My daily email containing the editorials and opinion columns from the Washington Post included an item written by E.J. Dionne entitled “Supreme Court activists: Conservative justices forget we’re a democracy.”
Surely this was a mistake.
- Doesn’t Dionne know that the Constitution was adopted in part to protect basic freedoms from untrammeled majoritarianism?
- Is he unaware that Article 1, Section 8 lists “enumerated powers” of the federal government, and that health insurance isn’t mentioned?
- Did he forget that America is a constitutional republic, or perhaps was never taught?
- Did he not learn about separation of powers in school, and that the courts are supposed to protect us against tyranny of the majority emanating from the legislature?
I suspect he does understand, at least with regard to the first question. For instance, I’d bet a lot of money that he was correctly in favor of the Court’s decision to protect flag burning as a form of political speech, notwithstanding public opinion and congressional approval.
But he seems to join with other leftists in treating the interstate commerce clause as some sort of blank check for federal intervention into every aspect of our lives. And it shows up in various ways in his column.
…conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature…discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell… Sotomayor asked what was wrong with leaving as much discretion as possible “in the hands of the people who should be fixing this, not us.” It was nice to be reminded that we’re a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship. …This is what conservative justices will do if they strike down or cripple the health-care law. …a court that…sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws.
At the risk of being blunt, the conservative justices are doing exactly what they should be doing. They’re deciding if a law enacted by Congress is consistent with the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
America has a democratic form of government, but we are not a democracy. At least not in the sense that 51 percent of the people have the unlimited right to rape and pillage 49 percent of the people.
I have no idea of the Supreme Court will make the right decision, but I am overwhelmingly confident that the Founding Fathers didn’t envision mandated health insurance as a function of the federal government.
But maybe I’m just too old fashioned, because when I peruse the enumerated powers, I don’t see any authority for a Department of Energy either. Or a Department of Agriculture. Or a Department of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea.
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republicis that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] big advantage of living in a constitutional republic is that individual rights are protected from “tyranny of the […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] Some pundits and some lawmakers in Washington either don’t understand this part of American history or they want to pretend it doesn’t exist. […]
[…] You won’t be surprised to learn that E.J. Dionne is against the right kind of judicial […]
[…] Why do they pretend otherwise? (Dan Mitchell makes additional points about Dionne’s bizarre piece here.) If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective […]
[…] Founders deliberately set up a system based on Separation of Powers because they understood that unilateral power was a recipe for government […]
[…] need “to be rewritten.” The United States already has a Constitution that was explicitly designed to protect against majoritarianism. The problem is justices who put politics first and the […]
[…] to go through all the effort of recreating that function. And that’s not overly easy given the separation-of-powers system that the Founding Fathers wisely […]
[…] go through all the effort of recreating that function. And that’s not overly easy given the separation-of-powers system that the Founding Fathers wisely […]
[…] power of government. And very clear limits, as George Will has properly explained and E.J. Dionne never learned, on […]
Mike Hucklebee forgets this, too, often. He has said we shouldn’t allow the “judicial tyranny” of judicial supremacy. For example, gay marriage has been banned by referendum in many states, but the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is one thing, but there are a lot of conservatives like Hucklebee who are not simply arguing that it is constitutional to ban gay marriage but are rather arguing that the Court is imposing its will on the voters. That may be, but it is the Court’s job to overturn things that are unconstitutional to protect our rights. So whether or not the people support banning gay marriage is irrelevant to the Court’s question.
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] Some leftists are totally oblivious about America’s system of […]
[…] Some leftists are totally oblivious about America’s system of […]
[…] (Dan Mitchell makes additional points about Dionne’s bizarre piece here.) […]
[…] loyalties are to libertarian principles, many of which are reflected in the Constitution, so we’re free to criticize or praise politicians based on […]
[…] loyalties are to libertarian principles, many of which are reflected in the Constitution, so we’re free to criticize or praise politicians based on […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in the afterlife […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] More specifically, they shared the ideology of the progressive movement, which saw a powerful and activist central government as a force for good – a radical departure from the views of America’s Founding Fathers, who hoped that the Constitution would protect people by keeping government very small. […]
[…] By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance. […]
[…] Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people […]
[…] Finally, for those who want some analysis of why schemes like Obamacare are inconsistent with the Constitution, here’s some good analysis by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Philip Klein and Damon Root, and yours truly. […]
[…] By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance. […]
[…] Robinson is one of the group-think columnists at the Washington Post. Like E.J. Dionne, he is an utterly predictable proponent of big government. So it won’t surprise you to know that […]
[…] Robinson is one of the group-think columnists at the Washington Post. Like E.J. Dionne, he is an utterly predictable proponent of big government. So it won’t surprise you to know […]
[…] Robinson is one of the group-think columnists at the Washington Post. Like E.J. Dionne, he is an utterly predictable proponent of big government. So it won’t surprise you to know that […]
[…] Robinson is one of the group-think columnists at the Washington Post. Like E.J. Dionne, he is an utterly predictable proponent of big government. So it won’t surprise you to know […]
[…] Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people […]
[…] By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance. […]
[…] Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people […]
A very good example of how America is becoming a majoritarian dictatorship is a recent vote in some western state on whether the tenant of a housing development has to allow gays and lesbians to live there. The vote passed in favor of gays, but only because it was (thankfully) done on a college campus, where most students supported it (polls showed that it would have failed if the general public voted). tyranny of the majority (mob rule) is how the Nazi Party rose to power, and tyranny is ALWAYS wrong, whether the tyrant is King George III of England or 51% of the American public. The last time there was a major civil rights issue was in 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court put the Constitution ahead of the people, and legalized interracial marriage despite 73% opposition.
[…] written occasionally about how the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the federal government’s powers by providing a list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII, of the […]
[…] stated, I want to go back to the limited central government and constitutional republic envisioned by the Founding […]
[…] Ann writes is true, but not persuasive. Libertarians don’t like untrammeled majoritarianism. We don’t think two wolves and a sheep should vote on what’s for […]
[…] E.J. Dionne Forgets that America Is a Constitutional Republic […]
[…] for statism, but at least they have some diversity on the op-ed pages. Less than two months after E.J. Dionne wrote an embarrassing column showing he didn’t understand the difference between u…, the Post publishes a terrific piece by George Will on the proper role of the Supreme […]
[…] Here’s an outstanding post from Dan Mitchell on his blog International Liberty, E.J. Dionne Forgets that America Is a Constitutional Republic. […]
[…] / Govt. E.J. Dionne Forgets that America Is a Constitutional Republic Who Is Most Likely to Oppose […]
[…] here’s some good analysis by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Philip Klein and Damon Root, and yours truly. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
Although I do not know who E. J. Dionne is I’d bet he defers to his First Amendment right to free speech, even tho he doesn’t know anything else about the Constitution nor how a Republic functions.
Mike Giles: Because the Constitution doesn’t grant the executive branch (the president) the power to regulate the industries Mr. Mitchell mentions; housing, Agriculture, etc unlike national defense or negotiating with foreign governments . So, the president has the ability to delegate authority, he just has no authority in certain areas to delegate in the first place.
Make that “but I don’t think there is”. Why I don’t see these thinks til after I post, is beyond me.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong by I don’t think their is any direct Constitutional authorization for any of the executive secretaries. I believe these department and positions were simply created to allow the president to carry out his duties. All of them could probably Constitutionally be abolished, but then the POTUS would have to find another method of carrying out his duties. He could have every facet of the executive branch report directly to him while he oversaw their day to day activities. But delegating a portion of his authority seems a better system.
Can anyone explain to me how Dionne got his job?
If Mr Dionne believes that the court should respect the will of Congress and the state legislatures, he must conclude that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.
Leaving aside that we are a federal republic, not a pure democracy, what’s really hilarious is that this law was passed in about the most UNdemocratic way imaginable. Poll after poll showed clear majorities of Americans saying “no, we do not want this”; public rejection was so strong that the voters of Massachusetts (!) turned Teddy Kennedy’s old seat over to a Republican (!) who ran on an explicit promise to block the law. Yet Congress and the President shoved it down our throats anyway, using all sorts of parliamentary tricks and maneuvers and grossly corrupt buy-offs. And now poor E.J. whines about “democracy.” Heh.
@Michael Murray. Is it constitutional or not? Well said!
The South African constitution is under attack. South Africa’s ANC government doesn’t like its ability to supervise their activities, so is reviewing its powers.
The ANC government is also trying to pass a State Secrets anti Freedom of Information act to protect venal government officials, this will allow any government official to declare something (virtually anything) a “State Secret” which then can’t be publicized…
No, the Swiss Constitution is a far better model. Switzerland had its troubles, looked at the US Constitution, fixed the flaws, and now Switzerland is one of the safest and most prosperous countries in the world. see:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html
@bobby b: Yes, there has been an intervening election, and the shift in the balance of power has a lot to do with the Dems pushing Obamacare. Furthermore, the Dems knew exactly what they were doing and believed that they could get away with it, so if SCOTUS cuts it down, they will be getting what they deserve.
Of course, we could also mention the fact that the Dems would not have gotten to 60 without the unfair, illegal prosecutorial behavior of the Justice Dept. in the case against Ted Stevens. If ever there was a case that demonstrates the need to make all federal government jobs political, i.e. to do away with “civil service protection,” that one is it (although the Valerie Plame case is another).
In what universe could “fair” have anything to do with deciding this?
It should be either legal (constitutional) or not.
Richard40: “If the mandate is unconstitutional, then striking down the entire law is actually the best way to respect congress. ”
– – –
Yes and no. There’s been an intervening election which has altered the power structure. The Democrats can no longer finagle the 60-vote filibusterbuster. But they DID muster the votes to pass the bill. Is it fair to repeal the entire bill when they no longer have the votes to repass any portion of it?
(Yes, I know it’s desirable to do that. But is it fair?)
1. “At the risk of being blunt, the conservative justices are doing exactly what they should be doing.”
(Bad Crocodile Dundee accent): THAT’S not being blunt. THIS is being blunt:
“I’ve never been able to tell if Dionne was too unintelligent to understand multisyllabic legal concepts, or if he was just lying to his readers because he’s a liberal first and a reporter second.”
2. I think the law of severance of portions of legislation differs from the contract-law variety. I don’t believe that a ruling in this case will have any effect on contract cases.
3. One complication: we know that Sebilious and Co. have already noticed, promulgated, and put into effect hundreds, if not thousands, of new rules within the agencies, as the ACA contemplated they would do.
They’ve also set up entire departments, hired employees, established operating processes and spent money as per the Act.
So, this is going to be far more complicated than just calling her department heads and saying “never mind.” This is going to be more like a huge bankruptcy liquidation if they toss the entire Act. Just as importantly, though, as stated above, the Court doesn’t have a clue how best to extract all mandate-related matter from the 2700-page Act.
I’m hoping the Court decides it needs another hearing on the case, specifically to cover what must be done to shut this down properly. That’s a question that no one seemed prepared to discuss in court this week. Either way, I doubt any of the Supreme Court Law Clerks will be getting home in time for dinner for a month or two.
If the mandate is unconstitutional, then striking down the entire law is actually the best way to respect congress. Striking down only part of it would ratify a half formed bastard law congress never intended to pass. Striking down the whole thing, allows congress to fashion a replacement with full control over what it contains, and without time pressure to fix an unsustainable half law.
The SCOTUS inquiry here was dealing with severability, which we all know is standard in legislation, absent in ACA, and had been present in previous versions of ACA. Is the lack of a severability clause fatal, or is severability inferred? This is a big deal. Anyone who has dealt in contract law knows that severability is not governed by State law (unlike, say, indemnity) and is an option of the principals to the contract. The SCOTUS decision here could have a HUGE impact on contract law – and they know it.
Yes, this is a BFD.
It’s only a democracy when we’re not dealing with Prop 8.
The founding fathers could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if they’d simply said, “Whatever most of you want to do, that’s fine.”
It also sucked under Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, and the spending, coercion, and debt continue.
[…] E.J. Dionne Forgets that America Is a Constitutional Republic […]
Liberal Democrats love the court when it comes down with decisions they like. Looks like the judges are very concerned about this power grab by the Congress for control of more of our lives. For the first 150 years the federal government spent about 3% of GDP unless in wartimes and now we are pushing 25%. It was simply put by Milton Friedman and his disciple Ronald Reagan in a clear short general message in all their work: “Who can be trusted to spend money better, you or the government.” President Obama really does believe the answer is the “federal government.” How good has that been working the last 4 years?
A majority of this court is clearly activist and has been for nearly 100 years. If they were not activist we would not live under Wickard v. Filburn, Medicare, Medicade, the EPA, DOE, and a thousand other insults. The fact that we have devolved into a mobocracy/oligarchy where the whim of the group and the bureaucrat can allow public policy to be a matter of expedience, rather than a narrow interpretation of the law is clear to see.
Did I hear “We can’t wait for Congress” somewhere?
How about Darth Bader Ginsburg’s comment:
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/#ixzz1qX7rpJ6P
Perfect! Ours is just a fixer-upper! No need for amendments, we’ll just tinker with it here in the courts.
How about the stampede-to-judgement in the Florida Martin shooting?
Sound like the Duke Lacrosse rape case?
Tawana Brawley anyone?
There is nothing more foolish, nothing more given to outrage than a useless mob.
Herodotus
The mob is the mother of tyrants.
Diogenes
Let’s just add this to the very long list of topics that Dionne is stunningly ignorant about.
Transportation (at least interstate highways) from I.8 “To establish Post Offices and post Roads;”
RE: “At the risk of being blunt, the conservative justices are doing exactly what they should be doing. They’re deciding if a law enacted by Congress is consistent with the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.”
Bravo! Well said.
The easier way to address Dionne is to simply point out that he thinks the Constitution allows things he likes (like the ability to burn the flag or eliminating laws banning same sex marriage) and he thinks the Constitution doesn’t allow things he doesn’t like (like, as I hope is the case) overturning Obamacare (or Bush II not allowing detainees access to federal court).
If my recollection serves, it was a predominantly Leftist court in MA that told the legislature that not only is your law regarding marriage unconstitutional, but you MUST write a law that permits gay marriage.
That is an activist court. This SCOTUS is not activist. We’ll see if they do their job.
Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy are pretty straightforward exercises of the Commerce Clause, Transportation stems from the post roads power. I’m not saying everything those departments do is constitutional, but their existance isn’t forbidden.
I’m with you on HUD and Education.
Moot point. A majority of Americans disapprove of bambicare, so even if it were a true democracy, it would be repealed.
Reblogged this on The Conservative New Ager.