Palestinian Mob Surrounds, Jeers at Hostages on Day Six of Release
Elon Musk's Responds to Advertisers Boycotting Twitter With Three Simple Words
There's a Muslim Revolt Brewing Against Joe Biden
Deadspin Hit Job Gets Even Worse
Cuomo Aide: How We Killed New York
'I'm Fed Up': Newsom Announces Plan to Clean Up Homeless Encampments Along State...
Gaffe-Prone Biden Makes Odd Comments During Colorado Visit
Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State, Dies at 100
Even With Anti-Semitic Protests, Activism Director Still Thinks Teens Need Social Media at...
Shocker: Chicago Mayor Blames Blue City's Illegal Migrant Crisis On 'Right-Wing Extremism'
Never-Trumper Suggests He'd Vote for Trump Over Biden
Blue-State Will Continue to Enforce 'Draconian' Handgun Law Despite Court Deeming It Uncon...
Biden Admin Has 'Hidden' Voter-Turnout Plans Ahead of 2024 Election
DeSantis Announces Plan to Create Term Limits for U.S. Congress
CNN Got an Exclusive Look at Liz Cheney's Book...and It's Exactly What You'd...

Obamacare Ruling Should Be Last Straw for Constitutionalists

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

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.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the judicial branch supremacy over the other two branches, let alone over the will of the people. There is a reason the Left has used the courts to impose its most heinous schemes and to hatch its most progressive plots against the Constitution, because their plans simply would not survive the scrutiny of the American people at the ballot box. It is no coincidence the Left has to go outside the Constitution in order to impose much of its most unconstitutional policies.

Some reading this will say I am only bringing up these points now because my side lost at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the truth is I have been addressing these issues on my radio show for years, ever since my State Supreme Court violated its oath of office in amending the Iowa Constitution over the issue of marriage. I was an outspoken proponent of voting out the judges responsible for this miscarriage of justice on my local show each day. Iowans responded by making history in 2010, firing the justices up for retention for the first time.


Now on my new syndicated radio program I am taking this fight national. In the days leading up to the Obamacare ruling I warned my fellow Constitutionalists not to perpetuate the unconstitutional paradigm of the Left that courts make law and are the final word on what the Constitution says. There were other Constitutional remedies we could use that didn’t involve doing an end-run around the very Constitution we claim to be defending. For example, the Constitution does not permit a single penny of the people’s money to be appropriated without consent of the House of Representatives, and who controls that?

Why the Republicans with their spineless Speaker John Boehner of course. They could just refuse to allocate any funding for Obamacare. All it takes is the will to defend the republic and the integrity to truly mean it when you swear your oath of office. However, it’s obvious after the last two years the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. has neither, which means we the people will have to do it for them.

That starts by electing state and local officials who understand what Alexander Hamilton meant when he wrote in Federalist 78:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.


It’s time for a rule of law voter’s guide to make sure our candidates understand the Constitutional scheme, and what the Founders meant by the aforementioned words written by Alexander Hamilton. I submit the following questions as just such a guide to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Did our Founding Fathers intend for us to be subject to “laws” passed by people we did not elect?

Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says that judges have the legal authority to make the law?

Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says the other two branches of government are inferior to the judicial branch?

Does either the federal or your state Constitution say the ultimate political authority rests with the people or the courts?

Does either the federal or your state Constitution enumerate the power of making law to any branch other than the legislature?

When the courts attempt to impose on our God-given rights, what recourse do “we the people” have? For example, when the court eventually decides it wants to take away our right to self-defense (two recent court opinions only upheld the Second Amendment by a slim 5-4 vote), do we then just hand over our guns because the court said so?

Are the legislative and executive branches automatically compelled to submit to ever court opinion as if it has the force of law no matter what? If you’re in public office, should your first allegiance be to uphold the literal wording of your state and federal Constitution, or a court opinion? Is there ever a moral case to be made for ignoring a disobeying a court opinion, and if so what is it?


What is the “law” and what is it based on? Is the “law” an already determined standard, or does it evolve? If you think it’s a determined standard, what determines it? If it evolves, what do you think evolves it? What is the highest law? What if there is a conflict between the highest law and the law being executed/interpreted? What resolves that conflict?

Oh, and the next time one of these Republicans tells you there’s nothing we can do while the courts pillage and plunder the Constitution other than just vote for anybody with a “R” after their name to get conservative justices, tell them you’ve got two words for them—“John Roberts.”

Then kick them in the shin as hard as you can with a steel-toed boot.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos