THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIV, Issue # 53, March 24, 2012
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
OBAMACARE VERSUS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
By Alan Caruba
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMACARE: EROSION OF THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE U.S. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION --
ARE THERE ANY RIGHTS OR POWERS LEFT TO THE STATES BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS INTERPRETED BY LIBERAL JUSTICES ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT --
GRADUAL DISTORTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO MEAN ANYTHING CONGRESS WANTS IT TO SAY -- THE QUESTION THAT LIES AT THE VERY HEART OF THE
OBAMACARE CASE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR IN LATE MARCH, 2012 -- CAN THE U.S. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT COERCE THE STATES UNDER THE
THREAT OF WITHHOLDING FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE STATES BY ACTS OF CONGRESS?
FULL STORY:
In a nation where Congress has already determined how much water your toilet tank can hold and whether you can purchase a 100-watt incandescent light bulb,
the assertion of federal power is now so great and so unbounded that a case concerning the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare),
brought by 26 states, will decide whether, in fact, there are any rights or powers left to the states.
What many Americans do not know is that the United States of America is a federal republic (federation, or federal union) composed of 50 separate and
semi-autonomous state republics, each with its own state constitution. What has occurred, however, has been the erosion of states’ rights and, with that, the
gradual distortion of the nation’s central instrument of governance, the United States Constitution, to mean anything Congress wants it to say.
At the very heart of the Obamacare case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Monday through Wednesday, March 26 through March 28, is the question of whether
the U.S. national government can coerce the states under the threat of withholding funds — in this case for Medicaid.
Obamacare vastly expands Medicaid, but it should also be noted that Medicaid has been expanded over the years without evoking this kind of organized
resistance. Over a million Americans descended on Washington, D.C., on March 20, 2010, to demand that Obamacare not be passed. They were dismissed by the
White House that bribed and pressured members of Congress who, it turns out, never even read the law before voting on it.
Created in 1965, Medicaid was intended to ensure that low-income individuals and families secure medical care. Obamacare represents that largest expansion in
its history. As the largest federal-state funding program, in 2010, it represented some $401.4 billion. Predictions of what Obamacare will cost are over the moon.
At present, some 60 million Medicaid beneficiaries include one in four children, severely disabled people, many nursing home residents, and low-income
pregnant women. Children’s and trauma hospitals heavily rely on Medicaid funding. Under Obamacare, if ruled constitutional, more than 30 million more people
are expected to gain health coverage through Medicaid.
The likelihood is that a federally administered health care system will destroy what is widely regarded as the best private sector health system in the world. It will
put the government squarely between the physician and his patient, determining who receives treatment and the amount and cost of that treatment.
The issue of contention for many constitutional scholars and others is Obamacare’s demand that everyone either purchase a health insurance program or pay a
fine for not doing so. Congress asserts this under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which says Congress shall have the power “To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.”
The early Supreme Court, led by the nation's fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall (serving from 1801 to 1835), broadly interpreted these powers, extending federal
jurisdiction over a number of aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce. In more recent times, under Justice William Rehnquist (serving 1986 to 2005), the
Supreme Court restricted interpretation of the Clause to allow states more control over business conducted within its borders.
The tensions between the states and the central government have always been part of the life of the nation, and the Civil War was the ultimate test of whether
states can secede from the Union if they feel their rights are being trampled upon. Under the many progressive social justice programs instituted since the 1930s,
federal programs have acquired the power to coerce states to do its bidding simply by threatening to withhold billions in funding.
One need hardly be a constitutional scholar to understand that a central government that can require you to purchase something you do not want or do not
need can require you to do anything it wants. A government that powerful is a government to be feared.
The Tenth Amendment Center is rather sanguine about the Supreme Court’s likely decision. It notes that “In fact, from 1937-1995, the Supreme Court didn’t rule
one single congressional act to be outside their constitution limits.” Thus, for sixty years, “they ruled absolutely nothing unconstitutional, and that included
much of the New Deal and all of the Great Society. Since that time, overruling Congress has been a rare occurrence at best.”
The Center is the leading advocate of the concept of “nullification” by which the states refuse to obey or enforce a federal law they deem a threat to the rights
granted by the U.S. Constitution “For over 100 years,” says the Center, “federal power has been on one path and one path alone. It doesn’t matter which
political party has been in charge. This case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is not famous for overturning its own decisions and precedents, and that is why many observers conclude the Court will rule in favor
of Obamacare.
Add to that, the new Associate Justice, Elana Kagan, should have recused herself from hearing the case, having served as a Solicitor General in the Obama
administration. The Supreme Court, however, defended her participation. As President Obama’s top advocate, Kagan headed the office responsible for
formulating the administration’s defense of Obamacare — and oversaw the arguments both on appeal and in the lower courts because of Obamacare's national
importance. If that is not a conflict of interest, nothing is.
That leaves only one option left, and that is a Congress elected in 2012 for the purpose of repealing Obamacare and a President other than Obama to sign it into
law. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed legislation to repeal Obamacare.
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for President, is on record he would repeal Obamacare. Now, he needs a Republican Senate and a
Republican House of Representatives in order to stop the national government from becoming so powerful that a new revolution would have to be fought to
overthrow it.
© Alan Caruba, 2012
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
Social Welfare Policy -- The Modern Welfare State
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at Warning Signs, his popular blog -- and thereafter on dozens of other
websites and blogs. His monthly report on new books is posted at Bookviews.
A business and science writer, Caruba is the Founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information
about "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIV, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity