Obama Supporters Put High Court on Trial

Friday, 27 Apr 2012 12:24 PM

By Betsy McCaughey

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
As the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates the Obama healthcare law, the court itself is on trial.

Obamacare supporters are attacking the justices as “hacks dressed up in black robes,” calling for limits on their life tenure, and claiming judicial review is undemocratic.

obamacaresupporters.jpg
Obamacare supporters shout slogans outside the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Getty Images)
Worse, President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius are shoveling money into implementing the law as fast as possible and refuse to discuss an alternative. That’s irresponsible. What's needed now is not court bashing but contingency planning.

The Obama administration and allies in Congress have nine weeks to plan how to pick up the pieces on a vast array of health insurance issues. It's the President's duty to have a plan. It will signal his respect for the nation's system of checks and balances — something he has utterly failed to show.

He should take a page from history. When the national government was only a decade old, the Supreme Court came under similar attack. But how it was handled ensured the survival of our system of checks and balances. The stakes may be that high now.

Nearly all the framers of the Constitution agreed that federal judges would be obligated to strike down any act of Congress that violated the Constitution. Only four of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 questioned whether judicial review was desirable.

During the ratification debate, critics with pen names such as Brutus and Federal Farmer raised the danger that judges might strike down laws offensive to their own personal views. In response, Alexander Hamilton assured them in The Federalist that judges were tied to one standard — the written Constitution.

When the First Congress met in 1789, Congressman James Madison implored the House of Representatives to enact a Bill or Rights.

Rights such as trial by jury and freedom of assembly had long histories, and some congressmen said it was unnecessary to write them down. But Madison said adding them as amendments to the written Constitution would mean judges would be obligated to protect them against majorities in Congress.

Judges already were expected to exercise judicial review, just as they are today.

Judicial review occasioned little controversy until 1798, when the fledgling nation broke into two hostile political parties, the Federalists and Republicans. Most judges were Federalists and seen as partisan, and trust in the judiciary plummeted.

In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Republican allies swept into office, intent on attacking the court. They called judicial review “a new power of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature.” The federal judiciary was on trial, as it is today. Chief Justice John Marshall saw it was urgent to rescue the nation’s checks and balances.

In his now famous ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall began with the philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that the people have an “original right” to establish their own form of government and define and limit its powers. And “that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written,” Marshall continued. “Certainly all those who have formed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “consequently any act of government contrary to that paramount law is void.”

Marshall didn’t invent judicial review. But his cautious definition of the review power assured a nation newly fearful of judicial discretion that he and his fellow Justices would enforce the written Constitution but go no further. Judges would not strike down laws that conflicted with their private views.

Marshall’s prudent strategy to rescue a court on trial needs to be repeated now.

The Justices must tie their ruling on the Obama health law to the written Constitution and avoid discussions of policy. Policy is not their job.

The President needs to signal to the nation that he is prepared to comply with the court. And Congress must be ready with alternatives. There’s no time to waste.

Betsy McCaughey is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It.

Betsy McCaughey is the former lieutenant governor of New York State and author of the new e-book, "DeCoding the Obama Health Law." She is president of Defend Your Healthcare and founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. Read more reports from Betsy McCaughey — Click Here Now.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

Don't Be Fooled by Obamacare’s Swan Song

Tuesday, 26 Jun 2012 13:24 PM

The White House is singing its swan song for Obamacare. The administration released an ad blitz claiming that Americans  . . .

All Americans Don't Use Healthcare

Friday, 30 Mar 2012 10:42 AM

Supreme Court watchers are parsing every word the justices uttered this week, trying to predict which way the court will . . .

Obamacare Places Controls on Women

Monday, 19 Mar 2012 09:55 AM

Obamacare places various controls on women, and yet Hillary Clinton warned this week that "extremists" want to control w . . .

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved