A.J. DiCintio
Obamacare, Jeffersonians, and America's only distinctly native criminal class
By A.J. DiCintio
With oral arguments completed, the Supreme Court is set to issue a decision on the constitutionality of "Obamacare," whose political and fiscal realities, by the way, could have been lipsticked with the adjective "affordable" only by the incorrigible degenerates whom Mark Twain denounced as America's sole "distinctly native criminal class."
But no matter how the Court decides Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., the most important reality regarding the case is this:
Jeffersonians can't lose unless they turn their backs on the truth that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance coupled with eternal participation in the democratic process.
Now, before getting to the why of that assertion, it's necessary to offer the following explanation for "Jeffersonians."
From the moment the public got wind of the secretly concocted 2,000 page abomination Obama and his Democratic allies would ram down the nation's throat in order to slop more power to the federal government, more money to the trial lawyer industry, and more rotten pork to their friends, a solid majority of the American people has consistently opposed the oxymoronically named "Affordable Care Act."
Moreover, that majority is so large it must be composed of very large numbers of Republicans and Independents as well as some Democrats, a fact supporting the need for a term that includes all Americans repelled by the notion of a de facto federal takeover of the healthcare system.
Thus, "Jeffersonians," chosen for its popular appeal and with apologies to contemporary Madisonians, whose hero was Jefferson's equal in warning about the dangers of centralized government and circumventing the Constitution's strict requirement of federalism.
With the nomenclature issue out of the way, making the case for the "can't lose" proposition beings with the observation that Jeffersonians win if at least five justices declare Obamacare unconstitutional, thereby placing themselves in stark disagreement with the aptly named Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), a stark liberal who responded to a constitutionalist constituent by lecturing her that "The federal government . . . can do most anything in this country."
However, like everything else in politics, the win isn't guaranteed, especially if the decision is 5-4.
In fact, it could quickly metamorphose into a loss if many political observers (including wishful thinking liberals among them) turn out to be correct about the possibility that a victory would cause large numbers of Republicans to deem the issue of Obamacare dead and therefore sit out the election, to the delirious delight of liberals, including a victorious Barack Obama.
To that outcome, all that Irony needs to add to produce, in a few short months, a more than simply ironic result is this:
Shortly after the sixth of November an opening occurs on the Court regarding one of the five justices in the majority.
Next, there is how Jeffersonians win if the Court finds Obamacare constitutional, the outcome supported even by a number of conservative judges, including Charles Fried, the Reagan Solicitor General and Harvard professor who finds the reach of the Obamacare law so ordinary he predicts an 8-1 decision to uphold it.
Basically, Jeffersonians win because in this instance the argument over the law becomes political, the arena in which, as Obamacare polling has shown, they are significantly stronger than the president and his allies, with that advantage enormously enhanced by arguments they will make against Obama's record not just regarding economic growth, jobs, and energy but virtually every other issue of crucial importance to the American majority.
But to focus just on the issue of healthcare and the November election, it's a virtual certainty Jeffersonians will be rewarded with a world of political riches as a result of the precedent the Court will rely upon to find Obamacare constitutional.
Specifically, the Court's majority will invoke the power of Congress to regulate commerce according to the decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which holds that for the purpose of supporting the price of wheat, Congress has the authority not just to limit the amount of wheat a farmer can grow but to fine him for growing any wheat above his allotment, even if he grows it for personal use.
For the record, the wheat Filburn grew for his own use and for which the feds came after him was a mere 239 bushels.
(Yes, Virginia, when it comes to wheat and a citizen farmer, the Liberal Church permits its congregation not just to scream "illegal!" but do so with a madness that would render Caligula mute in wide-eyed admiration.)
As is abundantly clear, the political problem that arises from this case, which is beloved by collectivists such as Barack Obama who believe the federal government has a whole lot of growing in power and money to do before it can be described as fully and liberally grown, is that it recognizes congressional power to regulate commerce as absolute.
Therefore, if Jeffersonians take Thoreau's advice and simplify, to speak of the nation's most commonly grown food and warn about the dangers posed by the kind of centralized power that allows government to force Americans not to set out, for their own personal use, even one tomato plant above a limit established by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they will prevail not just in this year's election and the ensuing battle to repeal and replace Obamacare but in countless political fights sure to be fought in the future by Americans who heed Washington's warning about "that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart."
Actually, that reality occasions the thought it's better if Jeffersonians win as a result of this second possibility.
Yes, like the first, this one also means defeat for the liberal ideologues who blew a fake reform of the nation's healthcare system into being by puffing it full of lies, including the arrogant, insulting, dangerous lie it would cost $900 billion when they and every honest expert knew its cost would approach or significantly exceed the $2 trillion price tag to which the government's own CBO now admits.
But more importantly, the dedicated action it requires by the Jeffersonian majority will mean they've earned the right to borrow from one of the nation's greatest creative spirits and leave for posterity their own version of the legacy bequeathed to them by the Founders:
It is never a good or wise thing to put your life into the dirty, treacherous hands of the nation's only distinctly native criminal class.
© A.J. DiCintio
March 31, 2012
With oral arguments completed, the Supreme Court is set to issue a decision on the constitutionality of "Obamacare," whose political and fiscal realities, by the way, could have been lipsticked with the adjective "affordable" only by the incorrigible degenerates whom Mark Twain denounced as America's sole "distinctly native criminal class."
But no matter how the Court decides Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., the most important reality regarding the case is this:
Jeffersonians can't lose unless they turn their backs on the truth that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance coupled with eternal participation in the democratic process.
Now, before getting to the why of that assertion, it's necessary to offer the following explanation for "Jeffersonians."
From the moment the public got wind of the secretly concocted 2,000 page abomination Obama and his Democratic allies would ram down the nation's throat in order to slop more power to the federal government, more money to the trial lawyer industry, and more rotten pork to their friends, a solid majority of the American people has consistently opposed the oxymoronically named "Affordable Care Act."
Moreover, that majority is so large it must be composed of very large numbers of Republicans and Independents as well as some Democrats, a fact supporting the need for a term that includes all Americans repelled by the notion of a de facto federal takeover of the healthcare system.
Thus, "Jeffersonians," chosen for its popular appeal and with apologies to contemporary Madisonians, whose hero was Jefferson's equal in warning about the dangers of centralized government and circumventing the Constitution's strict requirement of federalism.
With the nomenclature issue out of the way, making the case for the "can't lose" proposition beings with the observation that Jeffersonians win if at least five justices declare Obamacare unconstitutional, thereby placing themselves in stark disagreement with the aptly named Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), a stark liberal who responded to a constitutionalist constituent by lecturing her that "The federal government . . . can do most anything in this country."
However, like everything else in politics, the win isn't guaranteed, especially if the decision is 5-4.
In fact, it could quickly metamorphose into a loss if many political observers (including wishful thinking liberals among them) turn out to be correct about the possibility that a victory would cause large numbers of Republicans to deem the issue of Obamacare dead and therefore sit out the election, to the delirious delight of liberals, including a victorious Barack Obama.
To that outcome, all that Irony needs to add to produce, in a few short months, a more than simply ironic result is this:
Shortly after the sixth of November an opening occurs on the Court regarding one of the five justices in the majority.
Next, there is how Jeffersonians win if the Court finds Obamacare constitutional, the outcome supported even by a number of conservative judges, including Charles Fried, the Reagan Solicitor General and Harvard professor who finds the reach of the Obamacare law so ordinary he predicts an 8-1 decision to uphold it.
Basically, Jeffersonians win because in this instance the argument over the law becomes political, the arena in which, as Obamacare polling has shown, they are significantly stronger than the president and his allies, with that advantage enormously enhanced by arguments they will make against Obama's record not just regarding economic growth, jobs, and energy but virtually every other issue of crucial importance to the American majority.
But to focus just on the issue of healthcare and the November election, it's a virtual certainty Jeffersonians will be rewarded with a world of political riches as a result of the precedent the Court will rely upon to find Obamacare constitutional.
Specifically, the Court's majority will invoke the power of Congress to regulate commerce according to the decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which holds that for the purpose of supporting the price of wheat, Congress has the authority not just to limit the amount of wheat a farmer can grow but to fine him for growing any wheat above his allotment, even if he grows it for personal use.
For the record, the wheat Filburn grew for his own use and for which the feds came after him was a mere 239 bushels.
(Yes, Virginia, when it comes to wheat and a citizen farmer, the Liberal Church permits its congregation not just to scream "illegal!" but do so with a madness that would render Caligula mute in wide-eyed admiration.)
As is abundantly clear, the political problem that arises from this case, which is beloved by collectivists such as Barack Obama who believe the federal government has a whole lot of growing in power and money to do before it can be described as fully and liberally grown, is that it recognizes congressional power to regulate commerce as absolute.
Therefore, if Jeffersonians take Thoreau's advice and simplify, to speak of the nation's most commonly grown food and warn about the dangers posed by the kind of centralized power that allows government to force Americans not to set out, for their own personal use, even one tomato plant above a limit established by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they will prevail not just in this year's election and the ensuing battle to repeal and replace Obamacare but in countless political fights sure to be fought in the future by Americans who heed Washington's warning about "that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart."
Actually, that reality occasions the thought it's better if Jeffersonians win as a result of this second possibility.
Yes, like the first, this one also means defeat for the liberal ideologues who blew a fake reform of the nation's healthcare system into being by puffing it full of lies, including the arrogant, insulting, dangerous lie it would cost $900 billion when they and every honest expert knew its cost would approach or significantly exceed the $2 trillion price tag to which the government's own CBO now admits.
But more importantly, the dedicated action it requires by the Jeffersonian majority will mean they've earned the right to borrow from one of the nation's greatest creative spirits and leave for posterity their own version of the legacy bequeathed to them by the Founders:
It is never a good or wise thing to put your life into the dirty, treacherous hands of the nation's only distinctly native criminal class.
© A.J. DiCintio
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.)
