I wanted to make sure you saw this piece in today’s Wall Street Journal outlining the case that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
This is a very clear precis detailing why the law’s requirement that everyone purchase insurance is unconstitutional. The piece also describes what other rulings the Court is likely to make with respect to the law.
Unsurprisingly, it was written by the lawyers who represented 26 states in their challenge to Obamacare. Making clear explanations of their case are what they get paid to do.
As you are probably aware, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case and rule on it by summer.
In short, the central case against Obamacare is that government has no power to require you to purchase health insurance. The Obama administration has argued that under Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it can require you to do so because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and not buying insurance is a form of commerce because your decision has economic impacts.
This, of course, is what’s known in the field of dialectics as a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
It is roughly like saying that not eating is a form of eating because it impacts your digestive system. So maybe I can sue McDonald’s because by not eating their food, it’s upsetting my stomach. Or maybe McDonald’s can sue me because by not buying their food, I’m causing them to make less money.
You see the problem here.
This is how the authors put it.
If Congress can require individuals to buy or otherwise obtain and maintain health insurance simply because they may be said to impact commerce by their very existence, without regard to any particular activity in which they have chosen to engage, then there is no limit on federal power. For example, if Congress can require you to buy health insurance because your lack of insurance may, at some point in the future, impose costs on the wider economy, then on the same theory it can require the purchase (or sale) of virtually any good or service, since the failure to have or use the relevant product can always be said to have some economic impact.
Obamacare has run into legal trouble solely because, in order to keep his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, the president decided to require you to buy health insurance by punishing you with a fee if you fail to do so, instead of just taxing you.
The federal government, of course, has the right to tax your butt into oblivion if it so chooses.
In the one of the great unnoticed examples of hypocrisy of our young century, the Obama people have argued in court that the fee is basically a tax, so it’s Constitutional.
Which is known in the field of dialectics as “The Old Bait and Switch.”
Or just, dishonesty.