Too often in American politics, a critic of something the Supreme Court has done or that it might do makes a complaint about “unelected judges” overturning the work of elected legislatures.
Like the issue of civil rights in the 1860s and ‘70s, healthcare in 2012 has become the terrain upon which the battle over centralized power is being fought.
The want of a central authority over commercial affairs was one of the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and a central animating purpose behind the Constitutional Convention that convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
Amid sure signs that the Supreme Court Justices are deeply interested in the constitutionality of the new health care law’s key sections, and definite signs that they have been studying up for the task, they moved on Monday to get beyond the preliminaries and get set for Tuesday’s crucial two-hour hearing.
Where, one may ask, will a Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stand in history?
Setting aside the important distinction between health care and health insurance, this argument simply lacks the legal force its proponents want it to have.
The justices have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and thereby kill "Obamacare" before it even leaves the birthing chamber. While some believe that such an outcome would be proper, we disagree.