Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision was not magically undone overnight by benevolent fairies, so it looks like it’s up to us. Yes, this decision stinks on ice. And Yes, it means we have only one choice going forward: REPEAL IT.
Actions like this were anticipated over 200 years ago. It’s not as if the founding fathers didn’t have a little experience dealing with an oppressive government.
Not being a Constitutional scholar, I can’t quote chapter-and-verse from Franklin, Adams and the rest off the top of my head. However, I wasn’t sleeping through classes (not most of them, anyway), and I do recall some of their writings. Of all of our country’s elite thinkers at our nation’s beginning, the one person who wrote most eloquently, to me, was probably Thomas Jefferson although he had some beliefs with which I do not hold. There was a reason the man wrote the Declaration, after all.
I’d ask you to recall some of those writings today, and see if they don’t apply directly to what we are currently experiencing. 
- “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
- “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
- “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” (***There is some disagreement on this one, regarding whether or not this can be directly attributed to Jefferson. Regardless, it is perfectly applicable, so I’m including it).
- “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
- “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
- “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”
- “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
- “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
- “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
- “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
These quotes (and there are numerous others) sum up what we’ve just seen: a government declaring absolute control over the will, lives and bodies of its people, all in the name of “compassion” and “fairness”. It happens with the EPA, the TSA and the rest of the government alphabet soup. Obamacare is just the coup de grâce.
It was intimated in the ruling yesterday that the “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was enacted as the result of our duly elected leaders legislating on our behalf. Sorry, but that simply doesn’t wash. Our elected officials didn’t get elected based on a promise of the takeover of healthcare. Worse, those representatives in favor of it subsequently lied about their rationale once they introduced the topic.
Furthermore, even after 2+ years since Obamacare’s passage, most voters still would like to see the law repealed. So, how can this be the will of the people?
It can’t, because it isn’t.
This isn’t a simple policy difference which occurs in normal, day-to-day politics. This is an essential departure of our country’s founding, and it cannot be tolerated. We are being told that if we do not live in a way in which the Federal Government approves, we will be punished, and that punishment is up to them. Anyone that thinks this won’t lead to even more egregious losses of liberty is either stupid or naïve.
If we simply roll over, shrug our shoulders and say “oh, well; win some and lose some“, we won’t have lost some; we’ll have lost everything.
Two Heads are Better Than One 
You are 100% right about it now being on us, we can send the right people to Washington and repeal the bill. Roberts in the opinion yesterday even expressed if you read between the lines that its a bad bill. His reasoning for it being a tax leaves me pondering but nothing can be done about that but repealing it. So now the ball is in our court, its up to us because if Obama wins repealing this in 2016 would be much harder if not impossible.
It’s all about us, Blaine. Just as it was in Wisconsin, if we can mobilize the freedom-loving citizenry, we can win.
‘Cause if we don’t, as Bill Paxton said in ‘Aliens’:
“….Game over, man! Game over……”
Reblogged this on dlothemartian and commented:
Check out the article, common sense people! Cancer and other genetic type diseases are one thing but if you don’t plan on being healthy diet and exercise then you should be prepared to pay (physically and monetarily) to continue living your unhealthy lifestyle.
I know a little about Mr Jefferson and you are absolutely right about those quotes. I disagree that it is hogwash what Roberts said about duly elcted leaders and all. I think he was saying, “You idiots voted them in. Pay attention next time.”
The idiots did vote them in. But we are not a full democracy and were never supposed to be. Our system was set up so that the people can govern but not at the expense of individual rights. The Founders set up the Supreme Court so that they can uphold the Constitution. Roberts did not do that. He said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” To a point he is right, but his ultimate job is to protect the Constitution. He did not do that.
Agreed, DD, which is why his rationale was wrong.
When Congress oversteps its authority and/or departs from the Constitution, the Courts are supposed to tap them back in line. No more, and no less.
If all they are is a rubber stamp, we don’t need ’em.
The media ALREADY performs that service.
The Founders did NOT set up the Supreme Court to review constitutionality. That was not precedent until 1803 under Marshall. Roberts did the same thing toprotect the Court yesterday as Marshall did when IGNORING the Constitution and establishing Judicial Review based on a case from 1794.
Come on now, people..be happy. Mr Jefferson believed in the yeoman farmer over the judge or legislator any day. Don’t you trust your informed fellow citizens to do the right thing in November?
No
LOL. Me niether. That’s why I think that, not only should people have to provide identification to vote, they should have to pass some test to indicate they have at least a PASSING knowledge of what is happening. I will be happy to design the test.
But I am just the guy who says we need a monarchy for 100 years to teach the populous to appreciate freedom once more. Again, I volunteer.
In Federalist 78 Hamilton said, “the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
Article III Section 2 says “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION.”
The Founders DID intend for the Supreme Court to review constitutionality.
See, DD? That’s why I love ya.
I just can’t come up with that stuff……
“Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”
Look at the WHOLE section -“to all casses …” no where does it say anyone against federal government or evaluating Constitutionality.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. Hamilton ALWAYS worried that the Judiciary would be too weak.
Judicial Review is NOT enumerated in the Constitution.
Touché, John.
I can’t argue law cases: I’m simply not capable.
But the liberal iterpretation of this seems to be that the court would be guilty of activism if they HAD struck it down, which flies in the face of even recent history.
Heck, if Liberals actually believed that argument, they would have to oppose many of the Left’s favorite cases, such as Roe v Wade, which struck down democratically and properly enacted laws.
Sauce for the Goose, etc.,…
I think the Dissent from yesterday is better than anything that I can come up with, even if you gave me all week to do so:
—“The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. IT IS NOT. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public DOES NOT EXPECT.
It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain.
And it leaves the public and the States to expend VAST sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.”—
—–
It was a bad law. Shouldn’t have been passed, and SCOTUS wimped out on its chance to correct Congress. We certainly have tons of precedent for doing so.
I think the thing that fries the brains of so many Conservatives, originalists, traditionalists, etc.,.. is that the Courts and the Legislature ALWAYS seem to look at the areas that help them do what they want, when they want, as long as it expands the power of government.
And that is the truly scary part, at least for me.
OK>>>OK..I hear you guys. I AGREE with you that it was bad law and, on its merits alone, should have been struck down. I am not arguing…lol. I am just saying that, right or wrong, for better or worse, something else is going on here, I thnk.
Plus Roberts’ rationale makes no sense. He said it was unconstitutional to force someone to pay for health insurance. But then he said those that don’t can get penalized through taxes. What?? So I’m allowed to exercise my rights as long as I understand that I will get penalized? How does THAT makes sense? How is THAT constitutional??
Roberts is saying, “WTF should we (the Court) be accountable for these idiots you people sent us? YOU deal with them. YOU regn in YOUR government.” I love it.
And, continuing with my “Theme of the Day” (Elections have consequences), please keep in mind that it’s BECAUSE of Obama that we have Kagan and Sotomayor………
That was pretty good for being off the top of your head, too!
LOL!
Hey, I admit I may have looked up ONE of those, John…
🙂
And Roberts may feel that it’s on us.
I simply disagree.
I concur, Blained13…..Roberts basically said that it wasn’t the position of the Court to determine whether it was a “good law” or a “bad law”, only if it was, or was not, Constitutional.
Still, the Court, and more specifically, Roberts, took (IMHO) the cowardly route. Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito all had the same vehemently expressed opinion that the law was a debacle and should be overturned in its entirety.
JTR’s litany of Jefferson’s quotes is telling of how much our founders foresaw the dangers of an overreaching government.
Ronald Reagan, at the time a private citizen, gave the following address on the dangers of Socialized Medicine as part of the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against the Socialized Medicine initiative of the Dems. I hope you’ll take 10 minutes to listen:
I hope that Shirley MacLaine’s theory on reincarnation can at least extend to the re-birth of our next Reagan……
Excellent recording, Pgh. Haven’t listened to that since 2010, when all this went down in the 1st place.
We’ve seen men grow in office once elected, becoming more than they were and rising to the occasion. Coolidge did, to a certain extent, and Lincoln certainly governed at a level that most didn’t think him capable. Some would say Reagan did the same thing, although his writings, and recordings like this, point out how flawed that thinking is.
Reagan was the total package well before he took office.
It will be up to Romney to realize his potential (which I think is pretty high, actually) and resist the admittedly easier path.
Think the “Dark Side” from Star Wars, only with legislation rather than lightsabers.
I just discussed this at another blog but in a different light As usual, an excellent article on your part. Thank you for the posting. I plan to get back to it for a 2nd read as time permits.
Pingback: The 4th of July, and the meaning of our Declaration of Independence « Two Heads are Better Than One
Pingback: Now that I’ve had time to think it over, ….it STILL stinks « Two Heads are Better Than One