Replies

The very idea that a Chief Justice might consider risking violation of constitutional principle and liberty for future generations on the possibility that a wrong decision by this Court might be righted in the future, based on some dubious "Chevron" precedent is, in the words of Madison, "chimerical."

What a foolish risk of the liberty the U. S. Constitution was designed to "protect" from all foes.

"Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." - John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, 1777

What an awesome responsibility the Justices of 2015 have to Adams and the other Framers of America's Constitution to "make good use" of the opportunity they have now to "preserve" freedom for future generations by preserving the Constitution's separation of powers and limits on government power!

If they "do not," then history will record their action as a betrayal of the trust of all the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice everything for freedom's cause--from 1776 to now.

May they feel the heavy cloak of responsibility they bear for the freedom of those future generations, and may their opinions recall those ideas of individual liberty so beautifully articulated by the Framers of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

One additional quotation to consider, here:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government fromreflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even know ledge of their sentiments, can warrant their represen tatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

Right. Supports Judge Robert Bork’s strong argument for the Constitution being interpreted by the text as originally understood and intended.

There is much constitutional support for state nullification of unconstitutional acts like Obamacare, including the Supremacy Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

FYI, link below discusses how state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts was contemplated at our founding as part of the federalist concept.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150302