Hi All,
Lately, the news has been flooded with debate about the Supreme Court oral argument on the individual mandate - part of the healthcare law. As I'm sure most people already know, the Supreme Court's job is to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not and really not much else. Debate about how useful a law might be is not particularly relevant if it is unconstitutional.
There is much argument about the partisan politics being seen on the Supreme Court in reference to the conservative justices siding against the law and the liberals supporting the law. Some people are concerned about their personal liberties being violated, and they oppose the health care law because they don't believe they should be forced to purchase a private good. While this argument is understandable, it really isn't the argument that the court is hearing. What the court must decide is if the federal government actually has the power to create such a mandate. The Constitution, under Article I, Section VIII explicitly lists the powers of the federal government. The Solicitor General (in effect, the Obama administration) is arguing that the federal government does have the power under Clause III of this section. Clause III states, "[The Congress shall have Power To] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." So, in essence, the Obama administration is arguing that since the purchase of health care will have some - even a minute - effect on commerce gives them the power to pass this law.
To understand this more fully, Congress would have the power to propose any law that has any effect on interstate commerce (the buying and selling of goods between states) under this logic. If that isn't of great concern to you - it should be. This, in all practicality, would give Congress unlimited power. If you think I'm exaggerating this, you're wrong. Check out what Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has to say about the commerce clause here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo . If the Supreme Court upholds this law, they will create a precedent that says, in effect, that Congress has unlimited power.
If you are in favor of the Supreme Court upholding this law, then you are also in favor of unlimited power to the Congress. This law is clearly unconstitutional as it removes all limiting principles of the Constitution. It should also be understood that this has not always been the interpretation of the commerce clause, only in recent history have we had such a great expansion of the federal power under this clause.
Oh, and before anyone argues that we are mandated to have car insurance, so it would make sense that we could be mandated to have health insurance...realize that mandated car insurance is a power of the states under the Tenth Amendment. It should also be understood that driving is not a right, it is a privilege. You can impose conditions under which a person can utilize a privilege, but living is a right of the people, so Congress should not be able to impose a condition on living. It simply doesn't make sense that the founders of this nation would write an entire document that specifically limits the power of the government only to include a simple clause that makes federal power unlimited. If the Supreme Court upholds this legislation, we will have undergone a fundamental shift in how we are ruled.
TL;DR: If the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, they will have allowed the Congress to use the commerce clause in order to create the largest expansion of federal power in history.
- Bob
