Court rules against unconstitutional excesses of Obamacare

By Chris Adamo

Constitutional advocates are hailing the decision of U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson to strike down a central element of Obamacare which would require citizens to purchase healthcare or face a fine. And while Hudson did rule correctly, his decision is only the first step of the long and arduous task of undoing the damage to the fundamental makeup of the nation inflicted by the establishment of socialized medicine.

The Virginia showdown embodies the irreconcilable chasm that divides liberal and conservative governing worldviews. Conservatives recognize that in a free society, the purpose of the law is to prohibit specific actions that are generally harmful to society. In contrast, the liberal statists who crafted this nightmare believe it is their duty to force the citizenry to do "good," as they characterize the term, and to use the law as a weapon by which to make it happen.

With such starkly differing concepts driving the debate, the outcome of the Virginia case along with many other ensuing Obamacare court battles may ultimately set the course for the future of the entire nation. The degree to which this onerous and unconstitutional monstrosity remains intact will determine whether America descends into the dreary regimentation and squalor of a socialist existence, or begins the necessary restoration of those principles that made it prosperous, abounding in personal liberty, and altogether extraordinary in human history.

Consider the bogus and perverse "interpretation" of the Commerce Clause, by which the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal has repeatedly attempted to square the outrageous excesses of Obamacare with constitutional governing. The real purpose for that particular empowerment of the federal government was, like every other aspect of its establishment, limited and explicitly defined.

For the nation to be economically cohesive, it was imperative that monetary standards and trade regulations between the states be consistent. Thus a single national currency was established in order to do business, along with assurances of equitable dealings between entities engaged in trade that crossed state lines. Yet at some point, a criminal scheme was contrived to circumvent the Tenth Amendment limitation of federal jurisdiction to those areas specifically outlined in the Constitution. Aspiring tyrants made the case that if any aspect of any private operation entailed even the tiniest element of interstate commerce, the federal government thereafter had complete oversight and unlimited authority to intrude on and seize control of it.

Under this grotesquely distorted premise, it would be hard to conceive of any possible action that could ever remain beyond the grasp of federal tentacles. The former restrictions, placed on federal power as enduring safeguards of a free people, now merely require some verbal acrobatics by which to infuse any obscure brush with a state boundary, and instantly those limitations are abolished. Henceforth, the government presses forward with unrestrained power to coerce and conform.

Barack Obama believes it is within the lawful functions of the federal government to force compliance by the people. He made this plainly evident in his comment comparing federally mandated healthcare to individual state requirements for drivers to purchase auto insurance. However, he is unable to make any case whatsoever as to why the situation automatically accrues all power to Washington and himself. Yet still he flagrantly wields it.

Judge Hudson did not agree, flatly refuting "the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance." Unfortunately, he did not carry this premise to its logical conclusion, conceding instead that "The outcome of this case has significant policy implications. And the final work will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."

This falls short of unconditional support for the basis on which Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed his lawsuit challenging Obamacare. In his March statement, Cuccinelli flatly declared that "the status of being a citizen or resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not a channel of interstate commerce." Nor, it must be added, does any precept of the Constitution grant even the minutest degree of federal authority over healthcare activities conducted by such citizens, even if they cross state lines to do so, other than to ensure that the printed currency used to compensate for such services be consistent with that established by U.S. Treasury Department.

The silver lining to be found in the onerous Obamacare cloud is that in the aftermath of its implementation, Americans are seriously beginning to question the real mandates by which government asserts its authority. Such concepts were never taken as seriously as they currently are, and certainly not by the number of citizens who have awakened to the dangers in the past two years, and are demanding that those in power comply with the boundaries placed on them.

It is likely that as their eyes are opened to the governing excesses of the current administration, and the dangers posed by its outrageous behavior, the American people will become equally aware of other excesses that were not nearly so glaring, but bore similarities to the immoderation of the Obamacare onslaught. So much of government spending is every bit as indefensible from a constitutional perspective, along with the creeping encroachment against personal expression fraudulently perpetrated under such auspices as "separation of Church and State." These extra-constitutional abuses of power are no less egregious in their mischaracterization of the Founders' intent, and have remained unchallenged for far too long.

Obamacare was arguably the most flagrant and drastic departure from the limited and exemplary American concept of a republic, but it certainly was not the first. And if Americans want to get their country back, repealing Obamacare cannot be the only front on which this battle is fought. In the next two years, Washington will rage with conflicts over which philosophy of government the nation will ultimately accept. And each one needs to be treated as an opportunity to either rebuild the foundations of America or risk losing it forever.

© Chris Adamo