In response to:

Constitution’s Limits Threaten in an Obama Second Term

Paulus Textor Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 9:15 AM
....the childlike belief that three separate branches of government would "jealously guard" their powers against each other, rather than JOIN FORCES. Folks, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all play for the same team. Whom do they play against? You and me.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 3:31 PM
Great post.... and right on the money.
Jeff1162 Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 9:29 AM
Well said, Paul. I happen to believe that the government cabal is being driven by campaign contributions and special interests with very deep pockets. Our political class are looking out for THEIR best interests and not ours. Supremes included. John Roberts believes that he'll make more in speaking fees and free trips to Malta than if he ruled otherwise. He reportedly was initially against the ACA, but then someone (with deep pockets) got to him. Our entire system is corrupt to it's core.

Note: This column was coauthored by Ken Klukowski, a columnist

Public officials and pundits are still digesting the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. Not yet discussed are the extraordinary implications for the size and role of government in a second Obama term in light of President Obama’s new stump speech, as it is clear there is not a reliable majority on the Court to restrain government power by enforcing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

Most provisions in the Constitution fall into two categories. The first are authority provisions, explaining the structure and powers...