Conservatives, Liberals, and Obamacare - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Conservatives, Liberals, and Obamacare

WASHINGTON — My guess is that Judge Roger Vinson of the Federal District Court in Pensacola, Florida, is an amateur zoologist. Judge Vinson is the federal judge who ruled Monday that those who confected Obamacare cannot compel the citizenry to buy health insurance. Moreover, he found that because of the way the 2,600-page bill is created without any “severability clause” that makes the entire law unconstitutional. The authors of Obamacare declared that without mandatory insurance the whole bill was unworkable. Mandatory insurance was not severable from the law. Hence Judge Vinson, because of the way the bill was constructed, threw the whole law out. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to breathe life into this legislation or to bury it. I say RIP.

As learned as Judge Vinson indubitably is — in the course of his meditations on Obamacare he reread the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, James Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, certain cogitations of Chief Justice John Marshall and more — the erudite judge surely noted a zoological curiosity. Conservatives and Liberals are so different as to be drawn from distinct species of political animals. To me, the conservative has always appeared to be some form of mammal. The Liberal is reptilian. I could be wrong. I wonder what Judge Vinson might say.

We saw this difference at work during President Barack Obama’s dogged pursuit of his suicidal legislative bomb called Obamacare. Prior to that, we saw this difference at work as President Ronald Reagan pursued an issue equally dear to his heart, the banning of abortion. In wanting to ban abortion Reagan had a goodly number of the American people behind him, though not a majority and certainly not a large enough number to burden the remainder of the American people with an abortion ban. Reagan settled for arguing his case. He relied on persuasion. He tried to build a majority behind banning abortion. Perhaps he picked up some support, but he did not envenom an already divisive issue by forcing an abortion ban on the American people.

Obama did envenom an issue, healthcare. Recall fifteen months ago when the Hon. Pelosi responded to a reporter’s inquiry about the constitutionality of mandatory insurance? Said she with her trademark urbanity, “Are you kidding?” Well since then she has lost her speakership. The Democrats have lost their majority in the House. They almost lost it in the Senate. And Judge Vinson, and earlier Judge Henry E. Hudson, agreed with that unnamed reporter. He had a point.

Liberals and conservatives seem to see things differently. Sometimes the Liberals see “inactivity” as “activity.” The conservatives see inactivity as… well, inactivity. In the case of Obamacare, the Liberals see the ordinary Americanos’ failure to purchase insurance, sometimes until they absolutely need it, as increasing the cost of healthcare for everyone — in other words, “activity.” Thus they will penalize anyone failing to buy healthcare with a tax to pay for God knows what. In the world of Obamacare we all have costly healthcare. Some pay and some do not. We are all one big happy family.

This is where the Commerce Clause of the Constitution comes in. The Commerce Clause was originally intended to eliminate the interstate trade barriers that existed under the Articles of Confederation. Yet since the New Deal it has been expanded upon so that at least up until the time of Chief Justice William Rehnquist it gave license to almost anything a Congressional majority wanted. The Congressional majority was even permitted by the Court to prohibit a farmer from growing on his own farm wheat for his own consumption. Now along comes Judge Vinson arguing that the Commerce Clause applies only to “clear and inarguable activity,” not clear and inarguable inactivity. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized in the wake of Judge Vinson’s decision, “It never applied to inactivity like not buying health insurance, which [to quote Judge Vinson] has ‘no impact whatsoever’ on interstate commerce.”

Doing so would be significant. It would create a totally centralized government. That is to say, a government that can do almost anything. It would be unlimited government, which is another difference between conservatives and Liberals. We want limited government. They do not.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Follow Their Stories:
View More
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief ofThe American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: The Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery. He makes frequent appearances on national television and is a nationally syndicated columnist, whose articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, National Review, Harper’s, Commentary, The (London) Spectator, Le Figaro (Paris), and elsewhere. He is also a contributing editor to the New York Sun.
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!