Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Words from the Wise

Barack Obama's intended takeover of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness via alleged "healthcare reform" suffered a major setback this week when a U.S. District Judge declared a key part of the legislation to be "so unbelievably unconstitutional that it makes my eyes bleed."

Okay, that's not what he said...though we'd be surprised if he wasn't thinking it.

Instead, Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" which compels Americans to purchase health insurance under threat of financial fines or prison. The judge wisely pointed out that "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate."

Exactly. The "individual mandate" is, by its very nature, a usurpation of Americans' rights; it mandates what the individual must do...and if not struck down, the government could just as easily use the "individual mandate" to declare that you must buy a GM car or face a fine. You must watch MSNBC or go to jail. You must "eat the salad." You must do whatever the government says.

That's exactly the kind of abuse of power our Constitution was written to forbid.

Barack Obama, who has previously claimed to be a Constitutional Law Professor, would have to be an idiot not to know his draconian Healthcare bill is unconstitutional. But we assume that he does know, and doesn't care.

Which is why our Founding Fathers specifically authored our nation's most magnificent document to protect us from men who wish to be kings.



moronpolitics said...

As funny as this may be intended to be...We the people need to start getting serious about a couple of amendments that limit powers which have been abused, the "interstate commerce" BS for example... in such a way that they can NOT be "misunderstood". HAHA. How NOT BUYING insurance can be "interstate commerce" when it is ILLEGAL to even BUY health insurance across state line is the type of thing that only 4 to 6 years in an Ivy League school can teach one to understand. You gots to be REAL smart to be THAT stupid.
Barrack was NEVER a professor of course only an instructor... the type of position usually held by grad students, but of course.... we have a graduate assistant serving as President. What's the problem with that, eh? Nice how he got rid of the accent,right? I remember it took until the third week to understand my Physic Lab guy....Until then we just smiled, nodded and did the labs out of the manual.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Geeze Stilt, you think he even KNOWS what's IN it? Why would you think he's even READ it? And didn't we have to pass it to find out what's IN it? This thing is an unmitigated dung chunk from one end to the other!

MPol - you thinking the 2nd?

John the Econ said...

Oh, he knows what's in it. In order to effectively defeat an enemy as solid and enduring as our Constitution, you have to know and understand it.

The Progressive strategy is, and always has been to make most Americans no longer care about the Constitution and the protections it is intended to provide against the rise of future "kings". For generations now, they've been telling anyone who would listen that they have "rights" that do not exist, and that the government can and will take care of your every "need" while protecting only your supposed rights to self-indulgence at the expense of "others". Sooner or later, a society that is a majority of intellectual children will be ripe to parented by the nanny state.

As for the abuse of "interstate commerce"; if the "individual mandate" had been allowed to stand, federal power to micro-regulate would have been cemented in place as unlimited. There's is nothing that you do from the moment you are conceived until after you're dead that somehow could not be construed as affecting "interstate commerce". Heck, every time you draw a breath, you eventually expel CO2.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Abortion, healthcare, internet...
The "rights" go on and on while the ones granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution are ignored, usurped and hammered into something unrecognizable by the founders. Never forget that whatever the government may give, the government can take away. If they succeed in making God unconstitutional, then the only granter of rights is the government. Once they own that they can do any damned thing they want.

drozz said...

SJ- awesome cartoon. What really ties it up is the last statement of emphasis.

Judge Hudson is absolutely correct. This isn't about healthcare, its about penalizing the citizens for non-activity in purchase of a private commodity. He succeeded where Moon failed.

The Supremes are there to interpret the Constitution, and not to cut whole cloth new law. I hope they remember that. The subtle genius of Hudson's response was his shout-out to Scalia's 2005 decision, affirming the 1942 case regarding activity in non-commerce and his distinction (and slight reprimand of the branches of government) between a tax and a penalty.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Readers- Awesome comments today; one of the genuine pleasures of hosting Hope n' Change is the intellectual firepower on display here in the comments area (and I'm talking about your comments, not mine). This is a huge constitutional issue that could determine whether the American experiment has come to an end...and a bad end at that.

I've often thought that the reason liberals want to call the Constitution a "living document" is so that they can kill it. And if the Supreme Court doesn't do the right thing regarding the individual mandate, the Left will have succeeded.

Bobo said...

And if the S.C. doesn't do the right thing, what recourse do we have? Since a sitting president (even the alleged sitting president) has the authority to nominate and appoint a Justice when a vacancy occurs, what is to keep the court balanced if the Senate leans the same way as the president, as in the current congress, to approve the nomination?

Do citizens have any ability to remove a Justice for any reason or for cause? What keeps the three branches of power in check if the people cannot make changes in all three branches? I ask because I don't know or remember the answer from high school civics class.

Suzy said...

The sad thing is, how many judges already ruled that they feel it IS constitutional?

Its crazy!

pryorguy said...

Thank God for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers!!

And, at last, a judge who believes in that wisdom and freedom!