The SCOTUS announced its official take, as the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Federal Government, on what we nicknamed Obamacare. I think it is important to remember that this was the judicial branch's opinion, not an order for the people to just accept it, nor a death knell to disagreements with the law. It is not that, not at all.
There's a big difference between what SCOTUS's job is and how the people may feel about any law. Opinions in the population will differ wildly, obviously. The SCOTUS view is a political victory for Obama and Big Gov Democrats, but not a defeat for those opposed to expanding Federal powers. They are only saying it isn't unconstitutional, they are not insisting that the country run with it.
SCOTUS does not make law. It interprets whether law affects our Constitutional rights. And certainly, in this case, that was a primary goal of their decision, per Chief Justice Roberts. SCOTUS makes decisions on what federal law should be capable of accomplishing, not what the people and Congress ought to make law, in and of itself. How the people handle it, and how their elected representatives handle it, from here on out, is what will matter where Obamacare is concerned.
In one part, the opinion of the Court points out that if the people elect leaders, and the people choose to allow laws those leaders enact to pass and come into being, that's our problem. If we don't like what our leaders have passed into law, then we may elect to throw them out of office. And we may see to it that leaders change law to our preference. I say "good luck with that" now that SCOTUS has given Obamacare its blessing. It's an uphill battle, but if it's the thing to do, let's get to it. I am tired of an ever-increasing load put on the people of the U.S. and think we need a small federal government. That is the chief reason I prefer to identify myself as a Republican. Not in name, but in ideals. Not blindly being a party fan.
In short, SCOTUS has determined that Obamacare is not infringing on the rights granted by the Constitution. One of those rights is, of course, for us to be able to elect leaders who make and pass laws. Think about what that means. Weigh that wisely in any local and state primaries and elections, and this coming November, in the voting booth.
Was this decision a victory for Obama? Certainly. If you understand it only from the sound bite circus of the popular media, it is a huge win. But it isn't. This decision will make it seem, for some, that Obama and the Democrats were attacked needlessly for pushing this law through. The Big Government Left and, thus, lots of the media, will spin it that way, too. But it was a victory only in the war of impressions. It was a win in the eyes of the disinterested, disaffected, not involved, misinformed, and politically vacuous among us.
The informed folks who push for a central government that challenges the size of that of the Soviet Union are happy about this. But for those not in that crowd, it is informing us that we have more work to do to keep this and other federal laws from further squeezing the individuality and state strength from this country. We have to inform more people, write more letters, write more blog posts, and tweets, and more sincere opinions to spout wherever we can, in order to limit the scale of Washington's impact on our daily lives.
The SCOTUS decision was very clear about the purpose of the SCOTUS itself. They determined that the law does not infringe on the Constitution, by a margin of 6 to 3 (not unanimously). They said that the law was not unconstitutional. That's something, but that's not everything. It doesn't mean they said it was a terrific law with nothing wrong with it. It isn't their job to tell us that a law is terrific or stupid, great or bad, or if it is tyrannical or pragmatic, but whether it harms the rights as set up by the U.S. Constitution. Some believe that Obamacare does that. Well, you have your work cut out for you. Better, I think, to point out that a growing federal government is not good for taxpayers in any way at all. Better to admit that changes are necessary, and that they need to happen, but with greater federal government, that only assures greater waste, not greater coverage. And, be ready to PROVE IT.
If we elect people and they create a massive central government, that's our screw-up, that's not on SCOTUS, they are telling us, I think. Seems we have been really screwing up in the past 80 years, where expanding the power of the federal government is concerned.
Elections are how to change our laws.
So, with that said, on to November 2012.
Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous
