Chief Justice John Roberts may have unintentionally given those of us who consider ourselves Constitutionalists a favor.
By doing more damage to the U.S. Constitution in one week than many liberals hope in a lifetime to achieve, Roberts may have finally compelled us to the courage of conviction that will restore the rule of law in America.
Roberts was the deciding in vote in the U.S. Supreme Court telling the sovereign state of Arizona it has no authority to enforce the U.S. Constitution, even though the sovereign states preceded the Constitution, and the Constitution required ratification from the states to become law (government by the consent of the governed).
Then Roberts was the deciding vote in telling the federal government it has unlimited jurisdiction into the lives of American citizens, provided it uses the 16th Amendment as the means to tread on us. Robert is even willing to allow the federal government to tax us for what we’re not doing, which is unprecedented in American history. By positing this Roberts went so far as to re-structure the mandate within Obamacare as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. If that’s not legislating from the bench, I don’t know what is.
These two opinions by Roberts are not just unconstitutional—they are anti-constitutional. They clearly are anti both the spirit and explicit wording of the U.S. Constitution, which is intended to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government in order to maximize the freedom and liberty of the individual (as well as that of these United States of America).
We have done little more than wring our hands on talk radio and blog the American people to death over what the judiciary branch has done to the Constitution for the past 50 years. From infringing on our religious freedom (Engle v. Vitale), to defying the God-given right to life and the death toll that continues to rise as a result (Roe v. Wade), to inventing special rights the Constitution does not grant (Lawrence v. Texas), to undoing 200 years of American political and legal tradition in favor of private property rights (Kelo v. New London)—our freedoms are being trampled on by what Thomas Jefferson would’ve described as a judicial oligarchy.
We no longer have the rule of law, but the rule of man—which is really just the rule of whim.
If now we still won’t reassert the will of the people, the separation of powers, and a true system of checks and balances where each branch has an equal say in what the Constitution says and means, then we deserve everything we get from this judicial oligarchy. For they have not taken any authority from us we have not surrendered.
White House on New Clinton Donor Revelations: President Obama is Proud of Hillary's Work at State | Katie Pavlich