Obamacare Survives, but Political Playing Field Has Changed

[Geee]

Townhall:

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Obama administration's health care legislation was a victory for the president, his administration and his party. Their most ambitious legislative achievement has not been nullified, and they are not left in obvious disarray.

But it is only a partial victory and in some ways not a victory at all, both in the short run electorally and in the long run in terms of the constitutional order.

Politically Obamacare, as its critics call it, remains highly unpopular. It's possible that the court decision will boost its support, but unlikely.

Most voters want this law repealed. Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to repeal it. Barack Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it. It's not a winning issue for the incumbent.

Constitutionally, many conservatives are unhappy that Chief Justice Roberts and the four justices generally considered liberal voted to uphold the mandate to buy health insurance as a tax, which Congress is clearly empowered to levy.

But the fact remains that a majority of five justices, including Roberts, also declared that Congress' power to regulate commerce does not authorize a mandate to buy a commercial product. This will tend to bar further expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.

Moreover, the Constitution's limits on congressional power have now become, for the first time in seven decades, a political issue. They're likely to remain one for years to come.

This would not have been true had not the constitutional case against the mandate been advanced by Washington lawyer David Rivkin, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and many others.

They did not quite prevail in the Supreme Court, but they changed not only the legal but also the political debate in a way almost no one anticipated three years ago.

Unhappy conservatives grumble that Congress can get around the declaration that a mandate is beyond Congress's enumerated powers by labeling it a tax -- or just by relying on five justices declaring it one.

But there's usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That's why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It's why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.

[Pepper]

"But the fact remains that a majority of five justices, including Roberts, also declared that Congress' power to regulate commerce does not authorize a mandate to buy a commercial product. This will tend to bar further expansion of the size and scope of the federal government."

 

Wrong: per this writer. John Woo

 

http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?/topic/40680-john-yoo-chief-justice-roberts-and-his-apologists/page__view__findpost__p__382407

[SrWoodchuck]

On a different tack.....I found this, while loping around the "net"-----http://www.captainsj...n-of-obamacare/

 

 

From the 1st comment:

 

It is indeed important that conservatives understand that Leftist thinking is very much a religion to which the Left adheres. It is the overriding belief that mankind can be redeemed and reformed in this life by State action, applying the right policies and principles and, if necessary, compelling behaviors for the greater good.

This is the view that guided the French Revolution and has fueled every Statist social model since then, whether it be socialism, communism, fascism or any, other form of authoritarianism.

The American Revolution was a polar opposite: the complete distrust of the State, born out of the well-known horrors of Europe with its religious wars and State persecutions. The American scheme emphasized the power and sanctity of the individual wherever possible and put in place the famous checks and balances to keep the Tyrant of centralized government in chains.

Now we have a confirmed State Religion founded upon the principles Herschel has laid out in his post. The State Religion will seek to reform us all in the name of the greater good. So, everyone will get some form of healthcare, for example, no matter how poor it will be, at the expense of every productive member of society which will necessitate ever greater levels of confiscation by the State in order to keep even a pathetic level of care alive. The State will have to compel doctors to provide free or nearly free services as the pace of doctors leaving the profession accelerates. It will be permitted via a “tax,” of course. The State Religion will compel us to fund ever more generous benefits to the children of illegal aliens. And when the ever-shrinking private sector is bled dry, finally, the State will take over the failing industries and appropriate all the means of production unto itself. All in the name of the greater good. Heaven on earth.