Liberty University is shocked the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it’s multifaceted challenge to Obamacare, but it vows to keep resisting components that its leaders claim violate their conscience – even going as far as promising civil disobedience to stay true to God’s law.
Without comment, the justices announced they would not be hearing the college’s appeal of a lower-court rejection of its suit, Liberty University v. Lew. The case challenged the constitutionality of the employer and individual mandates as well as the government’s ability to force employers to pay for insurance policies that fund abortions and abortion-causing drugs.
“We were very surprised and disappointed to hear of the court’s decision because our case would have provided the most comprehensive challenge to Obamacare, and it would have been the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to once again examine the entire law,” said Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, which is affiliated with Liberty University and representing the school in court.
He is particularly surprised that the Supreme Court rejected the university’s appeal of an appellate court ruling since the justices agreed just days ago to hear more limited appeals of the contraception mandate from business leaders at Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.
So did those cases contribute to Liberty University’s appeal being rejected?
Mihet told WND that is possible but contends that if the court only took one case, it should have been Liberty’s, because as troubling as the contraception mandate is to his client, there is much more to be worried about.
“That is certainly a huge problem, constitutionally speaking, with this law, but that is by no means the only problem with this law. When the Supreme Court indicated last week that it would look again at Obamacare, we thought that it would be inclined to look at the whole law, but alas, we now find out that they want to do it piece by piece,” Mihet said.
The high court has yet to speak on the employer mandate, but Mihet said there’s little doubt it’s unconstitutional.
“Whether it’s under the Commerce Clause or the Tax and Spend Clause, we argue that the Constitution simply does not permit that kind of a power grab by the federal government because that is a power reserved for the states,” he said.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that the individual mandate was constitutional only because the penalty for not purchasing health insurance could be considered a tax, and that power is granted to Congress. However, Mihet said that makes the mandate unconstitutional for other reasons, namely that all tax and spending legislation must originate in the House, but the final health-care bill originated in the Senate. Leaders completely gutted the original House bill, replaced it with the Senate version and the House then approved that measure in March 2010 to pass the law.
The rejection of the Liberty University case is seen by some as a death blow to the lawsuit, but Mihet said the fight still goes on.
“It is by no means the end. We have not even begun to fight. We do not ever, ever give up, particularly when such precious constitutional rights are at stake,” Mihet said. “Whether in this litigation or some other new litigation, these issues are not going to go away. We’re going to continue to bring them to the forefront until someone looks at them and decides them on the merits.”
In the meantime, Mihet said the government can expect civil disobedience from Liberty University.
“Liberty University, like Hobby Lobby and the Conestoga family, has made it clear that it will not participate in the abortion industry, and it will not fund the abortion industry with its dollars,” he said. “We have drawn a line in the sand and have said that the government is powerless to compel Liberty University to ignore its conscience and to ignore God’s law in favor of man’s law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/nobamacare-university-now-raises-stakes/#MkkYdM0qpijaG4od.99
BY KEVIN HALL
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed an executive order on Wednesday rejecting federal intrusion into the state’s education system. The order, Number 83, declares that the state, “not the federal government of any other organization, shall determine the content of Iowa’s state academic standards”.
The order also states that school districts may also choose to use additional assessments to measure student progress.
The text of Branstad’s executive order can be found below:
Executive Order Number Eighty-three
WHEREAS, the Iowa Constitution encourages a strong educational foundation by providing that, “[t]he General Assembly shall encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement” (Iowa Const. art. IX, 2d, § 3); and
WHEREAS, rigorous state standards detailing expected academic achievement are essential to provide a high-quality education, which is key to students’ futures and the future of this state; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of state standards should be done in an open, transparent way that
includes opportunities for Iowans to review and offer input; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of local school districts to make decisions related to
curricula, instruction, and learning materials consistent with state academic
WHEREAS, it is inappropriate for the federal government to require as a condition of
application of federal grants the adoption of any federally developed standards; and
WHEREAS, the protection of student and family privacy is paramount and Iowa must protect its citizens against intrusive, unnecessary data collection and tracking.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Terry E. Branstad, Governor of the State of Iowa, declare the following:
The State of Iowa, not the federal government or any other organization, shall determine the content of Iowa’s state academic standards, which are known as the Iowa Core. The Iowa Department of Education shall develop a regular review cycle for the Iowa Core, including public comment, to determine the contents of and to continually improve state academic standards.
The State of Iowa, not the federal government or any other organization, shall choose the statewide assessments that will measure how well students have mastered the Iowa Core. School districts may also choose to use additional assessments to measure student academic progress.
The collection of student data by school districts and the Iowa Department of Education shall be done in a manner consistent with state and federal laws intended to protect student and family privacy. Only aggregate student data shall be provided to the federal government to comply with federal laws.
No Constitutional right of Iowa children and their families shall be violated through an overreach by the federal government into Iowa’s educational system.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SUBSCRIBED MY NAME AND CAUSED THE GREAT SEAL OF THE STATE OF IOWA TO BE AFFIXED. DONE AT DES MOINES THIS
16TH DAY OF OCTOBER IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
TERRY E. BRANSTAD
GOVERNOR OF IOWA
SECRETARY OF STATE
While speaking at an event sponsored by the George Soros liberal think tank Center for American Progress on Wednesday, Barack Obama slammed America while promoting income redistribution, The Blaze reported.
“Statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like Canada or Germany or France,” he claimed. “They have greater mobility than we do, not less.”
Oddly enough, Obama invoked free-market champion Adam Smith to make his case for more government interference in the economy.
“Government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts because government is us,” he said. “It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments. If we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead.”
The president promised to spend the rest of his term working to shrink what he called the income and opportunity gap between rich and poor.
Obama focused on favorite liberal ideas like increasing the minimum wage, increased education funding, defending food stamp and unemployment compensation and, The Blaze said, “standing with labor unions.”
“It’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office,” he said to applause.
Targeting favorite liberal constituent groups, Obama called for more aggressive enforcement of collective bargaining laws, and laws providing more legal recourse for women and the LGBT community.
The president also cited the pope in his attack on free-market capitalism.
“Some of you may have seen just last week the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. How can it be, he wrote, that it’s not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country. And it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people,” he said.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh skewered Obama for his comments.
“This guy just can’t wait to rip this country apart. He just can’t wait. Every day, whenever there’s an opportunity to criticize this country, he’s the first in line. And that is just an outright falsehood,” Limbaugh said.
Republicans, The Blaze said, responded by citing Census data that shows 6.7 million Americans have fallen into poverty during the Obama administration.
“As of 2012,”The Blaze added, “there was a total of 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, according to the Census Bureau information.”