The Constitution Is Meaningless
Those of us who believe that the Constitution should still be relevant in American policy making have reason to rejoice in the 11th Circuit’s ruling that Obamacare violates our founding document.
Liberals, on the other hand, simply dismiss any constitutional argument against the government takeover of the health industry.
How, according to the Left, are we and especially America’s younger generations, supposed to understand the Constitution?
Telling is Jonathan Cohn’s take at The New Republic, where he attempts to malign the decision based on the jurisprudence of one of the three judges who adjudicated the case.
Judge Frank Hull was appointed to the circuit by Bill Clinton, making her the first democrat to rule against the Affordable Care Act. That doesn’t impress Cohn, who writes, “We now know that she also holds a very radical view of Congress’ enumerated powers.”
Why is it radical to think that Congress should only exercise those powers reserved thereto? This has been a theme of liberals in politics and the media that has escalated since the rise of the Tea Party. It is now considered extreme to believe that the Constitution means what it says.
A reasonable person might interpret the clause, “the Congress shall have power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” to mean that it can impose rules on trade with foreign countries in the same way that it can impose them on states.
Yet liberals have interpreted the commerce clause to mean anything they want it to mean.
Cohn also complains that “Hull has consistently restricted individual rights and favors prosecutors over criminal defendants.”
Like preventing the state from requiring that individuals buy an expensive product, one that the government must certify? The Left claims to champion individual liberty, except when it interferes with their big government plans. They are deaf to the dissonance.
Moreover, how do liberals reconcile their demand that courts limit the government’s prosecutorial and police powers against suspected criminals, while they expect the same government to exercise increasing coercive powers over law-abiding citizens?
It is because there are no firm rules guiding their governing philosophy. They pay homage to the Constitution when it is convenient, but despise it more often than that as an impediment to bigger government.
It is little wonder that American high school students are fairly ignorant about our constitution. It has been rendered meaningless by the Left, and therefore impossible to teach or understand in application to our modern government systems.
Hopefully, the imminent Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare will help correct that problem.