Continuing Health Care Intrigue
By Jim Bowman
As each verdict is aired, it is now taking on the appearance of a judicial version of making a mountain out of a molehill. If it was only that simple. I mean really, just what is legal anymore? How can one District Court find Obama’s Health Care legal while another finds parts illegal and another rules that the entire Health bill is unconstitutional? Is this what is meant by a “living document?”
On January 31, 2011, Judge Vinson declared that “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to be unconstitutional. Within his conclusion, Judge Vinson wrote that, “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”
From Judge Vinson’s seventy-eight page Summary Judgement, my excerpt,while brief conveys the heart of the the Judge’s ruling. Again, with this iron clad conclusion, how can other black robes disagree and still maintain Constitutional integrity?
The vast majority of Americans have fought tooth and nail against this Health Care abrogation to our individual liberties. When public opinion generates such a strong resentment against an institution which, in former times, was respected and dutifully obeyed, then the ugly head of judicial activism becomes hard to ignore. With each passing contradiction, our granite like belief in the rule of law diminishes.
Much of what our Court system pivots around today comes from past interpretations which were in themselves, based upon past interpretations. In fact, today’s Law School regimens incorporate a curriculum based not upon the Constitution but of Supreme Court decisions. It stands to reason that this system of passing down words can and often does becomes an errant formula for the law’s strict adherence.
Consider the era when our Forefathers wrote our Government’s prescription. Over time, word definitions under go change. During this past year, I became familiar with Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary. Even the dictionary’s format was different in that modern versions follow each word with a pronunciation breakdown. Not so in Webster’s first edition. Also, Webster’s definitions often contained religious connotations related to Christianity. Ironically, this has fallen victim to modern standards of interpretation.
The difference between then and now is so dramatic that when confronted with the comparisons, one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for such diverse thought and the extent to which it has become so prevalent. Taken one step further, how can the current day study of American law be so enamored with definitions and interpretations which lacked relevance when our laws were written. This is the very definition of lawlessness.
Added to this judicial mix of changing definitions and wide latitudes for interpretation is the art of improvisation. The infamous 1947 Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education ruling presents the first reference to “the wall between church and state.” Today, this has received a reverberation of sorts as if it were a constitutional tenet. In reality, the Everson ruling simply transposed a phrase from a privately written Thomas Jefferson letter.
It is necessary to understand that while the Supreme Court may rule upon Health Care’s illegitimacy, our Judicial Branch is not authorized to legislate. At some point, we were led to believe that decisions from our highest court constituted law. This wrong dovetails with the Court’s penchant for redefining, interpreting and improvising. All with a quiet public nod.
If nothing else, these back and forth health care decisions come as a direct result of our Constitution’s modern day elasticity. As such, it would be foolhardy to place any reliance upon a Supreme Court decision based upon the Constitution’s strict governmental limitations.
Continuing Health Care Intrigue