Politicians should avoid tempting the constitution, because principled judges can make them look stupid.
Federal Judge Roger Vinson recently overturned the new federal health care law. He did this because the mandate that would force everyone to sign up for health insurance is unconstitutional. Note that I said it is unconstitutional. Not too long from now, we will learn if the Supreme Court also understands the constitution.
Almost two years ago I offered to be the lead plaintiff opposing the individual mandate. Thank goodness, 20 state attorneys general did this on our behalf.
I teach the constitution. My high school students can read it and pretty much understand it. They read it in plain language, and in the context of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. But more importantly, they learn that it is a document of enumerated powers, not of unlimited powers.
If the Democrats that passed the new health care law knew this truth, that the United States constitution tells the federal government what it can and to some extent, what it cannot do, they would never have passed the individual mandate. If Congress stuck to the spirit and letter of the constitution, they could have avoided having this judge make them look constitutionally stupid.
For years, of course, the federal courts have also ignored the constitution, and wrote their own modern ideas into their decisions. We now know, clearly, that when men choose to make up laws as they go along, without regard to rules, we end up with confusion. Confusion may be good for lawyers, who earn their living off it, but it is bad for citizens.
That is why I am so astonished when several members of a Minnesota State Senate committee recently said, “We deal with health policy. We don’t deal with constitutional issues. That’s not our job.” I hate to say it, but it is true. The Senators that said this were all Democrats, and so were all of those that voted for the unconstitutional federal health care law.
Even more astonishing, however, were the comments of Hennepin County Board Chair, Mike Opat. Yes, he, too, is a Democrat. When asked specifically if the constitution was important to the county board’s decisions, Opat said, “I believe the constitution is irrelevant to what we do at the county. We are reactive.” Well, how about reacting in concert with the law, Mr. Opat? And State Senators, and Federal Congress members?
This thumbing of the nose at the constitution by legislators and other government policymakers is exactly why Judge Vinson’s ruling is so important. If our policymakers are free to create any and every kind of scheme they devise, without regard to the rules under which we the people have ordered them to live, then we do not have a government – we have an oligarchy, aristocracy, or worse, a dictatorship of the chosen ones.
So paradoxically, one of the blessings of the unconstitutional federal health care law is that we finally, might actually get to talk about the rule of law again. We might get to teach lawmakers and citizens alike that We the People are in charge, not them, and we will enforce the constitution.
To make matters even more profound, I am attaching an article from California HealthLine (February 7, 2011)
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court Could Rule Along Party Lines on Health Reform Law
Suspicions that political leanings are affecting judges' rulings on the federal health reform law are expected to accelerate if the case reaches the Supreme Court, with the justices expected to rule along partisan lines, the New York Times reports (Liptak, New York Times, 2/4).
Previous Cases
More than 20 lawsuits have been filed against the health law, and four federal judges have rendered decisions thus far.
Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents ruled in favor of the law and individual mandate.
Meanwhile, two judges appointed by Republican presidents ruled that the requirement that nearly all U.S. residents purchase health coverage is unconstitutional; one of those judges also invalidated the entire overhaul, ruling that the mandate is inseparable from the rest of the law (California Healthline, 2/4).
Implications for Supreme Court Case
Experts say it is possible that the Supreme Court justices will rule along party lines when they eventually consider the reform law. There currently are five justices who were appointed by Republicans and four who were appointed by Democrats.
The Supreme Court is not expected to consider the case for at least another 18 months. The four rulings now are being reviewed at three midlevel appeals courts, where federal judges also will issue several -- and likely divergent -- opinions on the law.
However, when the high court does take up the issue, the justices are keenly aware that how their opinions and votes align will be closely monitored, legal experts note.
Justice Anthony Kennedy may be the swing vote because he is in the ideological middle but leans right (New York Times, 2/5).
Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/2/7/supreme-court-could-rule-along-party-lines-on-health-reform-law.aspx#ixzz1DRUCvNlX