Bryan Fischer
States should just ignore Obama on health care
By Bryan Fischer
Judge Roger Vinson declared the entire ObamaCare monstrosity "void" earlier this week. This means it is a legal nullity. He set the whole thing aside. It has no force of law, period.
The ministers of propaganda at the major networks are in such a snit that they barely reported on the ruling at all, as if sticking their head under the covers would make it all go away.
Comrade Obama, apparently oblivious to the separation of powers and fancying himself a bit of a dictator, intends to plunge right ahead and implement this woefully misshapen and misbegotten piece of legislation anyway.
What is a state to do, when the Obama administration begins pressuring it to comply with something that not only was unconstitutional from the moment it was conceived but has now been ruled to be so by a federal judge?
That's easy: just ignore him.
The president has no right of any kind to push his weight around on this matter, and states are free to let him rattle his saber all he wants without paying him any attention whatsoever. And they should do just that. They should go right back to making health care policy a matter for each state to decide for itself.
MussoliniCare, as I prefer to call it, since it is an almost pure display of what technically is fascism (the government lets you own your own business but tells you how to run it), will cripple state budgets through mandating higher Medicaid enrollments.
Most state budgets are underwater as it is, sagging under the weight of unfunded and moronic public union pension obligations. There is active talk at the congressional level about finding a way to let states declare bankruptcy, a move unprecedented in our nation's history. And all this before the crushing burden of ObamaCare lands on their already slumped shoulders. California, New York, and Illinois have no way to survive as it is; MussoliniCare will simply hasten their plunge into the abyss.
I'm reminded of President Andrew Jackson's response to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding a ruling he didn't agree with: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
And so President Obama has his monstrous and monstrously unconstitutional health care bill, which is now a legal nullity. The states are under no obligation of any kind to listen to anything the president tries to push on them at this point.
They should simply say, "The president has his flatly unconstitutional bill. Let him enforce it." What is he going to do? Send the National Guard into all 27 states whose lawsuits against MussoliniCare have been vindicated? What would they do once they got there? Round up potential Medicaid patients and march them down to the local hospital? Surround state capitol buildings until they agree to do something unconstitutional, illegal and immoral? What?
On a separate note, both left and right are fond of using the analogy of states requiring the purchase of auto insurance. The left says the parallels are exact, the right says they're not. But what I have never heard discussed is this: what gives states the moral right to order their citizens to buy auto insurance in the first place? When the right says only that the comparison is inexact, aren't they conceding that state governments have the right to order citizens to buy a private product?
States have every moral and legal and constitutional right to say to their citizens, look, if you're in accident and you're at fault, you will be held accountable for all costs incurred to make things right. Now if you want to purchase insurance to protect yourself for such an eventuality, we think that's a terrific idea and we highly recommend it, but to order you to buy a private product is beyond the legitimate scope of our power. Just know that you will be on the hook if you're at fault. Now you go on and figure out how you're going to deal with it.
On another note, Judge Vinson's ruling is hardly "judicial activism" as the left has been bleating for the last 48 hours. This, by the way, indicates that we have won the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on this issue: everybody now agrees that judicial activism is a bad thing.
The left cries "judicial activism" when an unconstitutional ruling is overturned, if it happens to be a precedent which serves their regressive political purposes. But true judicial activism takes place when the Constitution itself is overturned by judges seeking to advance the secular fundamentalist agenda. It's hardly "judicial activism" to take us back to the Constitution and reverse poorly devised precedents. It rather is the height of judicial responsibility. It's judicial de-activism.
If a ruling is based squarely on the Constitution, as Vinson's is, it's not judicial activism, it's judicial excellence on display. It's not judicial activism, it's judicial acumen. It's judicial maturity.
If some precious but unconstitutional precedent is overturned along the way, so much the better. It's time to start dismantling egregiously wrong precedents such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas and Wickard v. Filburn, and the sooner we start dumping them in a landfill somewhere the better. Judge Vinson has shown us the way. May his tribe increase.
Bottom line: ObamaCare is destined for the scrap heap of history. Judge Vinson has sent it there, and it's time for the states to bid it an unlamented farewell.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
February 2, 2011
Judge Roger Vinson declared the entire ObamaCare monstrosity "void" earlier this week. This means it is a legal nullity. He set the whole thing aside. It has no force of law, period.
The ministers of propaganda at the major networks are in such a snit that they barely reported on the ruling at all, as if sticking their head under the covers would make it all go away.
Comrade Obama, apparently oblivious to the separation of powers and fancying himself a bit of a dictator, intends to plunge right ahead and implement this woefully misshapen and misbegotten piece of legislation anyway.
What is a state to do, when the Obama administration begins pressuring it to comply with something that not only was unconstitutional from the moment it was conceived but has now been ruled to be so by a federal judge?
That's easy: just ignore him.
The president has no right of any kind to push his weight around on this matter, and states are free to let him rattle his saber all he wants without paying him any attention whatsoever. And they should do just that. They should go right back to making health care policy a matter for each state to decide for itself.
MussoliniCare, as I prefer to call it, since it is an almost pure display of what technically is fascism (the government lets you own your own business but tells you how to run it), will cripple state budgets through mandating higher Medicaid enrollments.
Most state budgets are underwater as it is, sagging under the weight of unfunded and moronic public union pension obligations. There is active talk at the congressional level about finding a way to let states declare bankruptcy, a move unprecedented in our nation's history. And all this before the crushing burden of ObamaCare lands on their already slumped shoulders. California, New York, and Illinois have no way to survive as it is; MussoliniCare will simply hasten their plunge into the abyss.
I'm reminded of President Andrew Jackson's response to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding a ruling he didn't agree with: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
And so President Obama has his monstrous and monstrously unconstitutional health care bill, which is now a legal nullity. The states are under no obligation of any kind to listen to anything the president tries to push on them at this point.
They should simply say, "The president has his flatly unconstitutional bill. Let him enforce it." What is he going to do? Send the National Guard into all 27 states whose lawsuits against MussoliniCare have been vindicated? What would they do once they got there? Round up potential Medicaid patients and march them down to the local hospital? Surround state capitol buildings until they agree to do something unconstitutional, illegal and immoral? What?
On a separate note, both left and right are fond of using the analogy of states requiring the purchase of auto insurance. The left says the parallels are exact, the right says they're not. But what I have never heard discussed is this: what gives states the moral right to order their citizens to buy auto insurance in the first place? When the right says only that the comparison is inexact, aren't they conceding that state governments have the right to order citizens to buy a private product?
States have every moral and legal and constitutional right to say to their citizens, look, if you're in accident and you're at fault, you will be held accountable for all costs incurred to make things right. Now if you want to purchase insurance to protect yourself for such an eventuality, we think that's a terrific idea and we highly recommend it, but to order you to buy a private product is beyond the legitimate scope of our power. Just know that you will be on the hook if you're at fault. Now you go on and figure out how you're going to deal with it.
On another note, Judge Vinson's ruling is hardly "judicial activism" as the left has been bleating for the last 48 hours. This, by the way, indicates that we have won the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on this issue: everybody now agrees that judicial activism is a bad thing.
The left cries "judicial activism" when an unconstitutional ruling is overturned, if it happens to be a precedent which serves their regressive political purposes. But true judicial activism takes place when the Constitution itself is overturned by judges seeking to advance the secular fundamentalist agenda. It's hardly "judicial activism" to take us back to the Constitution and reverse poorly devised precedents. It rather is the height of judicial responsibility. It's judicial de-activism.
If a ruling is based squarely on the Constitution, as Vinson's is, it's not judicial activism, it's judicial excellence on display. It's not judicial activism, it's judicial acumen. It's judicial maturity.
If some precious but unconstitutional precedent is overturned along the way, so much the better. It's time to start dismantling egregiously wrong precedents such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas and Wickard v. Filburn, and the sooner we start dumping them in a landfill somewhere the better. Judge Vinson has shown us the way. May his tribe increase.
Bottom line: ObamaCare is destined for the scrap heap of history. Judge Vinson has sent it there, and it's time for the states to bid it an unlamented farewell.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
