July 26, 2012
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
— Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the “Father of the American Revolution.”
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that federal health care under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care (is “Constitutional” there’s been much opposition and even outrage among the people. This article will: summarize my main objections to the Supreme Court ruling, examine some of the proposed solutions to defeat PPACA, discuss the importance of federalism, explain the priority of state nullification and critically discuss the GOP leadership in the NC General Assembly. While the Supreme Court decision has generated much discussion about the Court and the many negative aspects of Obamacare my focus will be to evaluate the Court’s decision and the crux of the PPACA in light of the original intent of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) has been rightly castigated for ruling in favor of the legality of the PPACA. The decision was 5-4 including Chief Justice John Roberts siding with those Justices who are considered “liberal.” Roberts was appointed by Pres. George W. Bush (R). The 4 Justices who voted against the legality of Obamacare found the legislation in its entirety to be unconstitutional – no portion was ruled to be constitutional. However 5 Justices the PPACA, including the individual mandate for every person to purchase health insurance, constitutional.
The US Constitution is not a mystical document nor is it extremely complex and convoluted. The fact that 4 Justices found nothing in the PPACA constitutional underscores that SCOTUS is and has been a political instrument of the federal government for quite some time. Popular sentiment holds that whatever SCOTUS decides becomes incontrovertibly [if not magically] constitutional. Willard “Mitt” Romney commented, “Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy…”. Willard has said nothing to indicate that the Supreme Court’s decision should be rejected simply because there is no authority for health care in the US Constitution. Willard also could have objected to SCOTUS based on egregious decisions such as the Dred Scott case (1857) which held that blacks could never be citizens and that slavery was legal. Similar to the majority of Neo Conservatives Willard honors the Constitution in word but not in practice. “We cannot afford Barack Obama’s on-the-job learning, Big Government proposals, and irresponsible spending. Our basic liberties are at stake – and I will fight to restore our freedoms, renew the respect for our Constitution, and halt the government takeover of health care.”