U.S. Supreme Court’s healthcare decision is questionable
By Ken K. Gourdin
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the key provision of the Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare,” appears to be both a high water mark for government intrusion and a low water mark for personal liberty.
The following site contains a link to the decision in the case, titled National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, as well as to the concurring opinion of Justice Ginsberg and the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas and Scalia, respectively, last accessed December 25, 2012: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393
The bottom line is that if the majority is right, and if the government can mandate that people buy health insurance, there is nothing that the government cannot do. This sounds the death knell for limited government, and, by extension, for constitutional government, since the Constitution supposedly created a government of limited powers.
If Chief Justice Roberts is right, and if the government can use its taxing power to penalize those who refuse to buy health insurance, the only limiting principle of government is the depth of American taxpayers’ pockets. If Justice Ginserg is right, and if the government can use its power to regulate commerce in regulating economic nonactivity (the nonactivity of not purchasing health insurance) there is no limiting principle to government.
I published the following op-ed about the Supreme Court’s decision in The Deseret Morning News July 3, 2012, available here (last accessed December 25, 2012): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765587954/Health-care-decision-is-questionable.html?pg=all.
I published an op-ed with similar (but not identical) sentiments in The Tooele Transcript-Bulletin July 10, 2012, available here (last accessed December 25, 2012): http://www.tooeletranscript.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Court%E2%80%99s+healthcare+decision+was+questionable%20&id=19254939&instance=opinion_opeds_page_right_column.