Unchecked power: The courts and Obamacare

I agree with the newspaper from New Hampshire...

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

We know the Obama administration has discarded that basic right. Let us hope that the Supreme Court has the courage to defend it.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Unchecked+power%3a+The+courts+and+Obamacare&articleId=5795c3f9-308b-4e17-973b-35762b8ca522

We have three questions for Attorney General Eric Holder.

Should America's courts keep a President's political goals in mind when interpreting the Constitution? Why is it troubling when courts are asked to review an expansion of government power? And do your promises of independence from White House control mean anything?

In a Washington Post column yesterday, Holder predicted devastating consequences if challenges to aspects of Obamacare are "allowed to succeed."

The attorney general and co-author Kathleen Sebelius are sworn to defend the Constitution. But their essay shows advocacy of administration policy is a higher priority.

The cabinet members assert that anyone who challenges the mandatory purchase of health insurance must propose another way to meet the goals of Obamacare. "Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions doesn't work. The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this problem . . ."

In other words, the administration's policy goals must be preserved, even if this law is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs' "troubling" questions are secondary. Legal precedents must not be "allowed" to interfere.

Although that argument is nonsense, it betrays dangerous arrogance. Don't try it on U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, the Virginia federal judge who found parts of the health reform act unconstitutional on Monday.

Hudson praised the law's goal, but did not let that sway his ruling. In his words, "Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds."

In his 42-page decision, the judge carefully analyzed legal precedents before ruling that the mandatory purchase of health insurance is "neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution." He went further, warning that such "unchecked expansion of congressional power . . . would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

Rather than rebutting Judge Hudson's careful analysis, Holder and Sebelius took a political approach. They appealed to the public's emotions, citing the financial difficulties of preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, the lymphoma patient from Keene whose plight has been made familiar by President Obama.

The attorney general must have forgotten his April 2009 pledge of independence. In an interview with Katie Couric, Holder said, "The President gave me this job and asked me to be attorney general with the specific understanding that I would do nothing in a political way . . .  . There has to be a distance that you keep between this department and the White House."

Given Holder's recitation of White House talking points, that distance can be no longer than a short leash.

After more appeals, the battle over Obamacare's constitutionality will reach the Supreme Court. The justices will doubtless read Judge Hudson's ruling and its clear summary sentence: "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

We know the Obama administration has discarded that basic right. Let us hope that the Supreme Court has the courage to defend it.