Obamacare: Two fatal flaws catching Liberals off guard this week
Politically aware and active Americans are on the edge of their seats awaiting the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision expected this week. But let’s deal today with some fatal flaws in the liberal beliefs regarding how the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
If you read this New York Times article you’ll see that, as the title indicates, supporters of Obamacare were very slow to pick up on constitutional problems with the sweeping healthcare legislation due to decades of court precedent concerning the interstate commerce clause in our Constitution and I believe there are two reasons for their sloth.
There are at least two fatal flaws with the liberal thought process in this case but first, here is the relevant paragraph from the New York Times article:
Looking back, Democrats said they had had every reason for confidence, given decades of Supreme Court precedents affirming Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce, and lawyers who defended the law said they had always taken the challenge seriously even if politicians had not. But they underestimated the chances that conservative judges might, in this view, radically reinterpret or discard those precedents.
Now, the first fatal flaw is the complete liberal belief in the legal philosophy of stare decisis, believing that a current court should not, cannot or will not find a previous court’s ruling in error, and that’s just patently false as it has happened so many times over the decades.
In fact, I believe liberals really only developed that belief once they felt they had a lock on the federal courts and an opportunity to move their agenda ahead through the courts, but as conservative presidents began to appoint conservative judges and justices with a firm respect for, and fidelity to, our Constitution that directly threatened the liberal judicial powerbase they began to push stare decisis as a governing judicial philosophy.
We had decades of court ruling affirming the religious rights of Americans and even state and local governments even to the extent of a Supreme Court statement in one of their 1892 rulings that America was a Christian nation. However, liberals began attacking “church and state” in our courts in the 1930s and those attacks culminated in what we know today as the Madalyn Murray O’Hair Supreme Court case of 1963 that essentially took God out of the schools and public square after almost 200 years of the exact opposite precedent. But what if that Supreme Court had held to stare decisis as liberals now claim they should?
There are numerous other examples, of course, but I hope you get the idea.
To take it a step further, liberals and progressives believe, wrongly, that our Constitution is a living and evolving document but apparently, in their mind, it only evolves in one direction – toward ever increasing government power. But using their philosophy of a living document who is to say it doesn’t, or can’t, evolve to more limited government in the eyes of any given sitting court rather than increasing government power?
But at the end of the day, if the Constitution is an evolving document, as they claim, then wouldn’t the philosophy of stare decisis fly in the face of that because no court would be able to overturn previously conservative decisions by reinterpreting our Constitution in order that it might evolve in their desired direction?
There is an inherent conflict in the two liberal positions of stare decisis and a living – evolving – Constitution.
The second fatal flaw in the liberal position is the belief that there is no point in time or law where government will push beyond what courts have decided in the past or where they are willing to go in the future. But in fact, most court decisions come exactly because government pushes the lines previously drawn and government is often rebuked.
It is true that there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of interstate commerce court decisions that have expanded federal powers over the decades but the liberal position in this case assumes there can never be a bridge too far.
Children will always test parents by pushing the limits parents set and government – men in power – is not completely unlike a child in that they will always seek to enhance their power. Just like children men and women in politics want to expand the boundaries by which they feel constrained and like parents, courts must sometimes step in and say this far and no farther.
I believe – and I pray – that liberals are about to be caught off-guard by our Supreme Court with respect to Obamacare. I believe – and I pray – the current Supreme Court is about to exercise true faith and allegiance to our Constitution rather than the liberal judicial philosophies of stare decisis and a “living document.”
I believe – and I pray – that the Roberts Court is about to pay great honor and tribute to our Founding Fathers and our American ideal of Liberty.
July 1st, 2012 at 6:36 am
Well Roberts made an odd decision. However he put it back in the hands of the voters.
Now for an example of my confusion and my torn situation.
I have a great deal of dislike for the views and lies of dems and the president and have been praying that they will be voted out.
On 6/27/12 my family was struck with a very scary situation. Our 16 year old daughter suddenly became very ill. We spent the morning in the emergency room where they could not figure out what was wrong. From there she was moved to one of the best children’s hospital (Wolfsons Children’s Hospital).
On 6/28/12 (day of court decision) she was getting worse and the doctors were stumped. At this point we began to worry that we may loose our daughter. Her body was wearing out and things were not getting better. As a parent this is something that you never want to go through. The doctors worked diligently to figure out why this was happening.
On 6/29/12 they finally figured out that she had a staph infection through out her body and was in toxic shock. They wasted no time or resources to save her. They even brought in an infectious specialist from another hospital to help figure out what to do because she was not responding to the antibiotics.
On 6/30/12 they finally found the combination of antibiotics etc to get her body to respond. By the next day she was starting to come around and we actually hope to have her home next week.
During this time I thought a great deal about our daughter but also about our health care system and the universal health care bill (obama care). I watched the unexpected turn of events unfold in the Supreme Court and listen to all the ridiculous pundits and their spin on the whole thing. I listen to Romney say he would repeal and replace obama care. I listen to doctors in the hospital talking among each other on the day of the decision, which they overwhelmingly supported.
I thought about how blessed we were to have such a great health care system that could save our daughter when she was in such bad shape. I could not help but wonder what obama care would do to or for this wonderful system.
Ok here is the catch. We lost our health insurance many years ago because it was costing more than our mortgage and we could no longer afford it. However the state of FL has a sliding scale program for insuring children only. With lots of hard work my wife was able to get our kids on this program and we submit our tax returns every year to set our premium costs, which by the way are lower than I think we should pay. Anyway this government supplemented program saved our daughters life and kept us from financial ruin. Of course my wife and I are still uninsured and can not get insurance because the insurance companies say we have been uninsured for so long that we both have to spend lots of money to do all the testing etc to even get a price. Now how can we do this if we already could not afford the insurance?
We need a real change in the current system and (I cant believe I am going to say this) Obama is the only one who has offered more than just a promise. He has actually spelled out what his plan is, whether you agree with it or disagree with it.
The GOP has spent so much time talking about repealing the bill and NO time on presenting a real plan to fix a broken insurance system.
I believe thatRomney has been painted into a corner and if the GOP wants the white house then he has to spell out his plan not just say he will repeal and replace it. Obama has spelled it out and Romney is just giving lip service that looks cheap with no substance. As a parent that could have lost a child the economy was the last thing on my mind but you can bet that health care was on the top of my list.
I know that I sound like a liberal but I think that health care should be something that all people should have access to without the fear of loosing everything or being dropped by the insurance company because god forbid you used it.
Ok I will say it. I believe it is a right to have health care in a country that gives away so much money to countries that hate us and to groups that want us dead.
So the GOP better get used to it or go to the back of the bus because they will loose big if they don’t move fast. I think that a sliding scale for all is a good idea. I have no problem paying more when I am doing ok and helping the person below me when they are not. Just as the person above me helps me when I am not doing as well as they are.
I feel like a trader but I believe in speaking the truth so there it is.
July 1st, 2012 at 4:54 pm
First of all, I sincerely hope your daughter can go home soon and recovers completely.
One has the right to anything that is legal and one can purchase or ‘trade’ for with the fruits of ones’ own labor. But one does not have the right to anything that forces another to provide.
You may be a trader, but you feel like a traitor, because you know that is it wrong. “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
July 1st, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Thank you,
Ok so you got me for a misspell. However it still does not resolve the problem.
As a small business owner I can assure you that I do not want Obama to continue with the destruction of our country but I also know the value of a healthy workforce.
You assume that I deserve neither yet you have lost more rights than you can count and I doubt that you have done anymore than me to regain your rights.
Maybe I am wrong and you are the leader of a great revolution that I have not yet seen.
Can you tell me that you do not follow laws that you do not agree with. Why do you not just act on your dislikes. Maybe because you have loved ones that you do not want to leave while you are in prison. Is that deserving of freedom?? As you said “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”.
You can not condemn others that you disagree with yet excuse what you are not willing to risk. It is like sin. One is no greater than another.
My point is that I do believe in health care for all. Not because I am a liberal but because I am a compassionate Christian, husband, son and father. I do not believe in a free ride and have been self pay for years. I have worked hard to pay health bills that almost wiped us out. I do believe that we need to build a system that is optional and is based on income.
I do not think that obama care is the way but I do think that Romney has a problem ahead of him because no matter how you may read the ruling from the SC most swing voters will see it as a win for obama. If Romeny just continues with the same old lines than he will not win because most voters are clueless.
Now I am not trying to put you down and we probably see eye to eye on most issues but might I recommend that you look at all the things that you will not risk such as not paying property taxes, income taxes etc. Why do you pay these. Because you want your what? Your security and so called freedom. “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”
I talk from experience of both sides of income because in the mid 90s I made more than most people will make in a lifetime and 60% went to taxes. Did it make me mad?? Of course it did but only because of the misuse of our taxes for wasteful government spending by both parties. Should I not say since the federal government took 60% of my income that I am owed health care??
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
If I am completely wrong about you than I apologize but if I am not than maybe just maybe you should try to think of realistic solutions not criticism.