MORE THOUGHTS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CONTRACEPTION MANDATE

Many people to not seem to recognize that President Obama's contraception mandate has nothing to do with an individual. What it does have to do with is compelling a religious organization, in this case the Catholic Church, to violate one of its doctrinal issues. This is what violates the "free exercise thereof" portion of the first amendment, and is therefore; what makes this administrative rule unconstitutional.

The spin President Obama tried to pull off by saying that the insurance companies, not the church, would be required to offer what the administrative rule requires is similarly a bogus approach. Since the employer, i.e. the church, is paying the insurance company for insurance they are in fact still providing something that violates their conscience. Its just being done via a hired third party.

President Obama should not insult the American people by repeating the foolish claim that these offerings are "free". They are not and no amount of non-sense from this President can prove it so.

This is drawing heat not only because it's a contraception issue, but because it's also a constitutional issue. Only the most clueless single issue feminist could fail to see this point. Unless, a religious organization can exercise its doctrinal positions across the breath of social agencies that it supports as a part of its ministries then the "free exercise thereof" clause in the first amendment has been violated.

Conservatives need to ignore the braying of the feminist and stick to the constitutional issue involved. In my opinion, this also violates the ninth and tenth amendments in that this issue, as well as Obamacare, do not fall within the federal government's enumerated responsibilities.

It is clearly time to turn back the trend that has systematically undermined our federalist foundation by voting out Representatives, Senators, and our President who, for various reason--power mostly, do not understand the limitations of the federal government.

This is not simply a screed against Democrats as there are far to many Republicans willing to abuse federal power in order to advance their agenda. Typically, these Republicans are know as social conservatives. These people are not conservatives, they are simply progressives on the right who are willing to use the coercive power of the state to advance their subjective view of what's "right".

Social issues are the province of the individual and state governments. They aren't the responsibility of the federal government.

Conservatives are arguing the issue based on its constitutionality, or in this case its unconstitutionality. This will go to court, challenges have already been filed, and Obama will lose. Actually, it is more likely that the challenge to Obamacare will be decided before any challenge to this administrative position by President Obama could be adjudicated. If so, this will fail as part of the larger failure of Obamacare itself.

None-the-less I'm glad Obama stepped in it the way that he did--it provides yet another platform to showcase the absolute disregard that this President has for the rule of law, and for the Constitution that he swore to uphold.