ObamaCare vs Fundamental Liberty

Upon reading the 2,400 pages or so of the healthcare reform bill, a few things stuck out as significant. The bill barely, if at all, addresses healthcare. It addresses health insurance and multiple levels of what could be considered a “regulatory takeover.” There’s a government takeover of the college loan industry. The Feds will now determine who gets a loan (i.e. who goes to school) and how that loan will be paid back. “Underserved” communities I believe was the term used. However, no other feature of the bill is more concerning than the blatant contempt for the US Constitution. The legal challenges to ObamaCare will have widespread historical precedence for many generations to come. The very fundamentals of our Liberty will be questioned.

The “individual mandate” is the key issue. Essentially, this requires every US Citizen to buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply is punishable with an annual tax penalty of $750. This penalty will rise to 2% of income by 2016 (or which ever is greater). Thirteen states attorneys argue this is an unprecedented exercise of state power by the federal government. Congress has never made law requiring citizens to buy a private product in order to be considered a law-abiding citizen. The only law of equal power is conscription, where the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise an army.

The argument has been made that Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to exercise such power. But recent Supreme Court cases would suggest otherwise. In Gonzales vs. Raich, (2005) the question of Congress’s ability to regulate economic activities across state lines was challenged. The court stated that the Commerce Clause can not justify any federal regulation Congress chooses. In US vs. Loez (1995) and Morrison (2000) the High Court turned over lower courts on similar grounds.

If Congress can constitutionally force a person to buy a product, what is left of the government’s limited and enumerated powers under Article I? The Bill of Rights will be the sole restraint on federal power. However, The Bill of Rights were designed by the Founders to affirm the rights inherent in the Constitution as a whole. They were never designed as a true restraint on government. Logically then, with this insurance mandate, what’s to say Congress can’t require citizens to purchase GM or Ford products; mandate smokers enroll in cessation programs; or require obese citizens attend Weight Watchers?

The State of Massachusetts has become a “fish bowl” on single payer plans this past year. Similar mandates in Massachusetts did not pose a constitutional problem for the state. Like most state governments, Massachusetts holds police powers and wider plenary authority under the state constitution than at the federal level. The Posse Comitatus Act and Insurection Act both make it illegal for the Federal Government to do the same. In Florida, the constitution spells out the ability to oppose Congresses healthcare mandates. The ObamaCare bill requires the states to spend-billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and expands Medicaid enrollment, regardless of the state’s ability to pay. There are attempts by some states to block the regulations by passing laws which exempt their citizen’s form the mandates. However, federal laws that are constitutional usurp state’s laws under the 10th Amendment. Additionally under the 10th, states can’t nullify a Congressional action. Therefore, only a ruling that the mandate is not constitutional will provide financial relief to the states, and Liberty to their citizens.

The truth is ObamaCare is bad law and a threat to our Liberty. Not only has it proven unconstitutional in word, it also was unconstitutional in birth. Both the House and Senate were derelict in duty by not holding judiciary committee hearings on the constitutionality of the law. The Justice Department did not provide an opinion. Our judges and representatives have a responsibility to ensure our Liberty is protected. The courts are not for advisory opinions. They are for rule on the specific objective arguments of the case. Let’s pray they do their job.

Publius