 862 (Mass App. Ct. 2009), review denied, 925 N.E.2d 865 (Mass. 2010)). Congress‟ findings in support of the Individual Mandate note the existence of a “similar requirement” in Massachusetts and make clear that Congress‟ intent in enacting the Mandate was to emulate this state measure. See PPACA § 1501(a)(2)(D) (finding that “[i]n Massachusetts, a similar requirement has strengthened private employer-based coverage: despite the economic downturn, the number of workers offered employer-based coverage has actually increased.”).
By contrast, in the rare instances where Congress imposes affirmative obligations on passive individuals, it does so pursuant to enumerated powers other than the power to regulate interstate commerce. A classic example is the draft, authorized by Congress‟ power “to raise and support Armies.” See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 12; Selective Service Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 383, 390 (1918). Congress has never before attempted to impose an affirmative obligation to purchase a product or service, or participate in any kind of activity through the Commerce Clause. Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 17 of 20
14
B. The Supreme Court Has Foreclosed Conversion of the Commerce Power Into A Federal Police Power.
The fundamental problem with Defendants‟ theories, therefore, is that they would result in the conversion of the Commerce Power into a federal “police power” – a result which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held constitutionally impermissible.
The Supreme Court has been vitally concerned with policing – and preserving – the boundary between the federal commerce power and the state‟s police powers. This boundary, the Court has explained, is an important bulwark for liberty and an integral feature of our non-unitary constitutional order which, the Supreme Court has explained, favors liberty. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 576 (Kennedy, J. and O‟Connor, J. concurring) (explaining that limits on commerce power essential to fulfilling the “theory that two governments accord more liberty than one” which “requires for its realization two distinct and discernable lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States”). Accordingly, the Lopez Court warned of extending the Commerce Clause so far as to “effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.” See id. at 557. See also Morrison, 529 U.S. at 617-19 (explaining that “[t]he Constitution . . . withholds from Congress a plenary police power”) (internal citations omitted).
If, however, a decision not to engage in an activity which substantially affects interstate commerce renders individuals subject to coercive regulation under the Commerce Clause, there will not only cease to be a limit on Congress‟ own power under Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 18 of 20
15
the Commerce Clause, there will also cease to be a workable distinction between Congress‟ broad but bounded Commerce Power and the states‟ general police powers, hemmed in only by the Bill of Rights and the supremacy of federal legislation. Such a ruling would, as the Supreme Court warned in Lopez, “obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local.” 514 U.S. at 557. This result would be incompatible with the federal design of our Constitution and should be rejected by the Court.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, amici curiae Members of the United States Senate respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated November 18, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Carrie L. Severino CARRIE L. SEVERINO FLND Bar Admission Date: 11/08/2010 District of Columbia Bar No. 982084 Chief Counsel and Policy Director Judicial Crisis Network 113 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002-7303 Telephone (616) 915-8180
Facsimile (703) 396-7817
Email: carrie@judicialnetwork.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 19 of 20
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of November, 2010, a copy of the foregoing Brief of Members of the United States Senate as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Summary Judgment was served on counsel of record for all counsel of record in this case through the Court‟s Notice of Electronic Filing system.
/s/ Carrie L. Severino Carrie L. Severino
Chief Counsel
Judicial Crisis Network
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 121 Filed 11/18/10 Page 20 of 20

Honoring Science, Technology and Innovation



President Obama on GM IPO



Medal of Honor for Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta



Minggu, 14 November 2010

Kids need news they can understand, advocates say

Kids need news they can understand, advocates say

Реинвест - ремонт и отделка квартир в Москве и Московской области

Реинвест - ремонт и отделка квартир в Москве и Московской области

If someone says, "I love God,"

Share|

1 John 4:20

New International Version (©1984)
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

New Living Translation (©2007)
If someone says, "I love God," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?

English Standard Version (©2001)
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Whoever says, "I love God," but hates his brother is a liar. The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love the God whom he has not seen.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Whoever says, "I love God," but hates another believer is a liar. People who don't love other believers, whom they have seen, can't love God, whom they have not seen.

King James Bible
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?



Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

20. loveth not . brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen-It is easier for us, influenced as we are here by sense, to direct love towards one within the range of our senses than towards One unseen, appreciable only by faith. "Nature is prior to grace; and we by nature love things seen, before we love things unseen" [Estius]. The eyes are our leaders in love. "Seeing is an incentive to love" [OCUMENIUS]. If we do not love the brethren, the visible representatives of God, how can we love God, the invisible One, whose children they are? The true ideal of man, lost in Adam, is realized in Christ, in whom God is revealed as He is, and man as he ought to be. Thus, by faith in Christ, we learn to love both the true God, and the true man, and so to love the brethren as bearing His image.

hath seen-and continually sees.


Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

4:14-21 The Father sent the Son, he willed his coming into this world. The apostle attests this. And whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. This confession includes faith in the heart as the foundation; makes acknowledgment with the mouth to the glory of God and Christ, and profession in the life and conduct, against the flatteries and frowns of the world. There must be a day of universal judgment. Happy those who shall have holy boldness before the Judge at that day; knowing he is their Friend and Advocate! Happy those who have holy boldness in the prospect of that day, who look and wait for it, and for the Judge's appearance! True love to God assures believers of God's love to them. Love teaches us to suffer for him and with him; therefore we may trust that we shall also be glorified with him, 2Ti 2:12. We must distinguish between the fear of God and being afraid of him; the fear of God imports high regard and veneration for God. Obedience and good works, done from the principle of love, are not like the servile toil of one who unwillingly labours from dread of a master's anger. They are like that of a dutiful child, who does services to a beloved father, which benefit his brethren, and are done willingly. It is a sign that our love is far from perfect, when our doubts, fears, and apprehensions of God, are many. Let heaven and earth stand amazed at his love. He sent his word to invite sinners to partake of this great salvation. Let them take the comfort of the happy change wrought in them, while they give him the glory. The love of God in Christ, in the hearts of Christians from the Spirit of adoption, is the great proof of conversion. This must be tried by its effects on their temper, and their conduct to their brethren. If a man professes to love God, and yet indulges anger or revenge, or shows a selfish disposition, he gives his profession the lie. But if it is plain that our natural enmity is changed into affection and gratitude, let us bless the name of our God for this seal and earnest of eternal happiness. Then we differ from the false professors, who pretend to love God, whom they have not seen, yet hate their brethren, whom they have seen.




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...