Constitutional Disaster?

  • I am deliberately slow to react to the disastrous Supreme Court decision because, I am afraid I may be missing something important. I don’t call it “disastrous” so much because of the substance of the Pelosi/Obama program of health coverage reform: I am one of those conservatives who don’t lose track of the fact that Americans pay twice more for health care than Western Europeans and live shorter lives. My concerns are bout the rule of law.
  • Two broad questions: Have any liberal groups or liberal individuals said anything about the precedent of the Supreme Court showing the lawmakers out to make the unconstitutional constitutional by re-naming it? (A fine is not a tax but it can be called  a tax to make it legal.) Second question: Have you heard or read any liberal comments about the inadvisability of having any law about anything that runs to more then 2,500 pages?
  • I ask because I want to make sure I am not forming a caricatural picture of that which separates me from the liberals around me. Right now, I have formed the impression that liberal political culture is formed mostly by late night shows. It’s a culture of the cheap sarcasm that avoids the risk of rational contradiction because it is only delivered to a crowd of true believers. (In partial support: It’s amazing how few New York Times you see in super-liberal Santa Cruz. I hardly ever find one to steal!)
  • It seems to me that conservatives do not run an equal risk of smugness through the avoidance of contradiction because it’s extremely difficult to avoid the straight liberal dope the media delivers. I, for example, listen to NPR almost every afternoon. I do this, in part out of a sense of intellectual obligation, partly because there is not much of an intelligent alternative (again, in the afternoon). Similarly, I watch a 30min+ of MSNBC or of CNN nearly every weekday morning at the gym because others control the TV set. I make no effort to escape, by the way.

About Jacques Delacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Constitutional Disaster?

  1. Pingback: Around the Web: ObamaCare Edition (Part 2) « Notes On Liberty

  2. Thomas H. says:


    While people like me do not try to read the literal texts of these recovery acts, nor their editorial commentaries, it is important to note that the current administration in Washington, D.C., will in all evidence proceed with its plan to make sure everyone has health care “insurance.” Probably now more people in America will believe they have coverage, and they might, just not really good coverage, and for various reasons, not just including the paternalistic bureaucracy compelling this kind of health care arrangement(s.) This new federal insurance plan overall might become an important talking point in the national election in November, too, as candidates will tout their critical successes from various points of view. In the Supreme Court opinion, another document I have heard about but not directly read, there has to be some wording about the impending difficulties of the cost of medical care in America and its corresponding budget and debt burdens, regardless of the immediate or future tax burden it creates to cover the large percentage of our incomes either spent directly on health care or health insurance devices. The actual problem with health care in the U.S. at this point, at least from the apparent standpoint of how ObamaCare is upheld, is its finances and related dependence of quality health care as delivered now upon public finances. Your comments invited.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s