After three days at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s landmark legislation known as the Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare, AKA legislation most of America wants repealed, AKA the reason my health insurance rates have ironically gone up) took a serious beating as Solicitor General Donald Verrilli simply couldn’t defend the indefensible.
While anyone who has read the Constitution and is capable of rational thought knows that ObamaCare is completely unconstitutional, Obama seems to be completely dumbfounded by the fact that his precious law may be declared – gasp! – unconstitutional. Seeing his behavior about the threat of his landmark legislation coming to an end reminds me of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. It’s like he thinks it’s the end of the world if someone takes it from him. Some are saying he’s in campaign mode. I just hear “My preciousssss!”
He’s so blinded by his love for something America hates that he’s completely ignorant to what happened during the hearings. He actually believes that the law will survive. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said during a press conference. Unprecedented? Oh really? I beg to differ.
Before I get really started, I’d like to remind everyone that Obama earned his law degree from Harvard and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. In comparison, I have a BA in Secondary Education-Political Science from Western Michigan University.
In 1803, there was this little Supreme Court case called Marbury v. Madison. I can completely understand if Obama doesn’t know about it. It’s only taught in just about every high school government classroom. It was also covered in just about every political science class I had in college. There’s only a plaque in the Supreme Court building with a quote from Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion of the Court for Marbury v. Madison. So it’s just a small case that’s commonly forgotten and Obama didn’t attend school in Kalamazoo.
I’ll save everyone the trouble of reading the whole story behind the case but the result of the case was a ruling stating that a law was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Oh shoot! I probably should have thrown a spoiler alert in there in case the president is reading this since it’s clear he doesn’t know about it. Sorry, Mr. President. Maybe if you spent less time debating your NCAA bracket picks, you could have had someone fill you in on this.
That wasn’t the only case where the Supreme Court overturned a law passed by a “democratically elected Congress.” There’s another small case called Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950’s. This time it’s taught in just about every high school history classroom. Since Obama didn’t teach history in college, we’ll grant him even more grace. I won’t forget Obama this time: SPOILER ALERT! Chief Justice Earl Warren’s court ruled 9-0 that “Separate but Equal” laws were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Not only did that ruling overturn laws, it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court case. END SPOILER ALERT!
At this point, I’m not surprised we’ve had such a hard time finding information from when Obama was a student. If I were a Harvard or Columbia official, I’d do everything to hide the fact that Obama attended. He makes them look more like junior colleges than Ivy League. I guess Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was handing out the grades when Obama was at those schools. I’m now wondering if I could be a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
But this ignorance of Supreme Court history isn’t the end of the story. Obama went on to say “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint.”
Apparently Obama didn’t bother listening to the entire argument made by just about every conservative commentator when they talk about judicial activism. Judicial activism is when a court makes a law through their ruling (i.e. Roe v. Wade). This would be repealing a law because it has no constitutional support. It’s a common mistake for this administration. Vice President Biden calls Governor Mitt Romney “Senator Romney.” To-may-to, to-mah-to. Same thing, right?
The situation with ObamaCare is that there’s nothing in the Constitution stating the federal government has the power to require people to buy a product or service just because they’re alive. At this point we turn to the 10th Amendment which reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If anyone’s wondering where the powers delegated to the US are found in the Constitution, fire up your Constitution app on your iPhone or Windows Phone (What? You don’t have one?) and look under Article I Section 8. The powers denied to the states are found in Article I Section 10. See, the Constitution is laid out in a way that anyone who can understand ObamaCare should have no problem following it.
Perhaps if Obama listened to conservatives asking for the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, then he could have gone to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The irony of that point is just too delicious.
But Obama’s idea of judicial activism is when “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law.” This goes with his point that the law “…was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” I’m surprised that a bill that barely passed the House of Representatives and the vote in both houses had zero Republicans voting for the bill constitutes a “strong majority.”
Obama’s words show just how out of touch he is with the founding of our country. Unfortunately, he’s of the same opinion as the majority of this country on one issue. We have a country that thinks our country is a democracy. However a short study of the Constitution and an understanding of the terms proves that we’re a republic. We can remove all democratic elements of our system (imagine if being selected to serve in Congress was like serving for jury duty). The structure of our government remains. Remove all representative elements of our government and we’re left with a complete mess.
We’re also a nation under a rule of law and not a rule of man. It doesn’t matter if 100% of the Congress wants to pass a law granting titles of nobility. There’s Article I Section 9 and it says “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
This desire of Obama to institute a law of man would explain why he keeps saying it’s constitutional with no arguments of support for that statement derived from the Constitution. In his mind, anything he and his Democratic friends in Washington want is the supreme law of the land.
We can only draw two conclusions from Obama’s comments on this Supreme Court case: Either Obama is completely ignorant about the Constitution and the legal history of our country, or he’s jealous of Kim Jong-un’s title of Supreme Leader. Neither instills much hope in this country if he gets another four years.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to send my resume to the University of Chicago.