The role of the Supreme Court and interpreting Constitutional clauses

A few good articles are worth linking here that address some of the widespread confusion about the role of the Supreme Court, as well as interpreting key Constitutional clauses.

First, from the Heritage Foundation in a post titled “How to Explain the Obamacare Decision” (emphasis added):

[A] President or political candidate must not remain silent or, following a decision, be silenced on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Both President Obama and Governor Romney should take cue from the model constitutional educator, Abraham Lincoln.

The Dred Scott opinion of 1857 horrified Lincoln, because it argued that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution posed no barriers to slavery. Lincoln said the extreme decision had not established judicial doctrine. By opposing a decision “it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.”

Because the Court is not the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, opposing a particular decision is not tantamount to opposing the Constitution.

Here’s another good one from Heritage, this is by John Eastman:

Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending

Here are three excellent articles by the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy:

We’ve Accepted the Left’s Flawed Premise

Limiting the General Welfare Clause

Sovereignty, Preempted