To the editor:
Emily Peters's letter of April 18 wonders whether the "Constitution or the judicial branch can be applicable to the modern 21st century." It would seem that her question has already been answered by a teacher at Lebanon Valley College, who assures her that the Supreme Court "will not jeopardize their good name/standing with the American people" (by overturning Obamacare).
Perhaps this is what is meant by "applicability to modern society," that is, heeding the current will of the people, particularly when it means more government benefits for those people.
Hopefully, Ms. Peters will also learn at Lebanon Valley College that the Constitution is adaptable to the will of the people by a process of amendment that is built into the Constitution itself, but that process is lengthy and deliberate, so that the Constitution cannot be blown around by the winds of today's popular desires. Until the Constitution is amended, however, my understand of the role of the Supreme Court is to judge the legality of proposed legislation in light of what the Constitution prescribes, and that popular opinion of the court is not a factor in their judgment. At least, that's what is supposed to happen.
But let me ask Ms. Peters a question. She wants Obamacare passed so that she and her friends can stay on their parents' insurance when they go to college. This implies that if they cannot stay on parents' insurance, health care coverage will cost them more; in other words, Obamacare means that somebody will have to make up the difference. If the insurance company has to make it up, they will pass that cost along as a premium increase to their customers. If the government has to make it up, the cost will be passed along to taxpayers. As a taxpayer who pays for health insurance, my question to Ms. Peters is: Why should I have to pay more because you and your friends have chosen to go to college?
John Brittain
Lewistown
