Image credit: shutterstock.com
It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic--and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress.
SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?
It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:
“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800
However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwelldecision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:
“In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.” (emphasis mine)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.
Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.
There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.
Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.
“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.” (emphasis mine)
But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.
Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:
“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)
But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.
Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:
“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States areSEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)
We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.
It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.
Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!
http://www.westernjournalism.com/supreme-court-is-not-the-ultimate-arbiter-of-the-constitution/
There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from, say, reasoning used to support polygamy.
