Supreme Court Case not about care but about governmental power

It wouldn’t be hyperbole to say that the Supreme Court case currently being argued over ObamaCare is the most monumental case in modern American history.

I don’t want to spend time talking about the merits of the case. There is a wonderful discussion on the New York Times website where a number of respected law professionals argue the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that most of us know as ObamaCare.

Read it, you’ll be more informed for doing so.

Recent poll data suggests not only that this law is unfavorably viewed by at least half of America, but that nearly 3 out of 4 Americans think at least parts of this law should be struck. Thirty percent, nearly 1 in 3 people believe the law should be overturned in its entirety.

While the justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by political figures, they are to be impartial.

Yeah right.

That being said though, it appears even some of the democratically appointed justices have their doubts over the constitutionality of this law.

What I want to point out specifically here is that this case is not about whether or not people should have affordable health care.

We all agree people should.

This law is about the government’s right to tell us what we can and cannot buy.

It’s about governmental power, where it starts and more importantly, where it stops.

The name of the law belies what this law truly is. ‘Patient Protection,’ and ‘Affordable Care,’ these are ideas everyone can get behind.

The individual mandate set forth with this law is what is not and cannot stand.

If you’ve ever taken a law class, you know that the books are about as dense as you’ll find, full of vernacular you probably don’t know and sentence structures you probably can’t follow.

But in those books hold our history. They hold the foundation of this country, which was a government with limited authority.

The constitution explicitly states that a law must be necessary and proper, but also within the rights enumerated therein.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how good you think a law is, the federal government doesn’t have, nor should it have the power to pass certain kinds of laws.

Striking down this law, or at least the individual mandate, would be so momentous not because it would be a blow to Obama’s legacy or a win for conservatives.

This law is about putting specific and clear limits on what our government can and cannot coerce its people into doing.

It is the most basic freedom we have.

Ideologically, there’s nothing wrong with some of the provisions like free cancer screenings or protecting children with pre-existing conditions.

From a conservative standpoint, I can argue that those laws are consumer protections made to insulate those from whom the market would leave out.

Striking down ObamaCare doesn’t mean the court, or conservatives, don’t believe in affordable care or in protecting patients.

Reversing this law is about protecting the freedoms of every American not to be formed into action by the government.

Perhaps no case, modern or otherwise, in our history is a clearer referendum on the rights of the citizens weighed against the powers of our government.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: