-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today the Supreme Court begins to hear a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. But this case really goes a long way toward deciding whether we have constitutionally limited government at all. The extent to which liberals, both in the legal and political spheres, have mocked and derided these lawsuits demonstrates their contempt for the doctrine of enumerated powers, on which the entire Constitution is based.
If the Supreme Court accepts the individual mandate, even under the pretext of regulating interstate commerce, the federal government will have exactly what those who framed and ratified the Constitution sought explicitly to deny it: a general police power. If the Court accepts that the individual mandate is a legitimate tax, then the federal government can levy taxes for any purpose, not just to carry out functions delegated to it by the Constitution.
People may laugh or roll their eyes at the idea of the federal government forcing people to eat broccoli. Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn at her confirmation hearings, Justice Elena Kagan personally found the idea of congressionally regulated personal diets ridiculous — even though she was unable to make an argument for why this would be unconstitutional that was consistent with the constitutionality of the mandate. This is an issue that goes far beyond health care.
The justices could still punt on whether the individual mandate and other key Obamacare components are constitutional. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, an individual does not have standing to challenge a tax until he has paid it. The individual mandate, which Obama legal eagles insist is a tax even as Obama politicos steadfastly deny it, hasn’t yet taken in effect. In my view, the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t impact the states’ legal standing. I also think it is unlikely the Supreme Court would carve out so much time for this case only to rule that it needs to be decided later.
But what’s at stake here isn’t a particular health care policy, or the legacy of one president, or the outcome of a single presidential election. It is whether we respect that Founding Fathers’ idea of a federal government whose powers are few and defined, laid out in a Constitution that imposes substantive as well as procedural limits on federal power. It is hard to rule in favor of Obamacare without ruling against the Founders’ Constitution.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/26/whats-at-stake-in-the-obamacar
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ncatty| 3.26.12 @ 12:24PM
Obamacare sustained = Leviathan.
Drek| 3.26.12 @ 1:59PM
We're going to lose, the ruling will be 6 - 3, and Kennedy and somebody else will go with Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and "the wise latina woman."
WM| 3.26.12 @ 2:26PM
For crying out loud, someone needs to argue that inactivity cannot, by definition, have any affect on anything at all, much less interstate commerce. Inactivity is the absence of activity. It is nothing, not a special kind of activity, but nothing, and something cannot proceed from nothing. Please do not let the Democrats get away with arguing that inactivity can "substantially affect interstate commerce." It's ridiculous!
Drek| 3.26.12 @ 2:38PM
It's not about logic. It' s never been about that. Would to God it were!
It's about the growth, the inevitable movement, the inexorable momentum of the growth of that Federal government.
For decades, DECADES that growth hasn't been questioned by anyone that the left credits. As for the right, they deem us cranks.
I'll be stunned if this law is overturned, even with its obvious unpopularity.
We, the American people, the American electorate, American manhood, has got to turn this around.
And it's not going to get turned around by "men" like those in the GOP leadership.
It's as the late Breitbart said of them, "they're eunochs."
That's what they are.
WM| 3.26.12 @ 2:45PM
Drek, it should be about freedom and the Constitution, but with Justice Kennedy, it's not. That's why we need other types of argument. I think the case against Obamacare is already pretty strong, but it would be better if they could make them airtight, and increase our odds of victory even further. I am hopeful that Obamacare will be overturned entirely as long as our side doesn't drop the ball.
Timely Renewed | 3.26.12 @ 4:11PM
Mr. Antle is correct. The larger issue is the FDR New Deal Supreme Court decisions which expanded the reach of federal power far beyond any original understanding of the scope of that clause. Until this fundamental distortion of the Constitution is addressed, the Left will always find other ways to expand federal power over healthcare and every other aspect of our national life even if one aspect of Obamacare (the individual mandate) is ultimately overturned in the Supreme Court.
How do we restore those original meanings today after the original text has been so distorted and abused by the Supreme Court? Even supposedly "conservative" Congresses and Supreme Courts have failed to do much to roll back the vast unconstitutional expansion of the national government. We can not rely on politicians or judges to do it voluntarily. Rather, we need to turn to the People's ultimate power and amend the Constitution to restate and re-affirm those original meanings. Overturning all those decades of abuse by the Supreme Court, and putting clearly stated limits on Congress and the President which reflect the original constitutional allocation of powers in language which can not be misconstrued, will assure not only the end of Obamacare, but every other federal overreach. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
fiscal| 3.26.12 @ 5:50PM
What I find interesting in this whole discussion is that the cost of healthcare and the global competitiveness of the United States would be enhanced by a single payer system. Given the plethora of countries that have enacted such a system, there is no doubt, that as a percentage of GDP it is far cheaper and more effective than our current system. If you look at the numbers, this is not even questionable. There are lots of ways to do this and some are government controlled and some are privately served -- but they all have better results at lower costs. There are also some that have implemented it poorly like the U.K. but their system still costs significantly less than ours.
If we lowered the health care costs from 18% of GDP to 11% of GDP we could bring manufacturing back into the U.S. and immediately improve the bottom lines of many industries like car companies.
I find it ironic that there is so much hate for a system that would lower unemployment and make our lives better even if we don't like more federal government as an ideology. In my book, I would get rid of much the federal government EXCEPT when it makes us more competitive as a country.
Now Obamacare is a bastard of an implementation in comparison to the highly efficient systems of countries like Taiwan, but unfortunately, it is a step in the right direction FISCALLY....
Now as we all know, it was the Heritage Foundation, Romney and Gingrich who supported the concept of a mandate BECAUSE they all knew what I've just stated about fiscal conservatism. They all examined the numbers and came up with the same conclusion I have. But politics and the uneducated are driven by ideology and not fiscal analysis.
We can make the federal government much smaller intelligently -- which we have to do -- or make ideological arguments which actually hurt our country.