Justice or ideology?

Benjamin Franklin, who wncouraged men to unite for freedom.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Healthcare Bill is now before three Appellate Court judges in Virginia. They will decide whether to shackle the United States with this crippling legislation. These judges, all three of whom got their appointments from two liberal presidents, must find whether the Healthcare Bill is constitutional. Their decision would affect the lives of all American citizens, if the case were not sure to go before the United States Supreme Court. Then the fate of our country regarding healthcare will depend on nine men and women whose judgment will become the Rule of Law. Any change in the political line-up of the higher court will also change the chance of a fair decision.

The public has seen all the arguments for and against this controversial bill. That’s right and just. But as the legal process continues, the country is no longer talking about how absurd this bill is. It is talking about where the judges lean politically. And this seems normal to us! It is anything but normal and shows the sad state of our judiciary – once the watchman of our Constitutional Republic. Worse, it shows the sad state of our culture. While Grand Juries are the courtroom arbiters of indictments, this time the citizens of this country have indicted themselves. The sentence: judges may legislate from the bench and change our Constitution from the Rule of the Land to the Rule of Those in Black Robes. By keeping quiet and willingly accepting such a state of “injustice” among our justices, we show a level of apathy that is nothing less than constitutionally criminal. No, we can’t blame the Republicans or the Democrats for this one. We have none to blame but ourselves. We have allowed the brilliant check and balance system our founders designed to disintegrate before our very eyes with hardly a whimper of protest.

ARVE Error: need id and provider

Former New Jersey State Senator Richard LaRossa often says that the law is what the judges say it is at any given time.Sadly, We the People have allowed that to happen. When did we start accepting judicial decisions that boldly contradict the letter and spirit of our Constitution? How and when did we allow men and women in black robes to hijack our Constitution and morph it into a form of government that our founders would never recognize? Who permitted these judges to rewrite our Constitution, which they took an oath to support and defend? We did. And now we wait for their decision, and hope and pray that they will decide on the law and not their leanings. Yet in our hearts we know that will not happen. The sun may rise tomorrow and life may continue. But the liberties we once had as a free and proud nation are passing with the wind

Immediately after the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government we had. He answered, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.” 230 years later, maybe we cannot keep that Republic, not because any foreign army invaded or will invade us, but because we have let ideology-driven judges and power-hungry politicians dismantle the very document that preserved and protected our liberties against their voracious appetites. Many may be praying that the Virginia judges make a just decision, but perhaps we should pray that we wake up from our apathetic nap and settle for nothing less than the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

5 Responses to Justice or ideology?

  1. Paul Durrant says:

    I’ve never read a bigger load of nonsense in my life. One piece of legislation you personally don’t like, and the entire Republic is threatened? Get a grip! If Franklin were alive today he would he horrified at the number of people with no access to health care in the USA. The Affordable Healthcare Act is a small step towards changing this situation.

    For all you rightwingers bleat about the constitution, it’s pretty clear you don’t understand it. The commerce clause allows the ACA, as the courts will no doubt testify. Your rather wet and pathetic attempt to explain this away in advance simply demonstrates your ignorance.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Well, now: Is a law constitutional just because you like it, or because your editors don’t like it?

      Or does the Constitution mean what it says?

      What does the Constitution mean? What it says, or what the US Supreme Court says, any time it says it?

      Do you really think that my fellow editor is the only person in the country who doesn’t like this legislation? You might want to check this out. It lists fifteen different reasons why this bill is unconstitutional.

      • Paul Durrant says:

        Like any other document, the constitution has to be interpreted, and the body in charge of doing that is SCOTUS. I know teabaggers like to deny it, but the constitution is a living document that must be reexamined in the light of changing attitudes. If it wasn’t, black people would still only count as 3/5 of a person.

        It’s true that a lot of people dislike the Affordable Healthcare Act, but that’s largely because people like you are spreading what can be charitably described as exaggerations about it. Romneycare is an almost identical system that has been incredibly popular. Once people start appreciating the effects, objections will melt away.

  2. […] Healthcare reform appeals: justice or ideology? – CNAV […]

  3. Joseph says:

    Hey Paul, why don’t you just wipe your ass with the Constitution then? If it can be interpreted any which way a judge happens to fancy, then there is no point to its existence. We might as well burn it. Better yet, we’ll reinterpret it too. You say we can’t do something because its unconstitutional? Too bad. We got some judges and a society that says otherwise. I like that idea. You people are like roaches. You’re the first to claim it is a living document with no permament meaning and yet hide behind the Constitution when it suits your needs or there is a law you don’t like. Then you have the audacity to insult those that believe in it, calling them derogitory names like teabaggers. Your belief that it is a living document is erronous to begin with. The only reason you plaque rats have been permitted to do so is because decent Americans have gotten lax. How much longer are we going to permit scum like this to control our country and society?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.