In a recent editorial, it was written that the Founding Fathers did not envision a system of checks and balances where the legislative branch would stand in opposition to the executive branch through the utilization of their constitutional authority to originate spending bills.
The excuse was made that there is only a Republican majority because of gerrymandered districts and thus the will of the people who elected those representatives does not matter, only the will of those that elected the president with whom the writer agrees.
If the overwhelming masses of people wanted the ACA, I find it unlikely that the Republicans would have gained control of the House in 2010 and maintained that control in 2012. Unfortunately, if you are to call upon the will of the people to state your case you cannot have it both ways.
The writer goes on to cite the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law as the litmus test for its validity. Fair enough, but would the writer agree with the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) or Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)? I would venture to guess that she would not, and I would agree fully. Translation: The court does not always get it right, either.
As a conservative, I would rather see free market solutions to health care instead of another government entitlement, and I salute those that stand in opposition to the generational theft that is occurring because short-term politicians want to maintain their power and status quo by throwing crumbs to the masses.
The purpose of government is to provide the necessary security to prevent what Locke called a state of nature. The continuum between security and liberty is where all views on government originate.
I respect anyone's right to stand or their own principles, but I reject the notion that I am not allowed to vocally stand on mine.
To claim the high road and state your side eschews the "deplorable" behavior of those you oppose is laughable in light of the behavior of the left during the Bush presidency, or any Republican presidency for that matter. Is a government shutdown ideal? I would agree it is not, but let us not pretend that it has not happened numerous times before at the behest of both parties.
Yes, the ACA is now the law of the land, and I hope it is successful for the good of the country. I fear it will not be, and I fear the laws of economics as they pertain to the profligate spending of our government and for that I am unapologetic.