The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is and has been acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The US Constitution is clear on the role of the court as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders about its role simply as arbiter not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The US Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights which includes the 10^th Amendment. The Bill of Rights in total underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs, but it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply be the referee to ensure the legislature was only passing laws that met the limits and protections within the constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis and in the federal papers he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was. The precedence of the SCOTUS has been used to rewrite original intent to mean whatever the court wanted it to mean. This has been seen with the Commerce Clause. Its intent was to make trade regular between the states so there was a “uniform” set of laws guiding how the states traded. The coastal states could have easily introduced additional tariffs and taxes to the other states due to their proximity and importance in the delivery of foreign goods. It was not intended to be used as a way for the federal government to force the states to comply with its wishes simply because they participated in commerce. It was more efficient to have one representative dealing with foreign governments and trade agreements so the states would not have 13 different sets of rules that could be used to divide and create mischief by foreign governments especially France and England.

There have been a number of torturous interpretations based on precedent and ideology that have slowly but surely undermined our freedoms and decisions as a people. The suggestion that if we buy something or make something that is considered “commerce” that that becomes a reasonable opportunity for the federal government to regulate it and tax it to pay for the regulation is a warped view of the constitution. There is no requirement of the SCOTUS to consider any previous cases. That is what they need to do in the Obamacare case. They need to read and look at the original intent of our constitution.

That is where the crux of my argument lies. We now have a completely politicized process that does not fundamentally begin with a review of the constitution; it begins from the ideological views of the justices. As a conservative I pray the more conservative judges begin with the constitution in this healthcare case. But no one person can argue that every decision of late that the SCOTUS has ruled on is based in politics. Yes they occasionally reference the constitution but too often reference precedence. Completely opposite of what Madison argued would be the case.

The growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government is being refereed by a party (SCOTUS) that has a self interest in the growth of that same government. If President Obama gets to choose two or more justices for the Supreme Court does anyone believe it will be a legitimate institution to protect our founding document? We will have reached the point of a nine person dictatorship if the SCOTUS becomes all powerful in the making and determining our future laws and original intent of the Constitution.

The states and the Governors of those states along with the legislatures need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. Nullification is a legitimate course of action found within the constitution. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court for much longer because it is already politicized but if this president gets a few more picks it will no longer be on the side of the people and the states.

It is time for the states and the people to read, understand, and protect the US Constitution. It is the greatest weapon in the fight for liberty. Much more reliable than any SCOTUS.   

Capitalism Works Every Time…

If you replace the word capitalism with “individual choice” you start to understand the reason we are so prosperous as a nation and people. This election cycle we are seeing a very dangerous tactic by the president and his supporters by demonizing “capitalism.” In the view of too many Americans, Capitalism has become a negative word. As a nation there is no quicker path to the bottom than to bite the system that feeds the prosperity we enjoy.

“Individual choice” to engage in trade with others works best because the individuals involved in the transaction know what is the best outcome of that transaction. The two parties assess the others offer and decide if it is worth the exchange of value to each party. An example would be a person needs food and a farmer needs a barn. The farmer and the carpenter decide what the value is in the transaction. The carpenter may ask for 6 months’ worth of corn in exchange for building a barn. If that trade is acceptable the two parties transact business. If not they either renegotiate or find another person that will find the transaction terms acceptable. The final transaction will be the result of “market” principles in action. Individuals decide for themselves the value of goods in the market.

The introduction of a third party like government into the market to decide what the “price” for goods and services is and the way they are distributed is socialism. A third party decides how much time people need to spend working and what wage they will receive for that time “spent” on the job. This third party is not part of the transaction except for the part of deciding how the transactions will take place and how the terms will be distributed. No matter what the individuals in the transaction think about the terms, the terms remain the same (“equal”). If those terms are not acceptable to the parties the parties remove themselves from the “market’ and the market stalls, and dwindles away. Nothing gets done and things stagnate or more likely a “black market” is created to get around the third party arbiter.

The economy and the world revolves around billions of “individual choice” transactions that all together make up a vibrant economy. The reason the “individual choice” model is so efficient is because people will only do the transactions that make sense to their individual circumstances. They make the best choice for themselves and their families. They control the choices they make and every transaction adjusts based on the needs of “individual choice.”

There are times when “individual choice” is “cruel” to the other party by rejecting what they have to offer. But unlike a system like socialism that attempts to force the transaction to move forward, in the “individual choice” model that rejected party must rethink, retool, reduce the price, (or many other possibilities), make a change that is acceptable to the other party.  It forces changes that can result in failure but can also result in a more efficient offer or product. It forces people to be creative, diligent, hardworking and in a word it is competitive. The strong survive and the weak either change or fail.

So even though socialism touts “fairness” it is not fair at all. It distorts the “individual choice” and replaces it with forced transactions. It never works for a greater length than individuals figure a way to work around it or stop working at all. So the next time you hear someone criticize capitalism ask them if they believe in “individual choice”? Most likely they will and then explain that capitalism is a system of individual choices which produces the best outcomes for all willing to work hard in our society…