Ben Carson takes on the Supreme Court

Home  »  Affordable Care Act  »  Ben Carson takes on the Supreme Court
Print This Post Print This Post
May 11, 2015 No Comments ›› admin

by Lynn Woolley

Ben Carson is right. The Supreme Court of the United States is off the rails and it should be reined in. If decisions known as “judicial review” are based on law, then Acts of Congress either are constitutional or they are not. We should be seeing routine 9 to zero decisions. Ben Carson told an incredulous Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday,

“We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent.”

Carson didn’t stop there. He went on to say that a president is obligated to enforce laws passed by Congress –but not “judicial laws” that come from the courts. I have waited a long time to hear a presidential candidate say this. It is WAY past time that the other two branches take on the power of the Supreme Court. What we have instead is a 5 to 4, split Court based on personal feelings — the personal political ideology of the justices.

Video: While campaigning, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said Roe v wade is the law of the land

Roe v. Wade is the “Law of the Land.”

That’s what we hear. But Roe v. wade is a court decision made by nine people in black robes. These justices have the right, established in Marbury v. Madison, to “judicial review” but NOT to make law. That is covered in the Constitution and it is called “separation of powers.”

In Roe and other cases, the law should have been sent back to the Congress or to the states. The Supreme Court cannot make law. But it does. If Ben Carson really would take this subject on, he deserves a look from voters.

King v Burwell — to be decided by “feelings.”

This is, of course, the Obamacare lawsuit and it’s the simplest of cases.

The law was written this way: It only allows the federal government to subsidize premiums in states that have set up their own insurance markets known as “exchanges.” Most states passed on the exchanges and so – it follows that subsidies would not be legal in those states. Democrats wrote the law in order to force the exchanges, but the states called the bluff. Now, the Democrats want the Court to rule on their “intent” (which is whatever they say it was) rather than what they wrote into the law.

If the court rules based on the law – then 8 to 9 million people could lose coverage because the Affordable Healthcare Act’s income redistribution would be invalid in most states. That would likely kill nationalized healthcare for now and throw the country’s healthcare system into temporary chaos.

Maybe so, but that is not relevant to the court – at least it shouldn’t be. The justices should rule on the law. Period; end of story. They should not rule on whether they like Obamacare, or how many people would be thrown off insurance. All those things are immaterial, irrelevant, complete non-sequiturs.

Poll results say the people no longer trust nation’s highest court.

The Associated Press-GfK poll brings it into focus. Just 1 in 10 Americans believe the Supreme Court will rule fairly in this case, echoing Dr. Carson’s concerns. Most of those polled believe the justices will rule based on their own personal opinions. After so many 5 to 4 decisions, split along party lines, what else can they believe?

***

CMO COVERMORE ON MADISON V MARBURY: An excerpt from my 2003 book “Clear Moral Objectives.”

Sometimes, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on the fixed part of the Constitution – those clauses that seem very specific and leave little room for interpretation. For example, Article II, Section One requires that the President of the United States must be a natural-born citizen who has attained the age of 35. If Congress were to pass a law making changes in that requirement, it would be instantly deemed unconstitutional. But this has never stopped Congress from making laws that conflict with the Constitution.

In 1803, the Supreme Court heard the case of Marbury v. Madison in which William Marbury was trying to force a judicial appointment through that he had received from President John Adams. But Adams had left office before the appointment took effect, and Secretary of State James Madison withheld it. Marbury attempted to use Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to force Madison’s hand. Instead, the Supreme Court – saying that Section 13 granted powers to the Court not authorized by the Constitution – deemed it unconstitutional. This case set the precedent that laws passed by Congress must be constitutional and that the courts have the power to review them.

The opinion in Marbury – written by the “Great Chief Justice” John Marshall – paved the way for the Judicial Branch to become as powerful as the other two branches of government.

From Marbury, you might conclude that the Supreme Court always considers the obvious intent of the Constitution when deciding whether a law should be overturned. Your conclusion would be wrong. The Supreme Court sometimes makes rulings based on the political conditions and attitudes of the times.

The Fourteenth Amendment states quite plainly that no state shall make a law that abridges the rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. However, in 1896 at the time of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, the Supreme Court made a ruling based on current attitudes. John H. Plessy had challenged a Louisiana law that required “separate but equal” facilities for whites and blacks in railroad cars. It took fifty-eight years for the Court to revisit the issue and turn it around in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

And yet, in today’s politically correct atmosphere, that same “Equal Protection Clause” doesn’t stop affirmative action and other race-based programs. There are simply too many people who view affirmative action as a moral imperative that should trump the crystal-clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s as if the old fight between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists is still going strong; only the names have changed. Now it’s liberals and progressives against conservatives and those with a libertarian view – with moderates usually siding with those who are left of center. They align themselves, either as political parties, or as interest groups, and they file lawsuits seeking to find something in the Constitution that will make their way the law of the land.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: