• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare vs. Limited Government

    Even as Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) was telling constituents that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson was saying, “Not so fast!”

    What President Obama considers his crowning achievement illustrates the great divide in American politics — between those who see Washington’s power as limited only by the ability to sway voters and we who see it as limited by design in the U.S. Constitution.

    Straining to find a constitutional basis for mandating that everyone must buy health insurance, Obama’s lawyers resorted to the all-purpose Interstate Commerce Clause. But as much as that overburdened clause has been stretched before, Obamacare advocates want to twist it into a brand new and bigger-than-ever shape. As Judge Hudson wrote, “Never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far.”

    If the Constitution permits Congress to dictate that all must engage in the interstate commerce of politicians’ choice, then they also have power to dictate that we all must wear blue shoes on Tuesdays.

    Virginia’s lawsuit against Obamacare and the companion lawsuit filed by 20 other states in Florida go to the very heart of what has spurred millions of Americans to join tea party protests. What makes America’s system so unique and successful is not just the doctrine of separation of powers or of checks and balances. It is the doctrine of limited government with its preservation of personal freedoms. Otherwise, the only difference between America and a monarchy would be that our kings must stand for election, but have unlimited power while they are in office.

    First appeared at http://www.politico.com/arena/

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Obamacare vs. Limited Government

    1. Francis J. Galmish 3 says:

      This fine judge bases his decisions on rule of law and on the constitution. It is not based on activism or what a once popular president would like to do but again on law. Thank God. Our constitution has stood since the founding fathers and was most well adopted so that it would last. It behooves no one, including a president or congress to ignore it. When they do a red flag goes up to Americans who elect these people to SERVE them not their own wishes. I hope this good judge and man will start the turn back to constitutional law. Law ought to be based on truths. I commend this good judge and he has shown to be that not all the people are fooled all the time and sometimes not fooled any of the time. The shifting sands of politics are a most unreliable foundation for anything.

    2. Pingback: The Obama Honeymoon Is Over | Obama Economic Reform

    3. Perplexed, Indiana says:

      I don't understand. It was the Heritage Foundation that first proposed the "individual mandate" in its report entitled, "Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System," dated July 20, 1990 (Backgrounder #777). If you doubt me, you can read this report on your own website at the following link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/….

      My favorite excerpt from this report: "The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refundable tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law, every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not."

      -Perplexed in Indiana

    4. Bobbie says:

      A leader of decency and intelligence wouldn't consider needing big government. He'd be able to handle it with efficient government and respect the people their human ability and freedom to do for themselves.

    5. Bobbie says:

      …and stay out of every aspect of what we do for ourselves.

    6. Hank Miller Sr, Panama City, Fl. says:

      Would someone please point out a modern free democracy with significantly less government than the USA.

      Consider that Teddy Roosevelt advocated our adoption of the German system in his campaign of 1912. Of course that is not enough time for today’s consideration. We have to have time to think it over. (jest)

      32 million workers (not reliefers) will have coverage – by and by. That will turn our emergency rooms back into what they were designed to be – for emergencys.

      The Canadians saved 30-35% on their healthcare simply by reducing the paperwork So while they didn’t shrink government they certainly decreased the number of people in the ‘paperchase’.

      BTW, the German Healthcare and Retirement Act was passed in 1883. Ever consider how the can be so competitive in International trade with higher wages than we have plus ALL those programs?

    7. Pingback: Obamacare and the War on Drugs | Conservatives for America

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.