Beyond the Cusp

July 4, 2012

Do We Really Need More Uninvolved Voters?

Many people on both sides of the political spectrum are having misgivings over the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the Affordable Health Care for America Act (Obama Care). Those on the Left end of the spectrum were less than enamored with the Supremes ruling that the States could not be penalized for refusing to expand their Medicaid and Medicare spending in order to cover all provisions included within Obama Care by having their Federal subsidies revoked. This will allow any or all of the States to option not to extend additional funding and coverage thus placing the onus to cover these expenditures with the Federal Government. This may very well prove to be the stumbling block to implementing Obama Care universally throughout the country. That may lead to some states being an active member under Obama Care while other states would not be included in the stipulations in Obama Care unless the Federal Government agreed to provide all the funding. Should this lead to the condition where not all States would have to apply the full mandates in Obama Care then those who optioned to be included might become havens for those seeking such coverage for some personal reasons.

On the right side of the spectrum there were numerous camps with many people having more than one problem with the Supreme Court rulings. The most obvious dispute was that many felt assured Obama Care was completely and utterly against the Constitution. They, for a large part, felt that since Obama Care was presented not as a tax but as a mandate under the Commerce Clause, that under that definition would not allow the government to force people to purchase anything, let alone healthcare insurance. Others were simply in shock when they realized that even Justice Anthony Kennedy was vehemently opposed to deeming Obama Care as Constitutional and even wrote a scathing minority opinion for the Court strongly stating what had been defined as the strict constructionist, conservative opinion. Others were more specific in their objections and simply had difficulty with the personal mandate which placed them in a similar camp as many of those surprised by the Constitutional ruling for the majority of the stipulations challenged in the Court. Then there were those who were most upset with the reasoning by Chief Justice Roberts that it is not the purview of the Supreme Court to protect the people from the decisions of their duly elected representatives. Those in this group argue that it is exactly within the powers of the Supreme Court to decide that the actions or legislations produced by the other two branches of the Government whether done individually or jointly are Constitutional or not. They took umbrage that the Chief Justice opined that the Supreme Court was not so empowered as to dissolve or negate actions by the rest of the government as it was basically a complete disemboweling of the powers of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts by his opinion has neutered the Supreme Court by negating the power of the Court to overturn legislation under the grounds of its being against the restrictions on the Federal Government contained in the Constitution, a power which was originally established by Marbury v. Madison when he declared parts of the Judiciary act of 1789 unconstitutional in 1803. Instead, this decision removes this power and responsibility from the Supreme Court Justices and lays it at the feet of the people and their elected representatives. Chief Justice Roberts has now placed the power of determining Constitutionality with the other two branches of government in all matters concerning duly passed legislation, probably the most drastic and important affect this decision will have going forward.

The United States will now be forced to answer Chief Justice Robert’s challenge. The hue and cry resultant from this challenge set forth by this decision has mostly rung around a call to action in the upcoming November elections. This may very well result in making the November elections more of a potential recall petition over Obama Care than simply a normal Presidential and Congressional election cycle. The demand has been strongest by conservatives who have made the call for every person who cares about the future of the United States and to its Constitution to make sure they are registered to vote and exercise their right to vote. Whether or not you agree with their seemingly panic mode overreaching excitement makes little difference, this has become their rallying call. Those who support the opinion expressed by Justice Roberts or simply are supportive of the decision on the Constitutionality of Obama Care will need to either answer this call with one of their own which will simply guarantee the election being a referendum over Obama Care. This is where everything gets interesting. It would be one thing if only those who are actually animated by these events were the ones who went to the poles and voted, but with the heightened emotional aspects of this vote will result in likely interesting consequences. One will obviously be the higher likelihood for voter fraud and other shenanigans. This can be fought by both sides being vigilant and having more than usual observers at polling locations making sure all laws and requirements are enforced and everything is performed by the book and aboveboard. The other side effect will be increased occurrence of both sides placing far more emphasis on recruiting and registering people who may not normally bother with voting and persuade them to support their particular views. This might result in many people voting in one way or the other with little or no knowledge as to the why and wherefores of the votes they cast. This is likely to be even worse than usual and may not be the healthiest of efforts as there are sufficient people already simply voting as some influence instructs them to vote without having any honest preference or knowledge on the candidates and choices. There are those who will simply say this is one of the drawbacks of having a democracy. Others will answer back that we are a republic, not a democracy. Neither side will actually address the issue of what can politely be called ignorant voting. I guess that is something that actually is a result of our overriding desire to increase ballot access by any means possible, as long as it gets more people who support what our side wants. We don’t really need more voters as much as we need more informed voters.

Beyond the Cusp

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: