The Case for Impeachment
Have you heard?
ObamaCare is 'constitutional.' Whatever that means.
And it took only 193 pages to explain it. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Your inbox has been flooded for the past few days with politicians asking you to contribute money on the speculation that nine government employees in black robes might go either way.
Well, now you know.
And your inbox will be flooded from now until November with politicians exhorting you to contribute to their campaigns so that they can 'repeal' this leviathan Federal statute.
What nary a one of them will propose, however, is that any of those nine black-robed employees should be impeached.
You might remember from reading the Constitution that "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Federal Constitution, Article I, Section 2
Unlike the powers that the Congress regularly expands without any written authority from the Constitution, the impeachment power is one that the Congress is curiously reticent about exercising. Without exercise, it has atrophied.
The Basis for Impeachment
There is a single sentence in John Roberts' opinion that is the grounds for, at least, his impeachment.
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Right there you have it. That sentence won't be the subject of the pundits examination, ad nauseam, of the opinion and 'what it means.'
But in a few simple, straight-forward words Roberts has, basically, written what many, but nevertheless too few, people have known all along. Our republican form of government has failed in its basic purpose, to protect the rights of the individual -- you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Roberts, in a moment of clarity, comes right out and says it. It's not his job.
Just so you can easily see that I have not taken Roberts' statement out of context, here is the entire paragraph that ends in Roberts' conclusion.
Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Can you believe that? Roberts wrote, "permissive reading."
Roberts also finds a power in the court that is nowhere to be found in the written Constitution.
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law ...
Who exactly vested the 'members' with that authority?
I could analyze the opinion further, but there are plenty of pundits who stand to make a lot of money doing that.
Needless to say, Roberts is not the only government employee that needs to be on the business end of the impeachment power. But he would make a good start.
The Repeal Rallying Cry
So, the repeal craze that you will be swept away will sound comforting. You'll 'hope' for a 'change.'
And with a new Congress and, perhaps, a new president, repeal may actually occur. But that won't solve the problem. Your newly elected heroes will go along to get along as they have always done, because you let them get away with it.
The real question that you should ponder is this. At what point will you stop letting your representatives in the Congress get away with it?
You may consider that you are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. In reality, in almost all cases, you're faced with a Hobson's choice. You'll continue to have that 'choice' dictated to you until you do something to remove the Hobson's of our political world.