I’ve narrated a video on the fiscal nightmare of Obamacare and written several times about the serious problem of government-caused third-party payer – including just as few days ago while nit-picking about an otherwise excellent column by Robert Samuelson (and I’ve even used the abortion market to make the point that prices don’t rise when consumers are spending their own money).
But, other than mocking E.J. Dionne’s sophomoric understanding of America’s political system and making a general point about how the judicial branch is supposed to protect us from untrammeled majoritarianism, I haven’t said much about the constitutional issues being discussed at the Supreme Court.
Simply stated, I’m not a lawyer or an expert on the Constitution, so I try not to pontificate too much where my knowledge is lacking. Fortunately, though, I can turn to others who are competent to discuss such matters, and this new Learn Liberty video is a great introduction to the key issue that the Justices must decide.
Seems pretty straightforward. For all intents and purposes, the Justices are being asked to decide whether the Founding Fathers were serious when the outlined the limited powers of the federal government.
Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that the Court will imminently announce that the entire law is unconstitutional.
P.S. The Learn Liberty videos are superb. Here’s one on protectionism and here’s another about how excessive federal spending is America’s real fiscal problem.
P.P.S. Just in case the Court makes the wrong decision, here’s some Obamacare humor to cheer you up, including one on a new medical device the Administration is introducing, a cartoon about the real impact of the new health system, an R-rated explanation of the difference between private health care and government health care, the White House’s new motto for Obamacare, and (ouch!) a look at vasectomies once the government is in charge.
[…] and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of Obamacare also should be shared widely. You also should watch their videos on job creation, the price system, […]
[…] and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of Obamacare also should be shared […]
[…] and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of Obamacare also should be shared […]
[…] Is Obamacare constitutional? […]
[…] I highly recommend the Learn Liberty videos. Here’s one on protectionism, one on the legality of Obamacare, and here’s another about how excessive federal spending is America’s real fiscal […]
[…] Is Obamacare constitutional? […]
[…] I highly recommend the Learn Liberty videos. Here’s one on protectionism, one on the legality of Obamacare, and here’s another about how excessive federal spending is America’s real fiscal […]
Wickard v. Fillburn is an imperfect example for the mandate because by growing wheat the commerce was taking place. In this case, the government was arguing that they had the right to force an individual to engage in commerce in order to regulate it. They might have had a better shot at it if the mandate had attempted to force every individual to buy insurance when they attempted to use the health care system if they did not carry it at the point of service. Then, the government could argue that it was regulating commerce that was existing. But to force perfectly healthy people who were not engaging in any commerce in the health care market to buy insurance solely on the grounds that they would eventually have to engage in said commerce was unprecedented and the justices rightly saw that and asked very pointed questions about it. Hence the line of questioning about broccoli and Kennedy’s warnings that the government’s lawyer was going to have to convince them that this unprecedented expansion of power was warranted in the eyes of Constitution on day one before the whole preceeding even started.
I think at least five of the justices were viewing this case with a very skeptical eye from the get go, and it doesn’t seem that the government’s counsel did much to improve their position with his arguments when it came to justifying the government’s position. I don’t know which way they’ll ultimately go, but I can’t think the mandate is likely to get survive.
Wickard vs. Fillburn was the case about someone growing their own wheat for personal consumption and such an act being construed as interstate commerce… thus leaving no sort of commerce that cannot be considered interstate commerce.
Of course it was wrongly decided and was one of the many atrocities that FDR committed on the home front that extended the Great Depression.
I agree with the fact that the government has no right to coerce any individual into a contract.
Then again, the government already enforces similar actions through its use of eminent domain.
If the government can’t force you to buy anything, how can it force you to sell your land?
I get the sneaking suspicion they’ve written themselves vastly expanded powers.
We already saw in Wickard v. Filburn that the federal government can force you to buy something in the market