Based on ideas from Cokie Roberts’ recent article found here, it is hard to draw any conclusion other than she prefers a dictatorship of the federal government to the balance of power guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Obamacare has been signed into law. However, there are a number of other checks and balances built into the Constitution that are specifically designed to protect the states and ultimately “we the people” from unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws would include any law passed by the federal legislature that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. States have authority to make laws on all of the other matters, this is guaranteed by the 10th amendment.
Cokie’s article seems to suggest that “we the people” simply ignore these other checks because she is afraid that it might lead to a civil war. Ironically, her “solution” to avoid civil war is actually the most likely spark to ignite it, here’s why.
From the first paragraph: “It’s also easy… to view today’s nullification battle over health care less as a frivolous political game and more as a serious threat to the Constitution.” In effect she is saying “We must abandon the Constitution to save the Constitution”. This kind of circular thinking is as dangerous to freedom as G.W. Bush’s declaration that “we must abandon the free market to save the free market”. I think what actually concerns her must be that state sovereignty is a “serious threat to absolute federal power”. Hint: that’s the way it is supposed to be.
Her article continues: “The attorneys general of 14 states have filed suit challenging the health care law because, they argue, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to require the purchase of health insurance.”
This is true, and this is an appeal to the judicial branch of the federal government. What is the problem? Does Cokie really want to eliminate the federal court’s ability to strike down unconstitutional laws? I hope not, that might lead to unchecked executive power.