|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: December 16, 2010, 02:04:12 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post - A Great Week for Liberty
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
A Great Week for Liberty
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, December 16, 2010
Chalk one up for the Bill of Rights, and raise a cup of tea!
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." --James Madison in Federalist No. 45
The legacy of American Liberty enjoys eight dates of recognition every year, some better known that others. We begin with Patriots' Day in April, then Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day in May, Independence Day in July, Constitution Day in September and Veterans Day in November. This week, we celebrate the last two Liberty anniversaries -- the Bill of Rights ratification on Wednesday and the Boston Tea Party on Thursday.
Thus, it is notable that, in this same week, there was a rare victory in the federal courts upholding Liberty and Rule of Law1 enshrined in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
For many decades, the courts have been dominated by leftist jurists who subscribe to the errant notion of a "living constitution2." These judges, who now populate what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become the "despotic branch," have amended by way of judicial diktat that venerable document beyond all recognition. Occasionally, however, a judge who takes his oath literally to "support and defend3" our Constitution will rise above the robed despots and decide in favor of Rule of Law.
On Monday, U.S District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled4 that one of the key provisions in President Obama's 2,700-page health care law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
A year ago, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor as ObamaCare was being debated: "Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect," he said, adding, "This is not Liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can." (Or as Jefferson put it originally: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
Vindicated by Monday's decision, Sen. DeMint responded, "Today's decision makes it clear that Obama and Democrats overreached and violated the Constitution in their rush to pass a federal takeover of our health care system. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made a compelling case that ObamaCare violated the constitutional rights of Americans by forcing them into a government program against their will. The Constitution neither grants Congress nor the president the power to compel every American to buy government-approved health insurance. The unconstitutional individual mandate is the centerpiece of the health care takeover and today's ruling should signal the beginning of the end for ObamaCare. Congress must listen to the American people and fully repeal ObamaCare immediately."
The plaintiff in the case was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who said of Judge Hudson's decision, "This case isn't about health insurance, it isn't about health care, it's about Liberty. ... If the feds win on appeal [to the liberal Fourth Circuit Court] it will be the end of federalism. Nothing the federal government does [would be] limited by enumerated powers. Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government."
One Leftist commentator's response to the decision typifies the Leftmedia's profound ignorance in regard to constitutional Rule of Law. Slate's senior editor, Dahlia Lithwick, claims Cuccinelli has "an aspirational view of the Constitution. There's whole chunks of the Constitution that he wants to do away with. He's challenging the EPA's power to regulate. He's challenging the birthright, the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment. He has a sort of a cut-and-paste view of the Constitution."
I suspect Lithwick did not celebrate the 219th anniversary of the ratification of our Bill of Rights5 on Wednesday. In fact, I am sure that she and her Leftist colleagues have only the most profoundly adulterated understanding of what our Founders intended to convey in our Constitution's first 10 amendments.
At the time of its proposal, there was great consternation as to the need for the Bill of Rights. Some Framers argued that if enumerated, these rights might be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than "endowed by our Creator" by way of the Constitution's superior guidance, the Declaration of Independence. |
