To the Readers' Forum:
On the heels of celebrating our remarkable and exceptional blessing of freedom and independence on July 4, there's hardly been anything that has bashed liberty more than the ruling by John Roberts and the Supreme Court on Obamacare.
Chief Justice Roberts in one ruling has become one of the most activist judges in history by saying in effect, "I had to find whatever way I could to get it through. President Obama didn't get it right, so I had to make it right for him, no matter how tortured, illogical and convoluted my reasons were. I can't be activist judge by rejecting it so I will actively rewrite it to make what is unconstitutional constitutional and in that way avoid activism in the court. Though it was unconstitutional, I had to make it constitutional. "
What's the point of even having a court that just rubber stamps legislation?
Roberts rewrote the meaning of activism. Unable to be plain spoken, logical, and clear, he resorted to judicial spin. Refusing the judicial wisdom of our founding justices like John Jay, he fell back on one of America's early instigators of judicial activism, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act." Is Obamacare really that hard to constitutionally interpret? Couldn't Roberts see that forcing Americans to buy a product is not a delegated power granted to the Congress in the Constitution? The Constitution limits the power of government to preserve the freedom of the people. With an anticipated minimum of 1.7 trillion dollars in new taxes from Obamacare for the next 10 years, how consistent is that with restraining government's power and respecting our liberty?
After this ruling, is Congress prohibited from taxing anything it wants, like your weight? Are there limits on the taxing power of Congress? If so, what are they?
More importantly, does this decision reflect "we, the people," as citizens or subjects? Does Obamacare protect the rights of citizens or control the lives of subjects? Does this legislation look more like liberty-loving American exceptionalism or freedom-eroding European socialism? Is Obamacare closer to the spirit of July 4 or the spirit of Marxism?
Everyone wants change, but what kind of change does everyone want: freedom or more government control?
The Rev. Mel McGinnis