Watching FOX News this morning, I was inspired to write this short posting by a statement made by Andrew Napolitano. The conversation referenced comments made by Nancy Pelosi about ObamaCare and the Individual Mandate, which is being defended before the court by invoking the commerce clause. Pelosi claimed at some point, rather ignorantly, that the bill was "ironclad constitutionally".
So, we have a majority of support for this bill in Congress. It gets passed in spite of vocal opposition from voters. We are living in a democracy. So, majority rules, right? Wrong!
The statement in question from Napolitano referred to these majority rule and commerce clause assumptions that Nancy Pelosi and her ilk seem to labor under. He reminded listeners that the Supreme Court is a non-democratic branch of government which is designed to keep the states, the courts, and the other two branches of government within the bounds of the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court, there is always lurking the possibility of a runaway majority which could pass legislation to take away the property, freedom, and the lives of the minority. In fact, we see a lot of this in our tax code and certain other areas where the majority benefits from the minority.
ObamaCare is as perfect an example of this as could be devised. For whatever reason, Congress allowed itself to be bent to the will of a vocal majority that demanded this law. Those classes of citizens that will benefit from the law were the most ardent supporters, Napolitano's runaway majority. Those that would have to pay the costs by being forced to participate were virtually ignored, the exploited. This violates the rights of the minority on so many levels that it would require a lengthy discussion to name them all. Freedoms of religion, speech, and association being the most obvious, with slavery possibly being included.
ObamaCare is an example of socialistic central planning gone awry, but don't they all go awry! Awry may be the wrong word however. Afoul might be a better word. It has gone afoul of the Constitution. It would not be before the court right now if indeed it was as ironclad as Pelosi claimed. ObamaCare is a going to be a great example for history and law professors as to how American government's checks and balances are designed, and that they do work.
Supposedly the the Supreme Court keeps a check on the other two branches of government to assure constitutionality of laws made and policies carried out. But, how can the checks and balances work when we have members of all three branches of government who are determined that our Constitution is a "living document" and therefore can be interpreted as those who are in power see fit? Surely these individuals know that the Constitution embodies the peoples right of self-governance. Many of them simply don't care. Statists are thugs. If the American people do not rise up at the voting poles and take back what is rightfully theirs, the USA of the founders will be cast into the dust bin of history. And, our "Supreme Court" will have had its hand in the demise of our freedoms and the destruction of the America of our founders.
THE SUPREME COURT, is to EXAMINE AND DETERMINE IF A LAW IS correct in its entirety and within the CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION. and more importantly thet the LAW IS JUST TO THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.A. that is the whole point that it serves and protects WE THE PEOPLE. OBUMA CARE DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!. the SCOTUS SHOULD THROW IT OUT OFF THE BOOKS in it's entirety. 26 states and over 60% of the U.S. disagree with this LAW. sure PELOSI would AGREE she was the DUMB SPEAKER THAT SAID LETS PASS THIS AND THEN READ IT. D'OH are they not supposed to read a LAW THAT IS PROPOSED FIRST THEN DECIDE. SHE HAS SHOWN NO INTELLIGENCE THEN AND NOW. THIS OBUMA/PELOSI LAW is UNCONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD.
THE DRIVE BY MEDIA, is NOW SAYING THE SCOTUS MAY THROW THE WHOLE OBUMA CARE OUT COMPLETELY. in its entirety. I would hope this happens. I believe it will be JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY that will make the deciding vote to throw obummer care out FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
While the supreme court has several purposes its main purposes are to strike down legislation repugnant to the U.S. constitution and to apply that constitution to valid cases in controversy, deciding those cases under our constitution. It never was nor ever should be one of its purposes to create new anything ... especially not new rights nor law.
It also is but one of many voices contributing to "what is constitutional."
YES - What is the purpose ot the Supreme Court?
PLEASE READ THIS:
Martial Law by Executive Order
By: Jim Garrison
Jim Garrison serves as president of State of the World Forum and Wisdom University. He is the author of America as Empire and other books on world affairs. He can be contacted at email@example.com
President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.
Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.
The 2012 NDAA deemed the United States a "battlefield," as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.
In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:
• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.
Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.
The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.
What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.
Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.
It is hard to know what to say in the face of such egregious disregard for the integrity of what America has stood and fought for since its founding. It is hard in part because none of us thought such encroachments would ever happen here, certainly not under the watch of a "progressive" like Obama.
At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the "global war on terror." Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.
The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude.
The above published by The Huffington Post – Ultra Liberal Rag.
Where is Fox on this story? - Limbaugh? - Savage? - Malkin? – The TeaParty!!!!!!
Not even at gunpoint, brother!
Not though they drag me away in chains!