More on Obama v. Supreme Court

Monday, Obama implied that any Supreme Court decision other than finding ObamaCare wholly constitutional would either be some form of "judicial activism" or would somehow result from a "lack of judicial restraint". At the same time, he referred to the Supreme Court as a "an unelected group of people" as if they were some rogue group who "would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law". (Click here to See Story: Obama: 'Unelected' Justices Shouldn't Kill ObamaCare)

Apparently, Obama, the Constitutional Law Professor, is unaware of the words that can be found in Article III, section 2, of our Constitution: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution." I would also remind the President that there are many unelected functions within the Federal Government that are imposing rules on all of us today without any real congressional approval. Everyone of Obama's cabinet members and Czars are unelected. But, just like his cabinet, the Supreme Court Justices are elected by proxy. When there's an opening on the high court, a duly elected President nominates a Justice and, then, a duly elected Senate finally approves the appointment.

The bottom line is that the framers of the Constitution knew that the country needed an independent high court to keep any President, his people, and the Congress from acting outside the limits of our Constitution. Something that ObamaCare just might be guilty of. It's what is commonly referred to as the separation of power. Without that separation acting as a counterbalance, a majority-ruling political party and its President could easily do anything they wanted; completely outside the will of the people. And, let's not forget that ObamaCare was one of the reasons that the Democrats suffered such a crushing defeat in the 2010 elections. The majority of this country doesn't want it. Now its time for the Supreme Court to decide if what the Democrats did in early 2010 was even constitutional.