The Supreme Court is at it again. This time, they have the opportunity to strike a major blow to Obamacare in King vs. Burwell. However, members of the court are seemingly more interested in the policy ramifications of their decision than protecting the Constitution.

A recent brief conversation between certain Supreme Court justices shed light on their thought process on this important case. A SCOTUS Blog report elaborates:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who seemed decidedly more sympathetic to the government than might have been expected, worried over a constitutional blow against the states. But even the two Justices most openly sympathetic to the challengers — Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia — seemed to concede the dire consequences that could follow, by suggesting ways to alleviate it. Alito said the Court could delay its ruling to allow time to adjust, and Scalia said Congress could be counted on to fix it.

On Friday morning, when the Justices start their private conversation on the case of King v. Burwell, what those three said in public in an eighty-four-minute hearing Wednesday could set the tone, and the public signs were that the tone could be mostly favorable to the government — that is, the chances seemed greater for a ruling salvaging a nationwide subsidy system that makes the new health care insurance exchanges actually work in an economic sense, thus keeping it alive.

These justices are operating outside of their purview. The effects that their opinions will have on public policy should not even come into consideration. They should only care about doing their supposed job, which is making sure that the feds follow the letter of the law as it was originally intended by the Founding Fathers.

Because the Supreme Court has become more interested in policy than defending the Constitution, we cannot safely rely on them to protect our rights when issuing their opinions. Sitting on our hands and hoping for these robed, politically-connected lawyers in Washington D.C. to take care of us has not worked very well. Only by being proactive and fighting in our communities can we truly defend our sacred freedoms.

The Founding Fathers realized this, and they divided power throughout the Republic accordingly. They wanted numerous checks against an overwrought executive. They knew from their experiences with Great Britain that unrestrained executive power led to tyranny. That is why they attempted to tie down the federal government by the chains of the Constitution, giving them a few, specifically defined powers. Meanwhile, the rights of the people and their instrument, the states, were meant to bountiful and immeasurable.

The founders understood the nature of government. Unfortunately, modern-day politicians and jurists don’t share this understanding. That is why bottom-up action is necessary to limit the power of today’s corrupted bureaucrats, whether they approve or not. The ‘Father of the Constitution’ James Madison outlined the proper way to do this in Federalist #46. He stated the following:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Rather than waiting for federal employees to have some sort of miraculous epiphany, you can take practical measures to stop the growth of government at the state and local levels. The “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” combined with “the embarrassment created by legislative devices” can create “very serious impediments” that “present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” Madison laid the blueprint for American resistance, and we must fully utilize it in our communities.

At the Tenth Amendment Center, we put James Madison’s words into action. We have many different pieces of legislation that you can use to nullify the unconstitutional federal agenda in your neck of the woods. We just need people like you to shake off the apathy, roll up your sleeves, do the necessary work, and refuse to accept the excuses and lies from the political establishment. Are you up for the challenge? Join us today, and help make our vision into a reality.

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.