What's "Activist" About Following The Constitution?

Posted by Brian
Liberals are in full panic mode after the decision by a Florida District Court Judge that declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, based on the bill's individual mandate that forces individuals to purchase health insurance. The liberal argument is that the federal government has the power to force every individual to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S.Constitution. Their argument is that if a person does not purchase insurance, thus they are not engaged in the trade of a good or service, that by not engaging in commerce, they are engaging in commerce.  This is the type of reasoning that liberals hail as "deep" thinking.  There is something "deep" alright, but it is not thinking.
Liberals also like to use the illogical example of persons being forced to purchase car insurance to buttress their point that the government can force you to purchase a good or service. What they invariably leave out of their point is:
1) You don't have to buy or drive a vehicle.  This is a voluntary act.  You may choose to walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation.  2) If you buy a vehicle and own it outright, and you don't drive it on public roads (i.e. a duty vehicle on a private ranch or farm), you are not required to purchase insurance on the vehicle. 3) Car insurance is to protect the other people that you share the road with, not to protect you per se.
It's funny that liberals think that a judge who actualy cites the Constitution when rendering an opinion is considered an "activist", yet when a judge makes a ruling citing the "emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution (read: they couldn't find anything actually "in" the words of the Constitution), he or she is lauded as "brilliant".  Why, it's amazing that we should even be allowed to breath the same rarefied air that they do, such is their intellectual prowess.
Watch as the media and liberals twist and contort themselves into knots in the weeks and months leading up to the final showdown at the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court finds for the states', and rules that the law is unconstitutional, liberals like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow may end up resembling characters out of the movie "Scanners".

Liberals Describe Monday’s Health Care Ruling As ‘Judicial Activism’ by Conservatives

Tuesday, February 01, 2011
By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge's decision to strike down the Democrats' health care law is a "deviation from decades of settled law" and the conservative version of "judicial activism," liberals say.

But conservatives say striking down an unconstitutional law is not the same thing as legislating from the bench.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida ruled on Monday that the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, and because this provision cannot be severed from the law's other provisions, the entire health care law must be struck down.

The White House called the ruling "a plain case of judicial overreaching."

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment: