ObamaCare and the unconstitutional mandate
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
Reading conservative responses to yesterday’s ruling out of the VA court left me very sad, frankly. And that’s because many of us actually found ourselves giddy that a federal judge looked at the plain language of the Commerce Clause and ruled that no, the government cannot force an American citizen to buy a particular product (of indeterminate value), because doing so would effectively mean the government can mandate anything it wanted going forward, and tyranny would essentially be ruled constitutionally permissible.
But isn’t it a problem that we had to hold our breath and hope that a federal judge stuck to the framer’s intent with respect to the Commerce Clause, and saw through administration attempts to use Wickard and Comstock as precedent that obviates plain language? Shouldn’t we be concerned that the administration can argue in supposed good faith that what they explicitly said wasn’t a tax is, in fact, for purposes of their case, a tax, and not a penalty — and the judge considered if the “tax” (nee “penalty”) met the conditions of a tax, even though it the administration assured us, leading up to the passage, that the penalty was not a tax?
That is to say, why are we so giddy over this? Me, I find it rather frightening that the entirety of our constitutional republic ultimately hinges on whether or not Anthony Kennedy has the balls to say that a straightforward reading of the Commerce Clause, as it was intended to be applied, renders the individual mandate clearly and emphatically unconstitutional.
That we can likely count on at least 4 SCOTUS justices to rule that of course the Constitution of the United States gives the federal government the power to force Americans to buy a particular product — and to do so with straight faces, citing legal precedent — is proof enough for me that we no longer live under the rule of law. We live under the whims of a supra-majority in the courts, who argue backwards from a preferred outcome in order to give their legislative impulses the veneer of carefully considered legal rulings.
So sue me if I don’t feel all that excited today.
(h/t netrightdaily, which has more)