I recently responded to an article entitled “Is the ACA legal?”. I know that my response sounds a little bitchy, but it wasn’t intended. It is just one of those things that can happen on a Wednesday morning. It wasn’t that his question irritated me, it is just irritation at the whole situation in general. I am a little lazy this morn also, so instead of starting fresh I have pasted the response below and will attempt to expound on the idea.
“Using the word legal is a joke.(No offense intended) When the laws of a nation are subverted there are many things that are “Legal”. If they ban guns or free speech and it is upheld by the SCOTUS it becomes “Legal” even while being illegitimate. If Madison’s “Tyranny of the majority” comes to fruition then the will imposed on the minority will be “Legal”. According to the ruling that robert’s (Sic) made congress can tax us for anything as a type of penalty. We can be required to buy a car or a toaster or any other nonsense and be taxed if we don’t. Stimulus anyone? Our rights and freedoms are not granted by legality and when illegitimate laws are passed they subvert natural law.”
The whole concept of natural law is bound up in the idea that some things are inherently right and wrong and are built into our nature, independent of political order, society or nation-state. When legal systems come into a state of conflict with natural law a conundrum is created that will invariably end with some type of contention. It is often stated that the constitution guarantees our rights but that is a mistaken perception. The constitution only codifies our natural rights and spells them out as a guideline for the government. As a human I have a right to life. I have the right to defend myself. I have a right to be free. I have the right to speak as I please. I have the right to be unencumbered by tyranny. The government claims that they are the protector of these rights because they are in the constitution, when in fact they were codified to protect us from the government. The government (SCOTUS) defines daily what my freedoms and rights are by their rulings on the legality of matters that pertain to them. Their rulings though, have no bearing on my actual natural rights regardless of what they rule. Thomas Jefferson saw the potential for this abuse after the SCOTUS usurped the power of judicial review ( Ruling on the constitutionality of matters) and wrote in 1820 “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” What the end all of this game is that in order to keep my natural rights that were “Endowed” on me, I may have to become a criminal in the eyes of the law. I have a right to freedom, but in order to insure that right I may become a criminal and be imprisoned. Is that legal? In the end I don’t care about the legality of the matter. If you make me a criminal I can only respond as Jesus did when asked if he was the KIng of the Jews “You have said it”. Take that as you will.