Gay Patriot Header Image

Why the SCOTUS Decision on ObamaCare Shouldn’t Matter

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will begin hearing debates on four issues with respect to the law:

First, the breathtaking and unprecedented matter of Congress’s suggestion that it can force private citizens to purchase goods from private companies lest they face a fine. This has been the main focus over the past several months since they agreed to hear the case. This is quite symbolic, I think, of the mammoth gorge that exists between the views of the government espoused by the Left and the Right in America today: While Conservatives see the government expansion since the New Deal as being a break on innovation, liberty, and our Founding principles, statists on the Left insist that an expansive and ever-powerful central government is necessary in order to enforce the ‘general welfare’ of the Nation. How we as a People determine the degree to which our government can dictate our individual choices will surely inform what we become as a Country as the future unfolds.

Second is the question as to whether Congress’s expansion of Medicaid is unduly coercive. (a good primer on that here from CATO.)

Third is the question of severability, basically whether knocking down, say, the individual mandate, would render the entire law invalid, or if it would just ‘sever’ those parts that are objectionable and invalidate just that. (A bit on that, here.)

Finally is the Anti-Injunction Act, that some are arguing means the whole case is moot until someone is actually affected by the law, which hasn’t fully gone into effect yet. (Tell that to the would-be employees of small businesses who are not hiring because of the uncertainty this monstrosity has created. But anyway…)

Like many who read this blog, I’m cautiously hopeful the Supreme Court will agree with me that ObamaCare is patently unconstitutional and should be annulled post haste. But like many (much smarter than I) observers, I’m not convinced this will happen.

Either way, however, our remedy should not be the Supreme Court.

ObamaCare has never enjoyed the consent of the governed. Not while it was being debated, not when it was being passed (remember ‘deeming’?), not since. There is not an issue in the past three years of which the (un-)popularity has been as consistent and reliable as ObamaCare’s. It’s almost embarrassing how blatant this is. Last week’s two-year anniversary passed with nary a word from the man whose name graces the neologism itself. Imagine: the greatest legislative accomplishment of his young presidential career, and he says nothing about it on its anniversary. (By contrast, here’s one of FDR’s famous radio addresses on the third anniversary of Social Security’s passing.)

There is no reason this horrible abrogation of our liberties should be allowed to stand. But if we’re a Nation of individuals who are responsible for ourselves and are deserving of the rights with which we’ve been vested by our Creator, don’t we have some responsibility ourselves in defending them?

2010 was a monumental year for a reassertion of what I’ve called “A New Independence Movement” in America. It’s been nearly two years since the tremendous thrubbing those (even in the Republican party) took who espoused the notion of a federal government with greater powers. We’ve heard more the the past two years about returning to our foundational ideals of individual rights and responsibilities, smaller and more constrained federal government, and freer and more open markets for ideas, goods, and solutions. It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive and politically active.

Yet there still exist many in our highest offices these days whose dedication is not to American ideals, but to their own warped views of what America should be, and never was: A nation ruled from Washington by a class of people much smarter and benevolent than the subjects over whom they wield power.

All four remaining Republican candidates for the nomination to take on President Obama have vowed to repeal Obamacare if elected. The House has already passed legislation to that effect. There is clearly momentum building in America today to rebuild a society in which not only our freedoms and liberties are respected and protected by those we elect, but an informed electorate ensures those who do not are summarily escorted back into the private sector to sink or swim on thier own merits rather than pull us down, through their places in Our government, into the giant swirling vortex of doom that is dependence.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court case that opens tomorrow is resolved, there will still be remnants of the anti-liberty, anti-responsibility, anti-freedom coalition that put it in place trying to run roughshod over our rights to freely associate and freely live. If SCOTUS cleanly (and rightly) dislodges and scrapes all of ObamaCare from the books, we’ll still have work ahead of us to make sure these people do not hold power over us any longer. If SCOTUS either demures or does only part of the work, we’ll have to pressure legislators and the next president to finish the job.

Either way, we have been called to duty and our charge is to expunge from the halls of power those who would rather use government to enslave us all to their indentured service and replace them with like-minded individuals who view their job as caretakers of our God-given liberties for just a few years tenure.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Share

13 Comments

  1. Perhaps, someday, I’ll be lucky enough to have the gubment mandate the citizenry must purchase products and services from my business.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 25, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - March 25, 2012

  2. Last week’s two-year anniversary passed with nary a word from the man whose name graces the neologism itself.

    Makes you think about why the Martin shooting from a month ago just recently became news, don’t it. The “War on Women” went over like a wet fart in church so we needed another distraction. And here it is.

    Comment by TGC — March 25, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - March 25, 2012

  3. This shouldn´t matter if the SCOTUS should vote in favor; IF, in the coming elections the Republicans add more seats in the House, take absolute control of the Senate, and a elect a President, to repeal Obamacare. In the meantime, this will be a nailbiter. Justice Kagan refuses to recuse herself, for having been an active participant in the development of Obamacare. So she will vote in favor, as will Justice Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and possibly Kennedy. Justice Scalia has historically voted in favor of the Commerce Clause. I can only hope that in the case of the mandate in Obamacare that he will see this as an abuse of the clause. Commerce has always been voluntary, a contract between two or more parties. The mandate is not voluntary, it is EXTORTION! The Govenment i.e. the Obama Administration is no better than the mafia. Pay us or we will burn down your business. The problem with the left is that they want equal results for everybody. They don´t understand that not everybody wants the same things. Some people can be happy making $25,000. a year where another is not content earning a million dollars a year and want more. Look at the sports stars, they make a couple a million in a season and at contract time want the want ten million or more. The left doesn´t tell them that they should make only as much as a school teacher or a contruction worker. Equality is equal opportunity to make as much or as little as you want. Equality of opportunity is to buy or not to buy health insurance. If the mandate is ruled Constitutional then the government can tell us we must buy eat brocoli to the exclusion of all other vegetables.

    Comment by Roberto — March 25, 2012 @ 4:30 pm - March 25, 2012

  4. “First, the breathtaking and unprecedented matter of Congress’s suggestion that it can force private citizens to purchase goods from private companies lest they face a fine. This has been the main focus over the past several months since they agreed to hear the case.”

    Seriously Dan, I am not being snarky here, but how do you square this statement with your support for Romney. Romney has engaged in numerous intellectual contortions in his attempt to distinguish the Massachusetts program from Obama’s. But not even he has tried to deny that his program requires people to buy goods from prvate companies or risk a fine. If this is the “mammoth gorge” that seaprates the left from the right, how can you possibly justify your support for Romney?

    Comment by Brendan — March 25, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - March 25, 2012

  5. BTW, congrats to Helio for winning the Honda Gran Prix in St. Pete. ;-)

    Comment by TGC — March 25, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - March 25, 2012

  6. great post Nick. I sure hope they declare it unconstitutional, but we know the liberals will bow to Obama’s wishes. Hopefully the rest will not

    Comment by Mark — March 25, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - March 25, 2012

  7. One possibility if they throw out the individual mandate is to legislate a follow up rule to allow for a limited period for signing up, and you do so for 1-5 years. Thus, if you have a bad accident, and you are not covered, you cannot get coverage until the periodic open phase of health insurance sign-ups comes around again. Now all those young whipper-snappers have to judge whether they want health insurance or be without it for an irreducible and possibly long period of time. It is still mandatory, but it would definitely address the involuntary nature of the current law that so incenses many conservatives.

    Comment by Cas — March 25, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - March 25, 2012

  8. The Supreme Court is our only shot at breaking this unconstitutional law. While I hesitate to utilize courts for laws Congress passes, it is imperative that we eliminate Obamacare now before 2013. Because there is a decent chance His Majesty will win, and then this country is totally sunk.

    Comment by davinci — March 25, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - March 25, 2012

  9. Brendan,

    The Romneycare issue is entirely one of Massachusetts law and it does not violate the commerce clause of the Constitution since that restriction is against the Congress and the laws passed by Congress.

    Presumably, a state can mandate what you must buy if the constitution of that state does not say otherwise. A lot of interesting information, background and speculation about Romneycare v Obamacare can be gotten here.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 25, 2012 @ 7:42 pm - March 25, 2012

  10. Brendan, the author of this article is Nick (Colorado Patriot), not Dan.

    While I hesitate to utilize courts for laws Congress passes

    Isn’t the purpose of the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution (i.e. not allow the legislative or executive branches to abuse their power and hence violate the Constitution)? That was my impression, but perhaps I am just ignorant on the subject (which is entirely possible).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 25, 2012 @ 9:34 pm - March 25, 2012

  11. What is this “Constitution” you all speak of? If it ‘s the document I think it is, our overlords (congress) haven’t felt particularly bound by it for quite some time as far as I can tell.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — March 25, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - March 25, 2012

  12. [...] Why the SCOTUS Decision on ObamaCare Shouldn’t Matter [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Does Obama Lose Either Way? — March 25, 2012 @ 11:58 pm - March 25, 2012

  13. I will press for a TOTAL Reversal of ALL of the INCREMENTAL Advances over the last 75 years so that this can not be picked up where it was left off!!!!!! Make the progressives start all over again and publicly expose them as they do!!!!!!! NOW……. Who’s gonna do that?????????

    Comment by Dennis the Menace — March 26, 2012 @ 10:44 am - March 26, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.