SCOTUS Will Probably Hear Challenges To ObamaCare

One thing is clear to just about everybody, challenges to ObamaCare will likely end up in the US Supreme Court. Another thing that is clear to everyone is that the future complexion of our government hangs in the balance.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/29/health-care-mandate-at-court-steps/

At issue is the scope of the federal government's power over states and individuals. Critics of the law say the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine, if allowed, would mean that Congress has virtually boundless authority to compel actions. Proponents argue that legal precedents support an expansive reading of the legislative branch's license to regulate such activity.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines - the insurance exchanges are state-based - the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

"Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state's lawsuit. "To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would ... create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers."

Make no mistake, this is a critically important issue. Our government was founded as one of limited and enumerated powers, and implemented in such a way as to protect and nurture freedom and individual rights. This new law reverses all of that, granting to the government virtually unlimited powers to control and regulate individual behavior. That's not the power granted to the government of a free nation, it is the power seized by a dictator or other authoritarian regime.

And that is the antithesis of freedom.


One liberal talking point I've heard many times is that "most other countries in the world have it, so why shouldn't we?" Quite a few of those countries also have brutal, repressive governments that treat ordinary citizens like slaves or worse... should we also have THAT?

To paraphrase my mother from the dimly remembered days of my childhood, if Nancy Pelosi were to jump off a cliff, would you follow her?

Just because others are doing something doesn't mean that what they are doing is good, wise, or worth copying. So it's a lousy reason to pass this law.

I just hope that the Supreme Court hears challenges to the law quickly, and doesn't make us wait until 2016 or 2018 for the first rulings. An unconstitutional law MUST NOT be allowed to stand for six years before it can be challenged. Rapid constitutional review is essential.