Thursday, July 5, 2012

Perhaps a 'Boston ObamaCare Party'?

Donald Sensing at 'Sense of Events' gives a concise and cogent explanation of the particulars of the unmentioned Stamp Act of 1765 (recently mentioned en passant in the dissent to NFIB vs Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare), the tea trade within the British Empire during the early 1770s, the unfettered power of Parliament at that time to levy a tax, and how it led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. 

He then makes a comparison between the situation of those days and now, including such observations as:

In contrast, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed exclusively by the Democrats of Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president -- and upheld by a thoroughly confused Supreme Court -- reaches far beyond what those colonists, later revolutionists, found completely intolerable.  They rebelled against a certain tax imposed on existing and future transactions, while Obamacare taxes transactions that do not now exist and will not exist.
In 1773 and 1775, Americans rebelled and then revolted against imperial overreach.  But so far, we're just going to sit here these days and take it.
It seems to me that a likelihood of the Supreme Court decision is to provide an opportunity to rally the people for a more widespread idea of what it means to “fundamentally transform” America.

National conservative gatherings these last couple of years typically include passing video coverage of some folks dressed as colonial patriots, symbolizing a return to the values of the Founding Fathers.  I agree with the sentiment in that I am an originalist.

But perhaps it is time for these people to be changing costumes, from colonialists to Mohawk Indians.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.

Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.

Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.

I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.