Green Room

Mandatory Madness

posted at 2:17 am on March 30, 2010 by

Virginia has passed a law exempting its citizens from the federal insurance mandate contained within the ObamaCare law as enacted; in addition, twelve other states, led by their attorneys general, have banded together to file a lawsuit, also seeking to overturn the insurance mandate.

Thus there is a nonzero probability that ObamaCare’s most tyrannical element — the federal “mandate” for everyone to buy government-approved health insurance — will be struck down. We will find out in the fullness of time which camp is accurate, the one that predicts the Court will never intervene to strike down such a “big law” passed by Congress and signed by the president — and the camp that says the Court will be forced to make a substantive ruling because the issue is so stark, so pregnant, and so egregious.

Simply put — which is just what Rep. Michael Burgess, R-TX, 96%, did — if the feds can pass a law ordering citizens to purchase specific goods from particular, government-approved, private companies, it would open the door to a horrible new form of covert control to benefit specific lobbyists and donors at taxpayer expense:

[I]f the mandate in the health care law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or be penalized is upheld by the courts, the federal government could mandate anything, such as requiring all Americans to purchase a General Motors car.

The Washington Times rolls the ball a bit farther:

Both of the state lawsuits challenge the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Florida case also cites a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves those powers not spelled out under the federal government in the Constitution to the state governments, and argues that the health care law’s expansion of state Medicaid programs threatens state sovereignty.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines – the insurance exchanges are state-based – the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

“Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services,” Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state’s lawsuit. “To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would … create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers.”

The cases raise a profound question of constitutional balance: Should we interpret the Constitution in such a way as to ratify the Founders’ principle of limited government? Or should we instead interpret it as the current administration prefers, even if that is to expand the scope of federal control tenfold, on grounds of judicial deference to the elected branches?

In other words, whether Congress is restricted only to those tasks listed in the enumeration clause (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8), all else being forbidden… or whether the only restrictions are those actions specifically prohibited by the Constitution and its amendments, and anything not mentioned is an unenumerated but protected power of Congress. Which is the default position when specific areas are not mentioned in the organic documents? The courts have gone round and round on this question.

The question is not only timely, it’s also timeless. It determines whether we are citizens or subjects:

“The remarkable thing about an individual insurance purchase mandate is you are not being subject to a requirement by virtue of any economic activity you engage in — you’re not doing a damn thing; you just exist,” [David B. Rivkin, jr., counsel for the state plaintiffs] said. “If this is upheld, then the federal government can do everything it wants subject only to the restrictions contained in the Bill of Rights.”

That really is the question here. I’m not sure about the Burgess example of mandating that everybody in America buy a car manufactured by Government Motors; but can Congress pass and the Executive enforce a law mandating that every worker in the United States pay dues to a (government approved) union? That hypothetical seems perilously close to the mandate that forms the core of ObamaCare… and the more I think about it, the less “hypothetical” it seems.

But I’m very optimistic about this particular case — at least once it reaches the Supremes. Don’t count me in that rumba that thinks the Court will never find the mandate unconstitutional because that would “interfere” in the operation of another branch, which such pessimists say violates “judicial restraint.”

In fact, it’s the very belligerence and in-your-face arrogance of the Pelosi-Reid Democrats that gives me such hope. The Democrats made no effort to abate their tyrannical tendencies, giving them full vent instead — dictatorial, partisan, raw, and very, very unpopular.

Given the nature of the current Court, this is probably the best moment to bring such a case before the Nine. We currently have four reliably conservative votes — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and of course the Chief Justice, John Roberts — and one somewhat squishy justice, Anthony Kennedy; Kennedy is not a solid conservative, but neither is he a solid activist.

It’s true that judicial restraint gives deference to the elected branches of the government; but the philosophy has never taught that such deference requires justices to bow to the legislature or the White House, even when there is a clear constitutional violation. For example, this very Court just struck down the D.C. gun-prohibition law and looks likely to strike down even state bans on “keeping and bearing arms.” This bodes well.

We cannot rely upon such a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court to save our tender loins, of course: The only thing certain about such a ruling is that it will occur some time from now, probably long after the November elections — and maybe even after the presidential contest in 2012, depending on how long the cases kick around the district and circuit courts first. (That is, if it ever eventuates at all.) The electorate will already have passed judgment on the politics of ObamaCare and whatever else the lame-duck 111th Congress manages to jam down between now and January.

But a decision striking down the mandate on grounds of enumerated powers, the lack of applicability to interstate commerce, and the Tenth Amendment could play a major role in “repealing and replacing” ObamaCare, even while Barack H. Obama remains president, and even if the Senate Democrats retain enough votes to block cloture.

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yes! this is a frightening turn of events. The Government simply cannot be trusted with this kind of power and We the People should rebel vigorously if this is not struck down.(Actually I would have used much stonger words but the ban hammer would have hovered and possibly descended, but please believe that the stronger words are definitly implied)

jeanie on March 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I think SCOTUS is responsive to public opinion, despite their pretense of impartiality. The modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause — that it permits almost anything — stems from the incredible popularity of FDR’s policies. A similar shift in public opinion could influence the court back to the original intent.

Therefore, keeping up the public and political fight against Obamacare is very much a part of the court challenge. If the court sees America gradually coming to accept its new overlords, they will be less likely to overturn Obamacare than if it sees Americans increasingly determined and defiant.

What I’d like to see between now and November is a few proposals by Republicans to mandate that everyone buy a bible, or a gun, or a pickup truck, or something… proposals doomed to fail, but that would likely be picked up by the news and force people to realize what precedent the Democrats have set.

joe_doufu on March 30, 2010 at 2:36 PM

What constitution? It’s just toilet paper for our new fascist state.

Dhuka on March 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Tyrant
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

Why would framers of the Constitution have enumerated the governments power’s specifically and yet left the door wide open to unchecked expansion in the future?

The fact is the National Socialist Democrat Moonbats would rather pretend to follow constitutional law while seeking to undermine it until the point that is meaningless.

Chip on March 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM

joe_doufu on March 30, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I do not think that you give the SCOTUS sufficient credit for their decisions.

Those decisions on the commerce clause that have caused people to be upset, e.g. Raich, were based upon other criteria, not just the Commerce clause. In the case of Raich there was another law to be considered that meant that the State could not trump federal law. Also it involved the growing of a crop that can be sold on the interstate market, hence it came within the scope of the Commerce clause.

This particular SCOTUS has judged cases on their merits, and this is especially true in Citizens United. Even though this case does not touch on the Commerce Clause the opinions that were written certainly do lend some support for the notion that this SCOTUS when it hears the lawsuits that have been brought will indeed look closely at things such as the mandates.

However, SCOTUS does not just rely on modern cases to make a determination. There is one case that has similarities and this is United States vs. Butler. This case struck down the Agriculture Adjustment Act. The opinion in that case is quite relevant to the present situation.

The cases that followed, involving the 2nd AAA and then a case such as Raich were determined upon a separate set of principles.

I do believe that the present majority of SCOTUS will be more inclined to strike down this very bad legislation. However, if Kennedy retires and Dr. Utopia gets to pick his replacement then I would doubt that this would happen.

maggieo on April 4, 2010 at 5:09 PM