It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who have looked to the courts to implement their policy preferences. Whether it was racial and sex preferences, abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment or the “rights” of illegal aliens, liberals have attempted to move the country left by judicial fiat.
Judges, after all, are highly educated elites. The political views of people with advanced degrees tend to be liberal. It’s far easier to seduce a few robed lawyers to issue congenial rulings than it is to undertake the hard and lengthy work of persuading millions of voters to elect people who agree with you.
Conservatives have been so battered by adverse court decisions over the years that we’d become anti-courtists — toying with ideas to reduce the judiciary’s scope (as Newt Gingrich mentioned during the primaries), emphasizing the antidemocratic nature of judicial usurpation of legislative functions and stressing the importance of judicial restraint.
But Supreme Court rulings in the past few years — since John Roberts became chief justice — had suddenly seemed to open up sunlit vistas of conservative victories on important constitutional questions. Not that conservatives longed to make school prayer mandatory or the government share of gross domestic product above 20 percent unconstitutional. Conservatives simply long for a return to judicial modesty and constitutionalism. In the gun control decision, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. In Citizens United, the court upheld First Amendment protections on political speech. Was a decision putting limits on the infinite expansion of Commerce Clause power by Congress so unthinkable?
The case seemed incredibly strong. If, as Justice Kennedy put it during oral argument, Congress can compel participation in commerce in order to regulate it, what becomes of the idea of a government of limited and enumerated powers? If the Commerce Clause permits this, it permits anything.
It seemed that the Obama administration, by attempting to sneak a new tax past the public by disguising it as a mandate, had outsmarted itself. A tax would be clearly constitutional under the Congress’s taxing power. A mandate to purchase a product clearly is not. The administration had contradicted and embarrassed itself by arguing first that the mandate was not a tax and then that it was.
So it was shocking to see Justice Roberts side with the liberals in upholding the individual mandate as constitutional. It was an odd straddle. Roberts ruled that critics of the law were correct: The Commerce Clause does not justify compelling economic activity so as to regulate it. “Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation. … That is not the country the Framers of our constitution envisioned.”
The opinion is direct and unequivocal that the government’s claim of authority under the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional, and it gave the back of its hand to the claim that the Necessary and Proper Clause granted sufficient authority. It was everything a conservative could wish for. But then the chief justice (with the votes of the court’s four liberals) reached for an alternative. If you call the mandate a tax, Roberts wrote, it falls within Congress’s taxing authority.
While shredding the government’s case that the Commerce Clause granted sweeping authority to regulate even nonactivity, the majority opinion vitiated all of that beautiful reasoning by permitting the law to stand as a tax. It doesn’t even require Congress to pay heed, in future, to truth in labeling. If the Congress passes a new law that asserts unprecedented power, it needn’t bother to call it a tax (and risk the voters’ wrath), as the court will find a way to call it a tax later.
Roberts bent over backwards to find the law constitutional, most likely because he was loath to see the court attacked. His written explanation was a conservative one: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
True enough, but the court is tasked with protecting the Constitution and clearly failed to do so here. A key pillar upholding limited government has been kicked away. If the practical result is to energize opposition to President Obama’s re-election, it may turn out to a proverbial blessing in disguise. But there is no point in denying the damage.
Mona Charen is a columnist with Creators Syndicate.
With key questions answered by the Supreme Court over illegal immigration, our nation must now analyze the growing problem presented to us nationwide. We now have a fair indicator of what each sovereign State has the ability to do, regarding its own sovereignty provisions? Does the Supreme Court’s ruling reject the main aspect of Arizona’s S.D.1070? NO! It has given Arizona a right to control its borders. The courageousness of Arizona that daring to go against the Marxist, Socialist agenda in Obama’s administration, has been seen by most as ruthless grab on power. Attorney General, Eric Holder forever branded by the ‘Fast and Furious’ gun walking outrage and the senseless murder of U.S border agent Brian Terry will ever be on his conscious; if he has a conscious? This man, thirsting for absolute power decided to teach the Grand Canyon State a lesson and in turn, has turned the majority of law abiding Americans against the Obama administration for his actions.
Arizona can now adopt its original statute; ‘ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT’. So rather than take their chances in Arizona, I foresee hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens families fleeing, thereby adding financial torture to the nearest Liberal orientated states like California and Nevada. ILLEGAL ALIENS MUST BE SAYING TO THEMSELVES, “WHY BOTHER WITH A STATE, WHERE YOU COULD BE PULLED OVER FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, WHEN YOU COULD EMPTY CALIFORNIA’S HAMPER OF FREE GOODIES? Hey! California gives free handouts of taxpayer’s cash, so why stay in that border state? Currently California is suffering from a $16 billion dollar deadfall deficit, because of a Liberal Mayor and lobotomized governor. They have been brought upon themselves, by a radical group of politicians who have more loyalty to countries south of the border, than an alliance to the U.S. Constitution. They have allowed the giving of huge amounts of taxpayers’ money to illegal nationals; even as far provide drivers licenses. Soon California and other members of our 50 state unions, will be crying foul? Those states will be monetary hurting even more as the evacuation begins from locations that espouse Arizona’s law. States as Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah that are already financially hurting from the influx of impoverished people, will adapt their statutes so as not to conflict with federal law.
MY QUESTION IS, WILL ALL THESE CRIMINAL INVADERS GO? WHETHER IT’S MINNESOTA, FLORIDA, TEXAS OR WHICH OF THE 50 STATES WILL BE SUDDENLY OVERWHELMED FROM STATES WITH TOUGH ENFORCEMENT?
THE TEA PARTY WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. THEY BROKE THE LAW, SO THEY WILL BE DEPORTED.
To really make life hash for illegal alien criminals, our spineless Republicans should assume these two bills without fail. Rep. Lamar Smiths bill ‘The Legal Workforce Act’ (H.R. 2885) better known by Americans as E-Verify. Judging by its success as currently a volunteer law, it has become a remarkable electronic program, which detects unauthorized non citizens hired, but then flagged and can only be resolved by stepping into Social Security offices. No illegal alien would dream of doing that, even if they are in possession of procured ID documents? Of course a mainstream Liberal press has carefully tried to demonize the E-Verify business checking Database?
Second in line, but just as paramount in important is the BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP (H.R.140) amendment law. This disqualifies illegal alien mothers able to gain immediate acceptance of their unborn baby smuggled through ports of entry, either across the ocean or through our limited border fence defenses. Foothold children are costing $100 billions of dollars in welfare, cash payments, education and health care treatment. Only the obstacle of pro-illegal alien forces in the Democrat and Republican Party and stopping these bills from becoming the law of the land.
What is that old adage, about ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’? Something like that?
Therefore we must remove as many incumbents and any politician and retain the services of true TEA PARTY members. Otherwise whether Obama wins, we will just have a second term president ready ‘to Tax and Spend America into the toilet But then we have Mitt Romney and his crew of wealthy politicians, who could cause just as much trouble. The TEA PARTY is now part of the American ideology? Unlike Obama it believes in free will and an individual’s right to choose his own path. The TEA PARTY believes in a government to deal with the basic essentials of defense and so forth, but not getting involved in health care think most American have credence in this issue, as since when does any country other than the United States allow illegal aliens to come here, without true retribution-such as exacting it as a Felony. Wouldn’t you come here if the all you were going to be prosecuted for is a simple civil infraction? . In a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of likely U.S. voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage illegal immigration for decades. What we need is a voter revolution against both political parties, because whoever gets in November will repeat the same laws as we have always had. Of course the Left now is crowing about ‘Voter Suppression’ that is far from the truth.
All Americans want is a fair and Equitable election, because currently not? Non-citizens are voting and certain Democrats are allowing this to happen. Remember that large numbers of these people, who will vote for Obama, are those who are playing the welfare system, who want ‘Something for nothing’. I have a family to support, and I don’t want to support the poverty from banana Republics. We have our own disabled, veterans without homes and others; so why are we forced by federal mandate that our money should go to foreign nationals.
JOIN YOUR LOCAL TEA PARTY and put an end to illegal immigration. Put an end to President Obama’s socialistic philosophy and that does not exclude Mitt Romney’s idea of a government. There are thousands of TEA PARTY chapters around the country involved with a new agenda for America. The TEA PARTY statement is securely seal the border; halt the ‘FOOTHOLD’ baby racket, sanctuary cities, dream acts and then talk about building a secure minded fair immigration system, not importing more poverty and foreigners that have to be supported with taxpayer money?
This is the time when every American who believes in the ‘Rule of Law’ and steps forward to let their Senator or Congress person knows how you will vote. Tell the politician’s aide and that you want them to pass E-Verify and the Birthright Citizenship bills. Citizen voters should phone Congress at the central Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Insist YOUR CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN TO fulfill their obligation to the oath of office and stop pandering to the businesses that use cheap labor, or the Democrats who are overlooking illegal aliens who are voting. You have the empowerment of your VOTE to demand they sponsor these to policies or we are doomed to a future, without any restrictions to our out-of-control U.S. deficit.
Secondly, we pay mandated taxes for healthcare already. It's called Medicare. I cannot choose to refuse this tax as 5.8% of my salary is paid by my employer and I collectively. To say that this tax for healthcare is unprecedented and new to our society is incorrect.
Thirdly - what solutions have the conservatives really offered? I see alot of small ideas and small solutions to such a gigantic issue. wait until the boomers start to demand millions in healthcare services for which they've saved only thousands of dollars.