Fifteen years ago, it might have seemed almost insane to predict some of the actions that we’ve seen from our leaders in Washington D.C., particularly the Obama Administration.
This activity has been facilitated by a public largely more focused on the attractions of our modern age than the heat of the frying pan we’re sitting in.
The Administration has flexed its muscles in too many arenas to list here, but a brief list includes energy policy, Internet authoritarianism, targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, the Fast and Furious scandal, Obamacare mishandling and excesses, the Benghazi disaster, etc.
President Obama has made it pretty clear that he is going to push his agenda as aggressively as possible, with every tool at his disposal – or not. Unfortunately, some of those tools have pushed the envelope established by the U.S. Constitution, what columnist George Will describes as “ more and more decisions are made by unelected and unaccountable executive branch ‘experts’ exercising vast discretion.”
Thankfully, this has not escaped the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week slammed the brakes on one power grab by the president, the January 2012 installation of three political appointees to the National Relations Labor Board. The court ruled that because Congress was not in recess, as required by the Constitution for Obama to make those appointments with out its approval, they were invalid and all actions taken by the NRLB since the appointments were also not valid because the NRLB lacked a quorum.
To be fair, Obama is certainly not the first president who deserves criticism for pushing this envelope. His predecessor, George W. Bush, atr last count, signed even more executive orders than Obama has up to this point in his presidency. And, following the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, Bush initiated the “War on Terror” that has enabled what would have previously been considered blatant violations of the Constitution: warrantless wiretapping, widely reported torture of Guantanamo prisoners who hadn’t even been charged, drone strikes, etc.
Obama, in the minds of many who have closely followed what’s going on in Washington, has simply picked up where Bush left off in pushing the limits of the Constitution.
It’s not just what’s coming from the White House, though, that concerns many who value liberty. The increase of “politically correct” thinking has encouraged the rise in government encroachment into individuals’ lives and increased efforts to restrict freedom of thought, speech and religion.
That’s why it was reassuring to see a flurry of other decisions in which the Court stepped in and put the brakes on some of the runaway revolution.
In what many hailed as a victory for religious freedom, the Court ruled that, to put it simply, Obamacare could not force privately held firms to provide contraception to employees. These particular firms, Hobby Lobby stores and Conestoga Wood Properties, both owned by private individuals who oppose abortion as part of their Christian beliefs, argued that certain types of contraception include abortion and they shouldn’t be force by government to provide such services.
Obviously, there are many elements to these cases, which will be fleshed out in the future by various interests, but this case does reassert a fundamental constitutional principle that some wondered was being lost: that the government cannot force people to act in violation of sincere, deeply held religious beliefs.
In an unrelated case but one that also reaffirms constitutional principles that should be precious to all Americans, the Court ruled that “buffer zones” around abortion clinics are unconstitutional. Unlike the Hobby Lobby decision, which was narrow, 5-4, this ruling was unanimous, which makes it more significant.
This case involved crisis pregnancy counselors who offered help to women approaching Massachusetts abortion clinics. This case wasn’t really about abortion. It was about free speech and the right to voice opinions. The state had enacted a law that restricted counselors from standing within 35 feet of Massachusetts abortion clinics. Obviously, the counselors were seeking to convince women that there were other, better alternatives to abortion, but even the justices who support abortion recognized the issues here.
The court said that, although the state had “undeniably significant interests” in maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks, as well as access to the healthcare facilities, those streets and sidewalks have “hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history.”
The court pointed out that barring counselors entirely made it hard for them to communicate their message. The sidewalk counselors, justices said, “believe they can accomplish (their) objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations. And for good reason: It is easier to ignore a strained voice or a waving hand than a direct greeting or an outstretched hand.”
Justice Samuel Alito also noted that the decision also deals with viewpoint discrimination: “Speech in favor of the clinic and its work by employees and agents is permitted; speech criticizing the clinic and its work is a crime. This is blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
As anyone who has studied constitutional law knows, the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings are taken seriously and lower courts, at least most of them, are reluctant to veer from the principles established by its decisions. That’s why every case decided by the Court is important. They establish precedent, which is an important consideration for every judge – with the possible exception of activist rogues who ignore what usually is embarrassment in the legal community when their rulings re overturned by higher courts.
That’s why we should all care about these decisions. The implications of these rulings will be worked out by lower courts and legal scholars, which is part of the process. For instance, if the U.S. Supreme Court says that Hobby Lobby can’t be forced to violate its owner’s religious conscience, what does that say about state labor departments’ rulings against bakers in Oregon and Colorado who decline to provide their services for same-sex weddings due to their religious convictions, and are now being penalized for that? Where’s the balance between religious conscience and political correctness?
That’s a question that the Court may have to answer.
But for those who value freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rights which have been enunciated over the last century by courts dealing with such thorny questions, these latest rulings appear to slow what have appeared to be encroaching restrictions on the freedom to say what we think, to believe what we want and to worship – or not worship – as our consciences dictate.