It’s amazing to me that after shrugging of Republican fears of anti-constitutional judicial activism, now Democrats are crying judicial activism after the voiding of Obamacare by a Pensacola judge. Judge Roger Vinson agreed with 26 states that the Federal government does not have the right to force citizens to buy certain products from private corporations.
He is right. Where in the constitution does it even suggest that the government can force people to buy things? And this is for a very good reason. After all, if the government could mandate that you buy certain products from private industries, then those in power could maintain their power by picking winners and losers through legislation.
For a good example, you don’t need to look any further than the Obama administration’s handling of the bailouts. They violated the constitution when they took Chrysler and GM from the bond and stock holders and handed them over to the unions. Imagine what they could do if the judiciary upheld a law stating that they could order citizens to purchase goods from private companies.
What would happen is that we would all eventually be fit into the government mold of a model citizen. If the government could tell you what foods you could eat, or what car you could drive, don’t you think they would?
Actually, they already do through our tax system. You get tax breaks if you buy a home, go to school, buy energy efficient improvements or cars, give to charity, or do so many other government approved activities.
For once, a judge is saying no and is upholding the constitution. President Obama must be mystified that a court would actually act as a check and balance against his power. For years the judiciary was the vehicle of social changes that the legislature could not pass if they hoped to be re-elected. Whether it was deciding that women have the constitutional right to privacy when depriving their unborn of the constitutional right to life or almost any decision by the 9th circuit, the courts have not been the last line of defense for constitutionalism that they were designed to be. This time, the system worked.
Fresh into Obama’s presidency, he chose to stop enforcing federal drug laws in medical marijuana states. He so poorly enforced immigration laws that states resorted to writing their own immigration laws, which he then sued them for. Obama chose to drop the voter intimidation case against the black panthers even after the justice department had won the case. He violated the constitution with a moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf. When a judge struck it down, he turned around and issued a new moratorium.
With everything going on in Egypt, if anyone should be respecting the will of the people and our democratic rule of law, it should be President Obama. Our constitutional system of freedom, elections, and a government of checks and balances is what prevents Presidents from becoming tyrants, and citizens from becoming revolutionaries on days other than the first Tuesday in November.
Sofar, the administration is appealing and ignoring the ruling. But if Vinson’s ruling stands, Obama will need to make a decision. Will he respect our constitution and the rule of law and start over on healthcare?
Obama has delivered change. We now have an executive branch that can own private businesses, force consumers to buy, pick and choose what laws to enforce, reward supporters and punish detractors. Obama has greatly extended the power of his office.
The message from Judge Vinson’s ruling is clear. We have a democratic government designed with checks and balances and based on the constitution. It’s time for Obama to go back to being just President.