Hillary/ Obama will make the Constitution irrelevent

I wrote before that I think it would be a mistake for Conservatives to run from Guliani if he is eventually nominated as the republican nominee. Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Conservatives vote for a third party candidate. Hillary will become President.

In other words, a vote against Guliani will ultimately be a vote for Hillary, who in return will make a gallant attempt to force her views on the people (i.e. Hillaryscare) and, thus, further diminish the value of the greatest constitution in the history of the world.

If, for example, one party can force it’s viewpoint on the people, as was the case with the pro-choice movement, then some day the pro-life movement might attempt to do the same by making abortion illegal for everyone. To do this would be equally preposterous and unconstitutional.

If Roe-v-Wade is Constitutional, then some day someone in the Federal government might be able to make a law stating you have to buy health insurance whether you want to or not. The Fed will also be allowed to punish you if you do not buy health insurance.

I bring up Health insurance here only because Mrs. Clinton proposed it, and because it makes for a good example of the point I’m trying to make.

Fast forward to 2010 with Hillary as President.

“But I don’t want to buy health insurance,” a young, dark haired lawyer retorted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. “By what grounds can this be Constitutional. I see nowhere in the Constitution that says anything about requiring people to buy something, let alone that the Fed can punish you if you do not buy it.”

“Roe-v-Wade makes it possible,” an elderly gray haired male justice states calmly. “Since the Supreme Court declared Roe-v-Wade the law of the land, and there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion, then why do we need to go by the Constitution on other matters, i.e. health care?”

“If you give the Fed the power to force you to buy something, and the power to punish you if you do not,” he looks the justice square in the eyes, “then you also given the Fed the power to tell you that you have to be healthy. ‘Hey, since we are paying for your health care, we have the right to force you to be healthy.’”

“That is correct. Congress can make such a law.” A smirk slides out alongside a thin, crooked lip.

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to eat trans fat.”

“Correct.”

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to smoke.”

“Correct”

“The folly of that is this: I have a Constitutional right to be wrong.“ He stomped his foot. “I have a constitutional right to not be healthy. I have a constitutional right to be stupid.”

“Not if we don’t go by the Constitution.”

“That’s exactly how liberals want it. If we rule by the Constitution, nobody can force anything on anyone. If we disregard the Constitution, anything goes.”

“You are talking about the slippery slope.”

“Yes!” He stomped his foot again. “Now the Fed passes a law that your kids cannot say the Pledge, nor pray in class, even though this is a right protected by the Constitution. They will make a law that you cannot go shirtless on the beach; you cannot drink alcohol; you cannot preach conservatism; you have to buy red cars.”

“Red cars?” he laughed, and laughter ensues from two or three other justices, followed by a delayed laughter from the crowd. Several justices seem to glare at the crowd, which quickly grows silent.

“Why not.”

“If the laws we are making are for your own good, then they are fine. If you do not smoke you stay healthy longer and cost the government less money.”

“I have a right to smoke.”

“Not if Congress says otherwise.”

“Congress cannot say that.” He stomped his foot.

“Roe-v-Wade says it can.”

“The truth is, as the founding fathers well knew, I have a God-given right to make my own decision. I even have a right to be wrong. But I do not have a right to force my views on other people. This not only goes for the pro-choice movement, but the pro-life movement as well.”

“Reiterate.” The questioning justice slouches back in his chair and pulled a cigar out from under his robe.

“In fact, the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights states this: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’”

“Go on.” The justice is now chewing on the cigar, his expression smug.

“The authors of the Bill of Rights were wise in writing this, for if the liberal movement can succeed in forcing abortion on the people, some day pro-life movement can use the same Constitutional claim by making abortion illegal.”

The justices stir, but remain silent.

“I profess,” the lawyer continues. “Neither to make it legal nor illegal. My point is that the issue of abortion should never even have been taken up by this court. According to the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, the matter should have been left up to the states.”

“How so?” This time lady’s voice. At first our lawyer doesn’t know the source of the voice, then he sees a chubby lady lean forward onto the table. She looked giddy.

“Prior to the 1972 ruling, some states made abortion legal and others did not. This is called Federalism.” A moment of silence ensued. The lawyer continued a stern glare at the lady justice, who‘s countenance did not provide any hints as to what she might be thinking. “My point is to leave the matter to the states, as per the 10th Amendment.”

“This is called Federalism.” It was the elderly justice again. He continued chomping on the stub of the cigar.

“In his closing arguments to his fellow American’s in the 2nd Continental Congress, Ben Franklin gave a speech in which he stated that his initial gut feeling was to not sign the newly created Constitution.”

The members of the court continued to stare. After several moments of silence, the lawyer continued.

“Then, by basing his decision on a gut feeling, he decided that since every man has a different opinion on every issue, and that, I quote, “most men indeed as well as most sects of religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whatever others differ from them it is so far error.’”

He waited for the justices to respond. When none spoke, he continued once more:

“Therefore he decided that ‘I agree to this Constitution with all its faults.’”

The elderly justice slowly stood. He removed the cigar stub from his mouth, and a smile crept onto his face. “That Constitution was made for a people of long ago. It is null and void as is the Declaration of Independence.” The audience stirred.

The young lawyers heart skipped a beat, a shiver crept up his spine. A tear formed in the corner of his eye. Looking at the floor, he said, “That is what I was afraid of.”