Conservative thinkers could see this coming before President Obama was even elected.
Obama’s perspective on the Constitution made it easy to forecast events such as what happened Monday, when Judge Roger Vinson, a federal district judge in Pensacola, ruled that the federal health care reform bill (“Obamacare”) unconstitutional.
In a campaign speech, Obama criticized the Bill of Rights for being “negative rights.” That is, it states only what the federal government cannot do. Obama’s concern was that we should be governed by a bill of rights which includes what the government can do to its citizens.
The most obnoxious part of the Bill of Rights to the liberal agenda is the 10th Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That is, the federal government has no authority other than that which explicitly falls within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
And Obamacare violates those boundaries.
The provision within the legislation that resulted in the judicial ruling was that of mandated coverage. If the bill were to go into effect, millions of currently uninsured Americans would be forced to purchase a health insurance plan or else pay a fine to the federal government.
And nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to force the citizens to buy anything.
This is a point liberals need to consider carefully.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and adopted as so-called “negative rights” for good reason. The founders of this country were well aware that, in the ebb and flow of partisanship and public sentiment, those within the government may from time to time be tempted to make sweeping changes in response to a given situation or issue.
The negative rights were designed to prevent that, regardless of party. The safeguards on government intervention are necessary to keep politicians on both sides of the aisle from foisting unjust mandates on American citizens.
If a politically motivated Supreme Court decision overturns Judge Vinson, or if President Obama unlawfully forges ahead with his plan, then a precedent will be set. Powers given to the government will remain with the government, in this administration and all which follow.
Thus, the president and Congress will have the power to force Americans to buy something whether they want it or not.
Think about that.
If, for example, Sarah Palin were to be elected and decide that everyone needed to own a firearm, this precedent would enable her to push through legislation that would require all Americans to purchase a gun whether they wanted to or not.
Liberals often fail to consider unintended consequences. They should carefully consider the results of their tendency to respond to every issue by giving as much power as possible to a government that will not always be on their side ideologically.
The Constitution, with its negative rights, ensures that no matter who is in power, the rights of the American citizen remain unchanged.
Conservatives and liberals alike should be grateful for judges like Vinson who courageously defend those rights, regardless of the political climate.
Bob Minchin is a fourth-year electrical engineering major. His column appears on Fridays.
