U. S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia (2010)
Today, there is a lot of chatter around the blogosphere on a Virginia District Court decision by Judge Henry Hudson. On December 13, 2010, Judge Hudson declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
His decision is important because it points out how different justices come to different decisions based upon their political beliefs. Judge Hudson is a Republican. His decision puts him at odds with other recent legal decisions on Health Care.
Take Judge Hudson’s decision in the context of a recent article from Imprimus. The article is adapted from remarks by Larry P. Arnn, president of Hillsdale College and is titled, “Outline of a Platform for Constitutional Government.”
The article is significant because it talks about the special nature of the U. S. Constitution, how it protects the rights of individuals, preserves economic liberty, upholds national security, and emphasizes the need for high standards amongst our public officials.
The Constitution sets standards, but individual courts interpret those standards. Here are some consequences to note:
--Christine O’Donnell remarked during her campaign that there is no language about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Although this is true, federal judges have interpreted the Constitution as directing that there be no public funding of institutions that are unduly influenced by religious thought.
--In 1857, the Dred Scott decision was handed down by a Supreme Court packed with justices affiliated with the Democratic Party. Those justices interpreted the Constitution as designating people with dark skin tone as being property, not citizens.
--In a recent interview, Justice Stephen Breyer, a member of our current Supreme Court, explained the Second Amendment to the Constitution. He pointed out that the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted, and should be restricted geographically! As an example, he pointed to the Heller decision overturning a ban on handguns in Washington D.C.
Justice Breyer clearly believes this decision was wrong. He thinks that if you feel strongly about your right to bear arms, you should go someplace else. The money quote from Justice Breyer is, “Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland.”
Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has reaction:
Wow, that solves all sorts of problems. You want an abortion, or a school without government sponsored prayer? Get on the subway! Desegregated schools? Same thing! (Why didn’t the Supreme Court think of that in Bolling v. Sharpe? — Oh, right, no subway back then. See, this is why people oppose mass transit. It’s an end-run around the Bill Of Rights . . . .)Hang on to your Constitution, folks. It’s all we’ve got.
Featured as Blog Post of the Day on "Morning Beat" at Left Coast Rebel! Thanks, Tim.
Return to Top
Return to Bottom