Supreme Disconnect

So right now we’re in this asinine situation where we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to get back to us and tell us whether it’s okay for the federal government to force us to buy stuff whenever it feels like it. To the average American, who learned in school that the Constitution is a document that defines and constrains the power of the federal government, the notion that the dimwits in D.C. can start making spending decisions for individuals is patently ridiculous. But the left and “constitutional law scholars” are freaking out that anyone is even questioning the government’s power to do this. Obviously, there is a bit of a disconnect here.

Some people have recently coined the term “originalist.” That’s a fancy term meaning “you read the Constitution like it actually means something.” You don’t see this term applied to many things other than the Constitution.

“This road sign says, ‘Wrong Way,’ so we probably shouldn’t go down this street.”

“Oh, so you’re one of those simplistic road sign originalists.”

By default, most Americans are originalists, because they have this wacky habit of reading words as if there were meaning to them. They assume this philosophy applied to the Constitution when it was written, because if that document didn’t actually mean anything, how in the world was it supposed to hold back the powers of the government?

But there are many people who read the document as if it doesn’t hold meaning, if they read it at all. I’m not sure what the term is for these people. I think it’s “jackasses.” Instead of the text of the Constitution, they study “case law” and “precedent,” though a more accurate term for this stuff would be “constitutional fan fiction.” The only thing in the Constitution universe that is canon is the actual text of the Constitution, but they have all these made up stories they’d rather pay attention to. And while it’s pretty obvious that nothing in the text of the Constitution allows the federal government to make us buy stuff, in all the fan fiction about constitutional law, it’s super obvious that the government can always do whatever it wants if it is really, really, super certain that it’s about something important.

This is idiocy. It has to stop.

So how did we get here? Well, we keep hearing that most constitutional law scholars are surprised ObamaCare is even being questioned, but let’s look at how ridiculous the term “constitutional law scholar” is. The Constitution is only six pages long. So “constitutional law scholar” just means “guy who can read six pages.” Except, judging by their statements, it’s not provable that a lot of them have even completed this task.

We need to stop acting like the Constitution is this special, complicated document when it’s a simple thing that any normal person could understand. And to do that, we need to get rid of the Supreme Court. Because it’s idiotic. It’s the least well thought-out part of the Constitution and undermines the rest of it. We select the best and brightest minds in the country to be Supreme Court justices who… read a six page document. Of course they’re going to make it more complicated than it needs to be so they can justify their esteemed positions. We’re also stuck in this completely moronic situation where the justices have lifetime appointments, and we just keep hoping they die during an administration that actually acknowledges that the Constitution means what it says.

Currently, we’re one poorly timed death away from not having a right to bear arms. There are actually four justices on the Supreme Court right now who can’t find the right to bear arms in the Constitution — something any child can do.  You just want to grab the justices by the head and shove their faces into the Second Amendment and shout, “There it is, you braindead twit!”

If we want the Constitution to have a simple, real meaning and successfully restrain the government, we need to get rid of the judges so we can stop acting like it’s complicated. Instead, the Supreme Court should be like jury duty — we just grab nine random people with basic reading skills for each case and give them an hour or two to read over the Constitution and the law in question. All decisions should be in the form of: “Article 2, Section 3 allows this” or “I didn’t see that in there,” and that’s it. All the lower courts can make complex pontifications, but at the very top, we have to keep things basic if we want the Constitution to have any power at all.

Think of what it would be like if we had this system in place now. Instead of ridiculously waiting for the ObamaCare decision, about an hour after ObamaCare reached the Supreme Court, we would get a 9-0 opinion on it — obviously, they couldn’t find anything in the Constitution that says the federal government can force people to buy stuff. Then all the people in Congress who voted for ObamaCare would be arrested for treason and exiled to Antarctica. I know exiling politicians to Antarctica isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but if you look at original intent, I think it’s pretty much implied.