ObamaCare: Law of the Land?


Concerning opposition to ObamaCare, one must be careful not to confuse politics with principles. Obstructing a law is not “wrong”, per se.

In all events, it is wrong to depict ObamaCare as the “law of the land”.

In the first instance, the US Constitution is THE Law of the Land.

Second, it is the nature of contested elections that individuals will find themselves on different sides of any given issue.

Thirdly, it can be a matter of conscience to oppose “bad” laws, e.g., Jim Crow laws of the not-so-distant past in the US.

As it is, if enough members of the Democratic Party & GOP had been “obstructionists” against the Patriot Act, we would all be better off. Neither should opposition to draconian implementation of anti-drug laws be considered to be undemocratic or unpatriotic.

As it is, jury nullification is/was an entrenched right & obligation concerning citizens’ voice against bad laws.

As for ObamaCare, it was neither read nor almost-certainly not written by members of Congress but by & for lobbyists or special interests.

To portray ObamaCare as legislation serving “social justice” by assuring “reasonable & fair” access to health care ignores that there will be as many losers as winners. And it undermines individual freedom & involves paternalistic diktat”.

In all events, it is an empty gesture for anyone to pretend to be magnanimous is caring for the poor in this regard when there are no costs to them!!!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by christopher. Bookmark the permalink.

About christopher

Content of "Natural Order" attempts to reflect the commitment of Universidad Francisco Marroquin to support the development of a society of free & responsible individuals. The principal commentator for this blog is Christopher Lingle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *