by John Dennis, from the John Dennis Report
EDITOR’S NOTE:John Dennis will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Los Angeles on May 28, 2011. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/la – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS
As many predicted, lower courts continue to find Obamacare unconstitutional.
The reason? Because itÂ is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits the federal governmentâ€™s powers. How can there be any limits on federal power if they can compel Americans to buy goods and services?
But just because the lower courts continue to find Obamacare unconstitutional, donâ€™t get your hopes up. These cases are opening acts, theater, leading to the real show: the Supreme Court.
While I pretend to be neither a legal nor a Supreme Court expert, I do remember that the Court gave us theÂ Kelo vs. New London decision. A supposedly right leaning Court, by the way.
Read the majority decision in that case and then ask how confident you feel. InÂ Kelo, then Justice Stevens continued the expansion of â€œpublic purposeâ€ for eminent domain. And not for any identifiable reason, only because other cases had continued to expand the definition.
Why couldnâ€™t Stevens, and the rest of the majority for that matter, have said â€œweâ€™ve reached the limits of the expansion of the â€œpublic purposeâ€ definitionâ€? Especially when the net result was that government land confiscation would benefit some private citizens at the expense of other private citizens?
The principle with which the Court agreed was theÂ growth trajectory of the expansion of state power. â€œFor more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of theÂ takings powerâ€
Obamacareâ€™s legal destiny, far from being an overturn slam-dunk, could just as easily be upheld.Â Aside from its more egregious rulings, always remember the Supreme Court is comprised of nine lawyers appointed by and paid by the federal government. Over time, do you think they might have a bias toward expansion of their bossesâ€™, i.e. the stateâ€™s, power?
Do you think a company might do well in a contract dispute with an employeeÂ if the arbiters were the companyâ€™s in-house lawyers? The analogy isnâ€™t exactly the same, but you get the idea.
(Note: Wouldnâ€™t it make more sense to have the Supreme Court justices elected by the people and paid with voluntary contributions into a transparent trust? And wouldnâ€™t it be even better to return to the pre-civil war Supreme Court role of making Supreme Court opinions just that â€“ opinions â€“ that states could choose to adopt or not?)
What Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have foisted on us is not the health care reform Americans desperately need, but a potential constitutional and national existential crisis. Never once recognizing that the federal government already controlled 50 cents of every health care dollar through Medicare and Medicaid, they rammed through this job killing, civil liberty destroying abomination.
On the other hand, perhaps thereâ€™s a silver lining in the storm cloud. Imagine this scenario: the Court expedites the Obamacare hearing to 2012. The global and American economies worsen. Unemployment rises. Health insurance rates climb. Public anger grows.
Then, the Supreme Court rules Obamacare is constitutional.
How will the people react? Will we see, hell, will we participate in, Egypt-type protests? And what about the states becoming more comfortable with the word â€œnullificationâ€? Will they defy the law?
We could see a combination of the people and the states not only strike down Obamacare, but role back the unacceptable expansion of the federal government. As the peaceful protests in Egypt show, the power of any government relies on the consent of the governed. When the consent of the people is withdrawn, the ultimate impotence of government is exposed.
Come to think of it, a Supreme Court decision in support of Obamacare might work out just fine.