Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Overturning Obamacare is following the Constitution

Judicial Activism:  Rewriting law from the judicial bench.  It's interpreting laws based on your opinion and personal views rather than the laws presently at hand.  It's ignoring the Constitution.  Activists say things like, "I feel bad for all the uninsured, so I think Obamacare should stand."  If it's illegal they don't care, so long as it feels like a good idea; as long as it makes sense to them.  The Constitution is not a barrier to them; they ignore it.  The Constitution is just in the way of them getting their views made law.  An activist can be either conservative or liberal, although usually they are liberal by default. 

The best example of Judicial Activism:  Rowe -v-Wade.  In this case the Supreme Court rejected your10th Amendment right to have your state decide on abortion laws.  It found in some fake way that the U.S. Constitution made abortion (baby killing) legal. Another good example is the Dred Scott Decision, where the Supreme Court somehow found in the Constitution that slavery is legal, and all laws previously made by states banning it are unconstitutional.

Judging:  Following the law.  Making sure laws are legal.  It's putting the constitution first, your feelings second (see constitutionalist below).  When judges rule by the Constitution, as Chief Justice Marshall did in 1803, we like judging just fine.

Constitutionalist:  Someone sworn to protect and serve the Constitution, and thus the people of the United States.  It's the belief that those who write laws and judge laws are bound to the limitations set forth by the Constitution.  They have sworn an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, therefore they cannot say, "Well, there's a lot of people without healthcare, so I think we should uphold Obamacare."  A Constitutionalist will put his own feelings aside and follow the Constitution.  The constitution is a barrier to prevent laws from taking away natural rights. 

Despite the above facts, Obama recently said that if the U.S. Supreme Court declares Obamacare unconstitutional it will be among the worst cases of  "judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," according to Reuters.

This is actually untrue, considering Obamacare is unconstitutional on its own merit.  It goes against 10th amendment rights.  If the Supreme Court strikes down this law it is simply following the law, or simply doing its job.  Thus, it would not be judicial activism.  It would be, simply put, judging. 

Obama said republicans have been harping against judicial activism for years, and if the Supreme Court decides Obamacare is illegal, it will be an extreme case of judicial activism.  What he is saying is republicans would be hypocrites to think otherwise. 

If there is true judicial activism, either from the right or left, I would agree that is wrong.  I don't want Rick Santorum using the Supreme Court to force all Americans not to use contraceptives any more than I want the Supreme Court to make abortion legal. 

Judges are sworn to protect the Constitution regardless of their personal beliefs, and are therefore Constitutionalilsts.  In Judging, they must therefore follow the laws at hand, not values they have, or laws of other lands. 

In the case of Obamacare:  it already is illegal; it is already unconstitutional.  So stating such would not be hypocritical for those same persons harping against judicial activism.  A U.S. Supreme Court Justice, whether favoring liberalism or conservatism, has no choice but to vote against Obamacare.

No comments: