Why Have Legal System if Obama Ignores it?

| by CEI

By Lee Doren


In the recent court decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional, the Judge wrote the following on page 75 of the opinion: “[T]he award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.” This statement was regarding whether to order an injunction stopping the federal government from implementing Obamacare. Using crystal clear language, the Judge argues that the government should not enforce a law that a judge declares unconstitutional. Mark Levin has argued this point earlier in the week.

Sadly, the Obama administration appears willing to ignore the court’s decision and continue to enforce the law. So, in light of the federal government’s decision, what is the point of have the Constitution or a legal system at all? The Congress and the President passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional. A judge declares it so and says that he doesn’t even need to grant an injunction because the government cannot implement unconstitutional law, and yet, we continue as if nothing happened.

Using words like tyranny often turn off people who consider themselves willing to disagree without being disagreeable. But, what else would one call this? We have a government currently enacting policy with no checks and balances, and no system with which people can predict their legal standing. How else does one define what has taken place this week?