Everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether they agree with Obamacare. The basic function of the Supreme Court, however, is not open for debate.
Enter freshman Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is no fan of the SCOTUS’ ruling that President Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional — and who it seems could use a refresher course in the powers of each branch of the federal government. For example, the job of the Supreme Court is to have the final say on what is or isn’t Constitutional. Paul, however, thinks that “just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.”
Actually, Rand, that’s exactly what makes it so.
Paul made his seemingly ill-informed claim in a press release he issued this morning. Unfortunately for him, the role of the Supreme Court has been defined for more than 200 years.
may want to review the 1803 case of Marbury V. Madison, which formed
the basis for judicial review. In other words, it’s what gave the Court
its teeth — it clearly defined the Court’s role in the separation of
powers in the federal government, making it the “supreme expositor of
This means that what the Court says goes — regardless of whether a freshman Senator from Kentucky disagrees with it.
Paul’s a doctor, not a lawyer. But we’re not lawyers either — we did
go to high school, though, where information like the separation of
powers is frequently discussed.
See the rest of Paul’s ramblings below.
because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be
‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains
unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the
conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make
this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul
“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care
system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to
elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he