Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Thursday, June 28, 2012

ObamaCare Won, The Constitution, the States & the People Lost

As most people know by now, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on ObamaCare this morning. & in doing so, came to that conclusion in what seems to be the most convoluted bit of logic I have seen in a long time.
FoxNews & the other news media got the initial ruling right, that under the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. But then came the rest of the story, the Court ruled the mandate wasn't a mandate, as Obama claimed, but a tax.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote "The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." (emphasis mine) HUH????????
So what is to stop Congress, or the Obama administration (as well as future administrations) from now using taxes to completely regulate our lives as the ruling elite see fit? In my opinion, as well as many, many others, NOTHING. This ruling has added to the continued shredding of the Constitution.
Before I go on, I think we should remember that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal goverment while protecting the sovereignty & the rights of the states & the people. That is why, when concerns were raised about the Constitution during its ratification, the promise of a Bill of Rights was made. While all of the 10 Amendments in the Bill protect those rights, the 9th & 10th Amendments leave no room for doubt that the Constitution wasn't granting the Federal government unlimited power. The 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." & the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It can't get any clearer than that.
& while the Supreme Court rulings have usually allowed the "commerce clause" to justify overruling state soveriegnty when it shouldn't, & occasionally individuals rights as well,this is an unique twist.
Add this to the Arizona ruling on Monday & we have a huge backdoor attack on the sovereignty of the states & the people. While the ruling Monday did uphold the Constitutionality for states to check IDs, as Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent “Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding?” If this had been the original view of the Framers of the Constitution, “the delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.”
While Scalia has come under much criticism for saying that, he is absolutely right.
& just like that little bone thrown on Monday allowing ID checks, this ruling does throw 1 small bone to state sovereignty, it allowed states to refuse to expand the Medicaid program without fear of losing existing Medicaid funds.
But what good do those do when ultimately the Federal Government has been given full reign to do whatever it wants in enforcing or not enforcing the law & using taxes to gain absolute control over our lives?
While much of the above has already been talked about on talk radio & will continue to be debated in the days ahead, there is 1 thing that hasn't come up much, how this will affect the HHS’s “preventive services” mandate forcing religious (especially Catholic) & other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs. This is of huge concern since HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said that  “We are at war," with the Catholic Church & others who oppose the mandate.This  sovereignty over the entirety of the nation’s religious infrastructure was given her by the way ObamaCare was written.
If ObamaCare had been rightly ruled unconstitutional, all it would have done is delay the inevitable attack on the religious liberty of those who uphold Catholic teaching as well as any other people who would disgree with what the Federal government determines as acceptable public expression of their faith. As it is, this ruling has kept the attack on religious liberty to the forefront. At the same time, it has given the federal government away arround calling the mandate a mandate. From how I see it, now the Federal government can simply claim that it is enforcing a tax, not attacking religious liberty. & to justify that, they will use what is currently allowed by law using tax money paid by the Catholic Church as well as those who have moral objections to abortion & artificial birth control.
1st of all, even the Hyde amendment doesn't absolutely ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. & while how much varies from state to state, Medicaid does cover some types of birth control, including the pill.
So, since we already are paying taxes to cover things we object to, this is just another of those taxes could very likely be the arguement. & I wouldn't be surprized if the Courts by it given what we have seen this week.
Ultimately, this is a reminder that we can not let up in our prayers. Not only that we must repent for the sins of our nation, taking Daniel's example (Daniel 9) as a guide. We must also do what we can to make reperation for these sins by our prayers as well as fasting. We must also work for truly Pro-life leaders to be elected.
I do not know if it is to late to turn aside God's judgment from our nation. But even if it isn't we still have the responsibility to speak up as well as pray. We cannot assume it is too late. No matter what, we still must be the faithful remnant God has called us to be.

Labels:

2 Comments:

  • At 29/6/12 5:42 PM , Blogger Patrick Button said...

    Reading the majority opinion, I kept thinking, does Roberts think we're stupid? The mandate is a tax and a non-tax, it regulates but it isn't a regulation. It's crazy!

     
  • At 30/6/12 2:52 PM , Blogger Al said...

    Patrick,
    Apparently he does.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

LifeSiteNews.com Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery
FaithMouse