Last week I blogged on how the Ohio Supreme Court is hearing the Constitutionality of the smoking ban

I won’t go into great detail of the case. Fellow blogger over at An Inconvenient Liberty has a great breakdown of the case.

Today I ran across an article in Forbes that describes exactly how we got here.

Since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has continually redefined Constitutional text.

During a recent argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan sought to minimize the importance of an attorney’s statement with which she disagreed by saying “some people may use certain buzz words and other people don’t use those buzz words.” Sadly, the problem with “buzz words” in constitutional cases stems not from the advocates before the Court, but from the Court itself. Since the New Deal, the Court has continually based its constitutional interpretation on terms and tests that redefine the actual constitutional text and effectively predetermine most outcomes.

Scarry huh? The court that has sworn to uphold the constitution redefines it? Again “Court has continually based its constitutional interpretation on terms and tests that redefine the actual constitutional text and effectively predetermine most outcomes.” But how did we get here?

The Supreme Court struck down early New Deal programs because it found that Congress did not have the power to enact them. Simply put, the Court found that there were no enumerated powers in the Constitution that authorized violating the rights of Americans whose property and livelihoods were being drastically regulated.

After intense political pressure, including a threat to add additional justices to the Court to obtain a majority, President Franklin Roosevelt induced the Court to change its position on the New Deal and the Constitution. In order to uphold New Deal programs from constitutional challenge, the Court had to relegate certain rights–notably property rights and economic liberty–to second-class status. This was accomplished by creating a hierarchy of rights with those at the top (like the First Amendment) receiving relatively strong protection and those at the bottom (property rights and economic liberty) receiving very little.

As a result, individual rights and property rights have diminished to almost non-existence status. The article is a must read for freedom loving people and can be found here,

Advertisements