Majority rule and Obamacare

Majority rule and Obamacare

Time magazine coverHere we go again. The cover of Time magazine I saw at a grocery store is nearby. The implication is that the U.S. House of Representatives, by failing (so far) to approve a budget that includes Obamacare, is against “Majority Rule.”

That's because, as our commentator Steve Mehlman put it:

“The conswervatives are looking to overturn a law passed by Congress, signed by the President, ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and affirmed by the majority of American voters in the 2012 election.”

But wait a minute. “Congress” has two parts. One part is elected nationally by democratic voting: the U.S. House — which is the one that's wants to get rid of Obamacare (at least so far)!

The other part of “Congress” is the U.S. Senate, which is undemocratically elected by state. Voters in Wyoming, population 576,412, have the same two senators as California, with 38 million people. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against basing state legislatures on such undemocratic processes; why hasn't the court ruled the U.S. Senate unconstitutional because undemocratic?

As to the “U.S. Supreme Court,” it is an unelected, non-democratic body of nine lawyers. Which raises a similar question: Why doesn't the court rule itself as unconstitutional because undemocratic?

Thus, it seems that, contrary to Time magazine's contention, it is majority rule in action in the House, but not elsewhere.

zp8497586rq


Related Articles

Legislating To Giants

Katy Grimes: This morning, the Assembly took time to honor the San Francisco Giants. A very excited Assemblyman Tom Ammiano,

Jerry Brown: ‘Governor 13.3%’

John Seiler: A Wall Street Journal editorial headline today branded Gov. Jerrry Brown: “Governor 13.3%.” That’s the percentage California’s top

Killer Cop Demands Workers Comp!

Steven Greenhut: An Illinois cop who killed two sisters while he was driving 126 mph and chatting with his girlfriend