"...Are you serious?"
Those are three simple words that form one simple
question. And the question has led us to
this moment in time.
Recall in October of 2009, when then-Speaker of the U.S
House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was asked about the formulation of the
Obamacare bill, and she asked that very question of a reporter. “Madam Speaker,” a reporter from CNSNews.com
said to her, “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the
authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Ms. Pelosi seemed surprised. Her indignant “are you serious?” response was
followed with a slight bit of nervous laughter, as she then repeated herself.
“Yes,” the reporter answered Ms. Pelosi, “yes I am."
Pelosi’s Press Secretary Nadeam Elshami stated that the
reporter’s inquiry was “not a serious question,” Pelosi shook her head in
disbelief, and they both moved on to address another reporter, completely
ignoring the question about “constitutionality.”
And after ignoring concerns about constitutionality for
over three years, Democrats are now watching the Administration of their party
Leader, Barack Obama, struggling to answer serious questions before the
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The left’s disregard for the limitations of
government has been apparent for decades – President Obama himself was on
record years before his election lamenting that the Constitution only stipulates
what the government cannot do to you, instead of specifying what the government
should do for you.
But now a moment of truth is staring all Americans in the
face, as the Supreme Court will soon determine if the government can force you
to buy something, along with determining whether or not the distinction between
“citizen” and “non citizen” (as in Arizona’s illegal immigration law) matters
any longer. As President Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright once famously
said, “America’s chickens… are comin’ home to roost..”
The fact is that when Presidents and members of Congress
dismiss the Constitution as Mr. Obama and his party have, the only thing
standing between the individual citizen and the raw, brutal force of
governmental power is the Supreme Court itself.
The American founders understood some things about the history of the
world, as it existed leading up to our nation’s birth, and they recognized the
natural human tendency of those in power to control and ultimately brutalize
those beneath them. This is why our
Constitution stipulates that we are governed by three co-equal branches of
government (not just one or two), and why those branches intentionally create a
“check and balance” between each other.
So what if the Supreme Court says that Barack Obama is
wrong? What if the Justices collectively
determine that our government cannot force the individual citizen to buy
something, and that the distinction between being a citizen and an illegal
immigrant is real? The Democrats would prefer a Supreme Court stacked with
Obama appointees, who would then presumably approve of everything that Obama
wants, but (thankfully) they haven’t achieved this yet.
If Democrats must campaign for the final months of this
year’s election against a backdrop of Obama failures at the Supreme Court, we
may see a well-financed P.R. assault against the Supreme Court Justices
themselves. History provides a lesson
about this matter, becausePresident Obama is not the first White House occupant
to desire more power than the Constitution allows.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the
Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”)
programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country,
famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling
them as the “9 Old Men.” Additionally, as a means of overcoming the “separation
of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” the old, antiquated Supreme Court
system by adding up to six new justices – justices that would all be selected
and appointed by himself.
Thankfully FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform
legislative proposal (the checks-and-balances phenomenon worked again), and the
American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the
Constitution.
But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that
President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to
campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important
“Obamacare” law.
Who would stand with Obama in a campaign of Supreme Court
bashing? Start with the entire AFL-CIO.
Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring”
uprising, and eventually one could include all the prevailing powers of the
Democrat Party.
Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of
Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited
government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare,
education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that
stuff to citizen and non-citizen alike, and by whatever means.
So is America serious about a constitutional
government? Many of us are far more
serious about receiving “things” from our government than the idea of a
constitutional republic.
Depending on how the high court rules this summer, we may
see Democrats campaigning on an agenda of “constitutional and judicial reform”
before November arrives.
No comments:
Post a Comment