Constitutionalism

Constitutional Tea:

I didn't have time to read the decision in yesterday's Obamacare case, though I was pleased to learn from news reports that it had voided the entire act. Now that I've had more time, I'm fairly pleased with it. The judge has done precisely what a member of the elite should do: refer to the Constitution and the original principles explicated in the Federalist Papers (or, in the case of later amendments, similar documentation); examine the current case in the light of those principles; and issue a decision that forces adherence to those principles.

That's what the Constitution is for. The law means just what it meant when it was enacted and nothing else; if you want to change the law, that's fine, but you must do so according to Article V (which is also part of the original law). Judges who catch the government trying to pull a fast one on that should slap it down. If the elite -- that is, if Congress and federal judges and administrators and so forth -- consistently did this, there would be little need for a TEA Party, and little reason for it to concern them.

The most impressive aspect of the ruling is that it starts with Federalist 51; it is delightful to see that it includes wording from then-candidate Obama. This was a good line too, and one that shows where the man's heart is:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

That's a very good point. The tea mattered then, and it matters now.