Common Sense Ruling
So, a federal judge in FL strikes down the entire healthcare law as unconstitutional. Should that be a surprise to anyone who looks at this issue with even a modicum of common sense? For a second, set aside whatever partisan views you may hold. Do we really want the government to be able to compel us to purchase a good or service? Was that the intent of the Commerce Clause? Consider the implications of such a precedent.
Even though you may believe a government-centric healthcare system is appropriate, should we simply look past a horribly conceived and written piece of legislation and expand the power of the federal government in such an unprecedented and unconstitutional fashion in order to achieve that objective? Can't we find another solution without opening Pandora's Box and tearing at the very fabric of our liberty?
The grand irony of the judge's ruling is that he used Obama's own words against him. The opinion states, "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'"
Finally, somebody holding the President accountable for things he said on the campaign trail, and for the 'ends justifies the means,' 'we know what's best for you' mentality that permeates his administration and party.
The judge could just as easily have noted another hypocrisy. Obama and his minions, in their effort to sell the healthcare monstrosity to the American people, insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate was not a tax. Of course, that position became quite inconvenient when they were forced to defend the legislation in court, because, you see, Congress does have the power to levy taxes. So, in a shameless, 180 degree about face, the government's lawyers argued that the mandate was in fact a tax after all. Whoops.
Supporters of healthcare reform, let's get out from under this fiscal and constitutional train wreck that's been foisted upon us and replace it with something that addresses the core issues of cost containment, access, and portability, yet is also market driven, and concomitantly, dramatically less expensive.
Otherwise, get ready for your government-appointed life coach who will instruct you as to what is and is not acceptable in a myriad of areas...like salt intake, cholesterol level, alcohol use, fast food consumption, exercise regimen, sports participation, and a whole lot of other "potentially risky" behaviors.
I can see it now, tens of thousands of Richard Simmons clones, under the auspices of the IRS, showing up at your home or workplace to inculcate you on the 'government way.'
Does my ass look fat in these candy-striped short-shorts?
God help us all.
Even though you may believe a government-centric healthcare system is appropriate, should we simply look past a horribly conceived and written piece of legislation and expand the power of the federal government in such an unprecedented and unconstitutional fashion in order to achieve that objective? Can't we find another solution without opening Pandora's Box and tearing at the very fabric of our liberty?
The grand irony of the judge's ruling is that he used Obama's own words against him. The opinion states, "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'"
Finally, somebody holding the President accountable for things he said on the campaign trail, and for the 'ends justifies the means,' 'we know what's best for you' mentality that permeates his administration and party.
The judge could just as easily have noted another hypocrisy. Obama and his minions, in their effort to sell the healthcare monstrosity to the American people, insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate was not a tax. Of course, that position became quite inconvenient when they were forced to defend the legislation in court, because, you see, Congress does have the power to levy taxes. So, in a shameless, 180 degree about face, the government's lawyers argued that the mandate was in fact a tax after all. Whoops.
Supporters of healthcare reform, let's get out from under this fiscal and constitutional train wreck that's been foisted upon us and replace it with something that addresses the core issues of cost containment, access, and portability, yet is also market driven, and concomitantly, dramatically less expensive.
Otherwise, get ready for your government-appointed life coach who will instruct you as to what is and is not acceptable in a myriad of areas...like salt intake, cholesterol level, alcohol use, fast food consumption, exercise regimen, sports participation, and a whole lot of other "potentially risky" behaviors.
I can see it now, tens of thousands of Richard Simmons clones, under the auspices of the IRS, showing up at your home or workplace to inculcate you on the 'government way.'
Does my ass look fat in these candy-striped short-shorts?
God help us all.
The law might find its best hope for a finding of constitutionality in the Commerce Clause, not the tax and spend power, although it is a slim hope at best. The last two most notable times that the Court struck down congressional acts as unconstitutional in violation of the Commerce Clause was in U.S. v. Lopez, when the Court invalidated the Gun Free Schools Act, and U.S. v. Morrison, when the Court invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act. In both cases, the Court found that the regulated activity was inherently non-economic, despite claims that such activity, when linked to a particular line of events, did in fact touch commerce. Opponents of the health care legislation analogize to these two cases, but they ignore Wickard v. Filburn, which addressed an act that regulated national wheat markets. The Court found the act to be constitutional even though it was so broad as to regulate wheat grown for personal use, which never enters the national marketplace, because such wheat production in the aggregate affected commerce. By the same token, the law might find refuge in the fact that people who choose not to buy health care and instead use emergency rooms as doctor's offices, in the aggregate affect commerce. It's not much to hang it's hat on, but it could be all the legislation has.
Reply to this
Interesting analysis. I tend to agree that supporters of the law will most likely "find" some way to interpret the Commerce Clause to justify its constitutionality. The fact that roughly one sixth of the economy is healthcare-related will certainly help to underpin their efforts.
I doubt, however, that the precedential value of Wickard v. Filbum will carry much weight with opponents. First, it's subject matter (the wheat market) is relatively inconsequential, and the decision, on the surface anyway, appears to be such a reach that I doubt it will resonate on a matter of such fiscal and liberty-related significance as a partial government takeover of healthcare.
Of course, strict constructionists and those who look toward the framers' intent will take solace in the fact that the Commerce Clause (insofar as its domestic, rather than foreign trade application) was simply about ensuring that that the states were free trade zones and that various states did not erect trade barriers and therefore suppress trade or spur retaliatory trade measures.
The writing appears to be on the wall for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision (unless Kagan recuses herself because of her Solicitor General dealings with the matter).
Reply to this