CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS RULING IMPETUS FOR NULLIFICATION

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS RULING IMPETUS FOR NULLIFICATION

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD  Traditional Realist

Chief Justice John Roberts took the path of least resistance when his swing vote ruled that Obamacare was constitutional. He argued that it was a tax not a penalty that would force Americans to purchase this service against their will. This line of reasoning means every traffic violation is not a penalty (a punishment for doing something wrong) but a tax. All Americans will be less free as anything the government wants you to do, they can tax you if you do not want to do it. This is un-American.

His ruling attempts to thread the needle. He stated, “The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Then he turns around and says, “The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.” Certainly a substantial tax is a means to force citizens to do something against their will.

In order to make the decision palatable, he stated if the American people did not like the decision that affects one-sixth of the economy they could vote this administration out of office. This approach could be seen as an appeasement of both sides. The progressives keep a big government socialist program while the limited government conservatives have another opportunity to reverse the direction of the USA by the legislative process in this fall's election.

The American people might repudiate Obamacare in the 2012 presidential election. However, on this crucial issue Chief Justice Roberts appears to make his decision based on proving his court is not favoring one party over another. This tactic may increase the prestige of the Supreme Court with political elites.

This decision might be good politics for the Supreme Court but it is a dereliction of its lawful duty of making a decision based on the Constitution not some flimsy and convoluted argument that would win favor in Washington circles. By leaving the people the option of overturning this piece of legislation the Supreme Court is still abdicating its responsibility to rule whether a law conforms to the dictates of the Constitution.

The mission of the court is to insure the Constitution is being followed. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the "gatekeeper" of the Constitution, not an institution that should be concerned about pleasing ruling class politicians or the citizens. Either it is constitutional or not. The federal government’s powers are specifically and concisely spelled out for the most part in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. These enumerated powers should be the focus of the court.  It should not rule depending on the political implications of the way the media and progressive elites would frame this institution to the people.

When the executive or congressional branch of government supersedes its enumerated power the Supreme Court is obliged to tell either branch it is unconstitutional to do so. The Supreme Court does not have the prerogative to avoid its duty by hiding behind the mantle of judicial restraint or misuse of the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause to transform the United States from a Federal Republic to a totalitarian one.

Our founding fathers chose not to make the highest court in the land politically responsive to the public. In fact they gave Supreme Court judges a lifetime appointment to insulate them from public opinion so as not to make this branch of government responsive to it.   

Chief Justice Roberts has tainted his court's reputation for upholding the Constitution although

this arbitrary ruling by Justice Roberts might have done a great service. His disconcerting ruling has inspired citizens to better understand the brilliance of our founders in establishing the Tenth Amendment.  The 10^th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectfully or to the people.”  Thomas Jefferson argued the states had the power to determine the constitutionality of federal law under the Tenth Amendment.

The founders realized the federal Supreme Court could use its rulings to enhance its power and weaken state sovereignty. It was the independent original 13 states that chose to give up some of their power to create a federation of states to unite into the United States of America. The Constitution limits the federal government to protect state and individual rights.

The Tenth Amendment is a means of the states maintaining their viability as a free entity that would not be absorbed by a power grabbing central government.  When the Supreme Court does not do its job of upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, the Tenth Amendment allows the power of the individual states to act as the ultimate check and balance to keep our freedom under our sacred document.

When the federal government imposes an unconstitutional law or mandate on the states, the states have a right to nullify them. These states can write a resolution not to comply with any federal law or mandate they deem unconstitutional. This process is called “nullification.”

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts for helping us realize the genius of our founders in honing in a potentially expansive Supreme Court through the process of nullification.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.com.

President Obama: Capitalism is About Personal Initiative

PRESIDENT OBAMA: CAPITALISM IS ABOUT PERSONAL INITIATIVE

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist



“If you got a business, you didn’t build that. Someone else made it happen.” President Obama.



President Obama, please listen to the actual stories of millions of small business owners and their families who will tell you about the hard work they had to do to get their businesses off the ground. They would convince you that your statement above is ludicrous.



If the president of the United States still believes what he said, then capitalism 101 is in order.  Any person can start a business in a free capitalist society. The U.S. from its inception has been a beacon for Adam Smith’s, Wealth of Nations capitalist principles in action producing the greatest economy in the world.



In capitalism an individual, a partner or a group of people can freely decide to begin an enterprise. It is only through a person’s initiative that the business moves from a vision to a reality. The sacrifice made to get the idea off the ground is solely made by the people who have chosen to participate in the venture not by anyone in government.



There is no fairness in the process of a start-up business. All the legwork of finding a location, renovating the building, buying the necessary equipment, advertising, utilities, communication and the money necessary to pay for these service has to be provided by the entrepreneur and often his family. Working 60 to 90 hours per week and often on the weekend is not unusual. No government official is assigned to help the business with these issues but their hand will be held out for fees, permits and penalties if you do not comply with the bureaucratic red tape and roadblocks.



Usually after earning little or no income, often for several years, does the time, labor and financial investment start to pay some dividends. As earnings accumulate the owner has to decide how much to reinvest or to extract from the business. The more put back into the venture, the greater the potential for growth.



The proprietor’s major objective in business is to earn a profit.  When the owner is able to start to hire employees, he should hire the best person for a position at the most economical cost. If he can hire a person with the same skill set and people-skill at a lower salary than another candidate he would be crazy to do otherwise. He is not a social welfare worker but an employer although the entrepreneur should be as accommodating, pleasant and reasonable as possible to create a pleasant working environment for retention.



In capitalism there is no such thing as equality because in the real world everyone is unique. Each person has a unique character and talent that can be utilized to create a quality service or product. Successful employees are not equal although they share certain traits. They are dedicated, hard working achievers with a strong commitment toward enhancing the business.



All businesses are risky. They fail more often than they succeed. There is no guarantee of success.  Capitalist businesses do not have a government bureaucrat assigned to insure the success of the business. President Obama, the Solindra type crony arrangement with the federal government is not capitalism.



Many socialistic leaning people believe fairness is getting something for nothing. This idea is rejected by an overwhelming number of Americans as it would defy every natural law of reality. Getting something for nothing is utopian, wishful thinking that can only seem feasible under heavy hallucinogenic drugs, intellectual corruption or psychosis.



There is no free lunch. Just look at the European Union nations finally realizing the bill has arrived for their ridiculous entitlements. If you want a more potent taste of “something for nothing,” look at the full-blown communist countries and examine the disastrous impact on their citizens.



Capitalism is not a pipe dream. It is born out of personal initiative and freedom.  A person who is able to work and saves can accumulate capital. This capital can be used to make more money through investing in someone else’s business or reinvesting in his own to make more profit. The greater the profit, the wealthier the individual becomes.



All the wealth originates with a free person willing to use his energies and brainpower to do something for which others would be willing to pay. As long as the business is able to pay its bills and continues to make a profit, it can remain viable in the marketplace. Once it is unable to provide a noteworthy service or product, it fails.  There are no bailouts for small businesses.



President Obama, this is capitalism 101. Just because you are playing around with federal money to pick winners and losers, it does not in any way define capitalism. The crony corruption is the antithesis of capitalism. It is nothing more than a central government’s attempt to control the economy. Historically it has been called crony government corporate corruption or fascism.



President Obama, please cancel your golf weekends and devote your time to shadowing an entrepreneur. After this experience look directly into the camera and attempt to tell Americans that government, not business people, make their dreams become a reality. Stop stigmatizing and demeaning hard work, achievement and success as these standards are the cornerstones of our greatness.

Dethroning of the Oldest Child

THE DETHRONING OF THE OLDEST CHILD

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

Every child has to accept that sooner or later he or she will outgrow the designation of a baby. The oldest child usually has the harshest time in dealing with being displaced. As the first and only child he was the featured child in every family event. The novelty of being the first meant everything. His early life was documented with a photo from every conceivable angle. The fall from being number one is devastating to his previously self-centered world similar to a king being dethroned.

All humans start life as the most helpless of all the offspring in the animal kingdom. A human infant cannot survive for a long duration without the assistance of adults. Screams, facial expressions and sudden body movements are the ways an infant can communicate its demands. In a healthy environment usually the caregiver responds to a child’s needs immediately.

In the infant’s mind he is the center of the universe. This is a very satisfying place to be. There is little urgency to leave and many reasons to remain the center of everyone's attention.

One of my granddaughters is seven years old and is the oldest of four siblings. When I said she was so grown up she responded that she wanted to be a baby. According to her, her 8-month-old sister, was getting everyone’s attention. It is difficult and shocking to realizing you are no longer the cutest child in the family. The loss of being the focus of the family may be emotionally disturbing to the prince or princess but it is a natural repositioning in the family.

The attempt of the oldest child to regain the family spotlight can be rough for everyone. The dethroned child often directs his anger towards the parents.  “I hate you”, “get away, I don’t like you any more,” “leave me alone.” These statements are directed at the parents to soften them up so the child can better manipulate them to once again be the top banana.

Another tactic is to divide and conquer by playing one parent off against another. “I don’t want you, I want Mama,” “Get away from me, I don’t like you,” Daddy, you put me to bed.” Young children intuitively know how to create and increase parent’s guilt.

The ultimate strategy to return to the spotlight again is to threaten to hurt himself or the new infant. He may say, “I hate that thing,” pointing to the baby. “I don’t want to live anymore.” A child may resort to hitting, squeezing, biting or jumping on the baby to inflict pain to insure the parents react.

All of these and many more behaviors are attempts by the displaced child to retrieve his lost status, which has changed forever. He can no longer go back to being an only child although me may cling to immature behavior in order to keep the attention on him.

In order to help their child make an easier transition of accepting a new member to the family, parents should not capitulate to the child’s whims but should consider the following.

preparing him for the new family addition

including him in all the infant’s activities

always refer to the new baby as “our baby”

enlist his help in getting things for the baby

doing special activities when the infant is sleeping

use baby feeding time as story time for the child

Never should the parent overlook or condone inappropriate behavior on the part of the older child. A negative comment or harmful act should be nipped in the bud. It should immediately be addressed with a consequence followed by an explanation. When he understands specific parameters he will not waste his time attempting to stretch the limits. These are teaching moments.

Discipline is love and love is discipline. When a child understands he does not have to be the center of attention to be loved, his suffering from dethroning will end. The child will mature into being the big brother or big sister.

The parents need to tell the older child how blessed he is to have a new brother or sister. A picture should be painted of the things they can do together and with the entire family.  The child should be encouraged to hold and play with the infant with the supervision of the parent.

The once-baby has gone through the rite of passage into a transitional period: not old enough to be close to being an adult although definitely too old to act like a baby.  This phase of childhood from the child’s perspective is a long and tedious process of learning what it means to be an adult.

The brisk and sudden boot out of his number one position often motivates the oldest to try harder to reach the high level positions in the adult world. This is one of the reasons studies have indicated the oldest child in the family is the most achievement oriented. He disciplines himself to reach his goal to keep the focus on him. He never wants to feel the pain again of looking in from the outside at someone else getting all the attention.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.com. Please follow me on my new Facebook page.