Wednesday, October 2, 2013

It's the Law of the Land!

From anonymous:
But consider that the Affordable Care Act is law, and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, and is therefore valid. 
The anonymous comment left on yesterday's post reiterates the left's favorite talking point of the day, "It's the law of the land!"

The supreme court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the Unaffordable Obamacare Act's constitutionality. Meaning 4 of the 9 still believe the law is unconstitutional. So, because that one extra person decided differently, Republicans and the majority of Americans who opposed the law are supposed to just say, "oh well, the issue is settled, everything is legit. We need to just shut up and accept the loss of our liberty."

Funny, I don't recall democrats saying anything like that after the Citizens United decision...

Ever since Chief Justice Rehnquist has departed, the Court has increasingly overstepped the bounds of judicial review in campaign finance cases and has overruled not only the legislative branch but also the vast majority of Americans. The arrogance of the Roberts Court is nothing short of a judicial "coup d'etat" that threatens the very essence of republican government upon which our nation was founded.
...Left unchallenged, this brazen assertion of judicial overreach threatens not only our campaign finance system but the basic principle that government's sole legitimacy rests upon the consent of the governed.
Most of our founders were ambivalent about giving the Supreme Court the right to declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional. But, even those who supported strong judicial review did so under the principle that the Court had a duty to act on behalf of the people in cases where the legislature had gone beyond its constitutional authority. This is why it is particularly important for "We the People" to directly and collectively speak out against the wrongful interpretations of the Supreme Court...
...to leave this matter in the hands of lawyers and judges would be an abdication of our role as citizens and ultimately an abandonment of sovereignty and self-government. If we refuse to defend our constitutional values from five rogue Justices, we are giving up on more than campaign finance reform. We are giving up on our republic.
...Should the judiciary remain intransigent, the executive branch could add to the duties of Justices by assigning them to the circuit courts, or alter the number of Justices who participate in any given case. The legislative branch could use impeachment as a tool. Or, the executive branch could simply move to enforce laws that the Roberts Court objects to, leaving it to juries and voters to decide which branch is correct. These tactics seem extreme, but some of them have been employed throughout our history and the Roberts Court's threat to our constitutional checks and balances so severe that it may be time to think outside of the box that the Court has put us in.
I guess Derek Cressman at HuffPo didn't get the memo.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So when you can't win the game, blame the rules. Gotcha.

In addition, when you can't even frame your Fox News talking points properly, you look even dumber than you already are (it's accept, not except).

#shameontherepublicants

theKansasCitian said...

What rules aren't being accepted? The same ones lefties are lamenting over on a myriad of other SCOTUS decisions? They are winning or haven't you noticed?

Here's a nugget for you, the constitution declares all spending must start in the house. So it is perfectly legal and perfectly appropriate for the house to use and pass such measures. On the other hand, it is not perfectly legal, by the constitution, by the letter of the law in Obamacare, or by SCOTUS decision, for the president to unilaterally grant exemptions to companies and unions, yet he has done it.

Where is you, "it's the law of the land," BS argument there?

Anonymous said...

To first anon:

Why are the dems not willing to pass CRs to fund the programs necessary for people in need? It seems like they are being unreasonable in treating this as an all or nothing deal.

Do they really believe that this health care act is that critical to the nation that it must be funded this year with no questions asked? Or is it simply vanity and emotional attachment to this piece of legislation which so many dems hold so dear?