Betrayal: The ruling on Obamacare and the federal judiciary

The upholding of Obamacare by the Supreme Court in an unexpected 5-4 political decision is a travesty of American constitutionality. It is a sad day in the country when a knowledgeable chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court betrays the country and places himself and his legacy -- not to mention the chants for “change” and “progress,” and his obvious desire for a favorable, epochal association with the first African-American president -- ahead of the moral and economic well-being of the nation. I say this because the burden of Obamacare will be laid directly on the shoulders of the already overtaxed and overstretched small businesses, entrepreneurs and the American middle class who sustain this nation.

The liberal justices voted as we expected, for man is a political animal. But the deciding vote by Chief Justice John Roberts, I posit, was cast to assert and define his personal legacy as stated above, and to ride the wave of the times of statism and collectivism, not to mention the alleged inescapable legal positivism of history.

It is always amazing to me how liberals quickly extend sanctity and infallibility status to the Supreme Court whenever the justices issue a ruling in their favor, even in 5-4 rulings, as if the other four justices were nonexistent entities. The reality is the court has been and remains a political animal, swayed by the politics of the moment (expediency), private considerations (personal legacies), and partisanship (ideology). It must carefully be watched and judged by Congress, the states, and the people -- as we are still a federated republic.

Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders warned us about the unchecked power of the courts. In 1821, in a letter to his friend Charles Hammond, Jefferson wrote: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Yes, Jefferson was annoyed by the power of the judiciary and the federal government at the expense of the states and individual liberty. I will not go as far as Jefferson in this condemnation, but it should make us ponder if our confidence in the Supreme Court should always be paramount.

And for those readers who will complain I am just a sore loser about this most recent court ruling, I ask where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress authorized to pass laws regarding education and health care, powers that the court affirms as constitutional? For the likes of me, like James Madison on welfare, I cannot put my finger on either one of those elusive enumerated powers.

Simply stated, the upholding of Obamacare by the Supreme Court, and its imminent consummation and consumption by the American people (most assuredly if President Obama is re-elected with a suppliant Congress) -- will continue to bring forth the death knell of what remains of our republic.

The erstwhile prosperous land of the free, home of the brave, beacon of individual freedom and hope, will continue its descent and downward spiral toward more socialism -- in the same mode and “fashion” as the morally and economically bankrupt social democracies of Europe. The fate of our nation hangs in the balance and will be determined this November.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., is the author of “Vandals at the Gates of Medicine.”

This editorial was published in The Macon Telegaph on July 6, 2012.
Copyright ©2012 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Read more here:
Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)
Comments on this post

I agree with you

BenCats, I couldn't agree with your post more. The other poster is either really naive or totally uninformed. Just yesterday a study was released that stated health insurance premiums will probably increase by 32% because of ObamaCare rules and regulations!

I come frequently to this website and read the articles and the posts. I wasn't sure about this guy's post, so I'm glad you clarified it for me. I hope you will keep coming back.

With a wave of their wands!

Grant it, Obama is no magician but his Democrat counterparts in the House and Senate, specifically Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, certainly acted like magicians. With a wave of their wands, they rammed ObamaCare legislation through the House and Senate using every trick in the book!

You should read the article ObamaCare — Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the U.S. for further edification to see exactly how the Democrats weave their magic!

Political savviness on target!

Ben, I fully agree with your savvy political assessment. I don't understand it either.

Even the liberal media seemed to be getting scared. They might just get what they were wishing for! See the article:

The tax man cometh to police you on health care By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press 7//7/12

And Three quotations come to mind:

"Treason doth never prosper...why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington (1561–1612).

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed on every man; business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house...the law will of necessity have inquisitional features; it will provide penalties; it will create complicated machinery. Under it, men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer."--- Virginia House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910. Forecasting the consequences for future generations if a national income tax was ever enacted. It was indeed implemented in 1913 (XVI Amendment), along with the Federal Reserve, and the XVII Amendment (i.e., the popular election of the US Senate that deprived the states of representation in the federal government).

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy...always followed by a dictatorship."---Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, University of Edinburgh (1714-1778)

Despite the positive spin by the pundits

As I have written elsewhere, this is an excellent editorial, Dr. Faria. You expressed my sentiments exactly. Four other Supreme Court justices didn't have any trouble voting ObamaCare unconstitutional as well as multiple Attorney Generals from various states. So, why did Roberts cave into the pressure?  I'd say because he is moderate Republican at best, who may well turn out to be another disappointing David Souter.

Maconsense, another poster at, wrote: "But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."  True, but the court has an obligation to decide if what Congress passes is constitutional. Health care regulation is not authorized in the constitution as a congressional power.

Finally, as Dr. Faria has pointed out in another article, the way the law was passed by the people's representatives leaves a lot to be desired:

See "ObamaCare — Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the U.S." published on June 29, 2012 in Surgical Neurology International and posted on this website.