Obamacare and Its Meanings
by Tom Donelson on March 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM
The recent debate about Obamacare highlights a significant issue that is yet on the radar screen but will be when the Courts make their decision on whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. What is at risk is the Constitution and its meaning. Over the past several decades, there have been movements toward a “living constitution,” essentially tearing up the constitution decision by decision. Over the past years, we have seen private property under assault (Kelo), gun rights under assault (Heller and McDonald), political free speech under assault (Citizen United) and now the question: can the Federal Government force you to purchase a product if you do not want to?
The left has already felt that they had advantage when the debate shifted to selection of judges, but this year, it could easily be reversed. If Obamacare is upheld, then what is left to stop the Federal government to impose whatever it desires upon the America public? Democratic Congressman Peter Stark summed up the modern left's attitude by saying, “The federal government can do most anything in this country.”
Citizen United has been misrepresented since it showed that campaign finance reform had less to do with “cleaning up elections” and more to restrict free speech. For those who may not remember, a group of individuals formed a corporation to produce a movie about why Hillary Clinton should not be President and were supported by donations from individuals and corporations. The Courts decided that yes, Corporations, made up of individuals who work for a common goal, can’t be denied their rights. If you had followed the logic that the Obama administration presented to the Supreme Court, Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 9-11” could easily have been targeted by future FEC and administration.
The second amendment came within one vote of being emasculated by Heller and McDonald and by one vote, Kelo diminished property rights when the Courts essentially allowed a local government to eminent domain a neighborhood out of existence so a local company could get the property to expand.
The Courts accepted the argument that since the corporations would pay more taxes off their investment than the previous home owners, it was for the common good. What eventually happened was that the Company did not build on the property and where there was once a neighborhood, there is nothing. Meanwhile, property rights suffered and individual liberty reduced because of this decision.
The Obamacare debate is about individual liberties and since Obamacare has been used to attack religious freedom with the administration essentially telling the Catholic Church to give up their beliefs regarding contraceptives, it has reinforced how Obamacare will change the relation of government and the people. Obamacare has gone beyond just providing healthcare but gives the government a weapon to transform social organizations and individuals to its will. The courts must decide if there are limits to Federal power or not.
Our founding fathers believed that government was not society or bigger than society but just one player within the social contract. To believe in the Constitution is to believe in the limitation of the federal government in regards to States and individuals. The modern left as described by the Stark quote no longer believes in the limitation of federal government. What is at stake is tyranny by the majority in a society run by bureaucrats where individual rights can be sacrificed for the common good. Our Founding Fathers understood that tyranny by majority rule was still tyranny and this election will reside on whether we want to be free or slip further to the road to serfdom. Courts have no choice but to overrule Obamacare and if they fail, the Republicans have no choice to repeal Obamacare if they win the election. Will freedom continue to slip away? That is the question that will be answered this November.