The Supremes

An op-ed piece from, I guess, a regular guy in the Det News this AM reflected ideas I've expressed concerning the arrogance and elitism of our elected and appointed officials.  The column focuses on the ObamaCare, its passage by Congress and the Supreme Court's ruling that it is Constitutional.  Again, I've expressed some of these ideas before, but perhaps they bear repeating.

First, CJ Roberts' somewhat convoluted reasoning.  I know some folks have said/written good and bad about it, with requisite name-calling, complimentary or otherwise.  Roberts, in siding with the four liberal justices, wrote that the individual mandate of ObamaCare, that is, that people are required to purchase health insurance, is not authorized by the Commerce Clause.  Yet, he upheld ObamaCare's mandate citing the taxing power of Congress--after ruling that the mandate is not a tax (but a penalty). Huh??????  Yes, exactly.

But the four justices with whom Roberts sided have been allowed to skate, as it were.  In their opinions, very little attention is paid to the Constitution.  Rather, they cite the overwhelming good that ObamaCare will bring.  Hmmmm......  First, it's not at all clear it will bring good.  In fact, there's a great deal of evidence it will bring harm to far more people than it will hep.  Second, what does that have to do with Constitutionality?  It harkens us back to the racist, elitist, arrogant Woodrow Wilson, who held that the Constitution was a barrier to the Progressive programs he knew would help people.  Checks and balances to protect citizen from tyranny of the government?  Bah, said Wilson.  Limited government?  Bah, said Wilson, esp when those so much smarter than the rest of us (that is, those like Wilson) can enact programs to help us, whether we like them or not.  As one of the conservative justices wrote, "the wonderful things" the federal government might or might not bring about, are "quite beside the point."

I suppose if we travel back in time, maybe a few centuries, to the Old Regime, we can find similar attitudes.  Then, it was noblesse oblige, the aristrocracy that blessed the peons with their superior knowledge and ideas.  Now, it's the "progressives," as they have come to call themselves, who are doing the same thing.

In the end, it doesn't matter if such programs are good, "wonderful," or whatever.  Again, that is beside the point.  The US was established as a republic, a democracy (despite a lot on the right who dispute that, there's a little sticking point that might get in the way--the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People....")  I suppose if "the People" want to eliminate their "republic," they can (the op-ed piece opens with Ben Franklin's famous, "a republic...if we can keep it").  Perhaps they no longer care, as long as they continue to get their American Idol, NFL, etc..."bread and circuses."