Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
A More ‘Proportional’ Response than Impeachment?

Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos discussing the possibility of impeaching President Barack Obama.

The First Lady warned a group of donors that, “If we lose these midterm elections, it’s going to be a whole lot harder to finish what we started because we’ll just see more of the same out in Washington – more obstructions, more lawsuits, and talk about impeachment.”

A series of fundraising email blasts was then sent on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee begging immediate donations to thwart a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate. “ALL GIFTS TODAY ARE TRIPLE-MATCHED!” blared the emails.

Despite all this, impeachment is still seen in most quarters as far-fetched. Simple math says…[more]

July 28, 2014 • 08:11 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Press Releases
CFIF Endorses "Right to Refuse" Constitutional Amendment Print E-mail
Thursday, February 28 2013

The Center for Individual Freedom today sent the following letter to Congressman Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in support of H.J. Res. 28, his proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare’s mandate tax and permanently prevent Congress from ever again forcing Americans to choose between the purchase of goods and services or tax penalties.


February 28, 2013

The Honorable Steven Palazzo
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Palazzo:

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) and its more than 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide, I write in full support of H.J. Res. 28, your proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution that, if passed and ratified, will prevent Congress from taxing individuals and businesses as punishment simply for failing to purchase goods and services.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of upholding ObamaCare’s mandate forcing virtually all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  In other words, a Supreme Court majority, for the first time, put its stamp of approval on the novel idea that Congress has the power to punitively tax inactivity. 

Experts predict that as many as 11 million mostly middle-class Americans will be slapped with ObamaCare’s mandate tax once it takes effect in January 2014.  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) estimates that 7 in 10 Americans making less than $94,000 per year and who are without health insurance will be hit with the mandate tax. 
 
H.J. Res. 28, also known as the “Right to Refuse” Amendment, is simple and to the point.  It states clearly that, “Congress shall make no law that imposes a tax on a failure to purchase goods or services.”

This commonsense Amendment will effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare’s mandate tax and permanently prevent Congress from ever again forcing Americans to choose between the purchase of goods and services or tax penalties. 

For those reasons and more, CFIF wholeheartedly endorses H.J. Res. 28 – the “Right to Refuse” Amendment – and urges every Member of Congress to co-sponsor and pass it without delay.

Sincerely,
/s/       
Jeffrey Mazzella
President

 


Page 15 of 95
Question of the Week   
Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the U.S. to prevent the spread of which one of the following communicable diseases?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The White House is reportedly weighing two options for executive action similar in kind to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was implemented — also by executive fiat, via memorandum — in 2012. One option would grant temporary legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, authorizing them to remain in the country and to work here. The second option…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, National Review Online
— The Editors, National Review Online
 
Liberty Poll   

Is significant, proven plagiarism sufficient to disqualify, in the minds of voters, any candidate for public office?