With the cloud of constitutional questions no longer hanging over this law, the issue will now, perhaps properly, be settled in the same place it started: the political realm. And the people will have to decide whether they want not just this law, but what it represents for the future of our nation. THIS is a tipping point.
Make no mistake that the government seizing control of the nation’s health care system , 15% of our economy, represents a crossing of the bright line that separates a constitutional republic from a social democracy. It represents a future similar to Europe, where social democracy is openly proclaimed, and where economies are now tumbling like dominoes under the leaden weight of unrestrained entitlements, most especially government-run healthcare.
This health care law requires individuals to purchase a private product or pay a fine...and a majority of the court, including chief justice john roberts, determined that the fine must be categorized as a tax, but is acceptable. This turns the commerce clause of the constitution on its head, regulating and levying a tax not on those engaging in commerce, but those choosing NOT to engage in commerce.
Particularly disheartening for constitutionalists is that the chief justice, a supposed strict constructionist or originalist, sided with the four leftist justices in affirming the validity of this. John Roberts follows in a long line of republican-appointed justices - including Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens and David Souter - who have come to Washington appearing to be one thing...and proving to be quite another.
So the choice for voters in November is now more clear than ever. At stake...the status of America as a nation distinct from the rest of the world. Are we to be a nation revolving around the liberty fought for by our founders and institutionalized in our constitution...or a nation centered around an increasingly empowered and validated central government that exerts unchecked control over not just our healthcare, but our money, our energy, our children’s education, and our ability to engage in commerce.
There is one more bite at the apple for those who find this law abhorrent, and those who will defend it to the death. And that is in the 2012 elections.
Is it up to us to either demonstrate a willingness to demand liberty to make decisions for ourselves and take control of our own lives, or reliquish control to an ever-expanding federal government. Ask yourself this question: what will this law - and others like it which expand federal power - mean not eOurven to you, but to our children and grandchildren? Will the quality of care improve or diminish under this law? What about the costs? And the choices available for this most personal of all commodities, one that is indispensible to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you believe the quality, affordability and options available in our healthcare system will ultimately improve under this law, or be diminished?
So the Supreme Court did not do the so-called dirty work for constitutionalists who hoped to avoid the need for the legislative and executive branches to repeal or uphold this law. The decision now comes down to the ultimate arbiters of all political disputes in America: the people.
