| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Justice Needs More Time |
| 2010-06-03 |
| Maybe the constitutional case for ObamaCare isn't so open and shut. 'Frivolous," says Nancy Pelosi. "More to do with politics than with policy," in the words of Kathleen Sebelius. En masse, Democrats claim that the constitutionality of ObamaCare is so elementary that the matter doesn't deserve even a half-serious thought. The Obama Justice Department is finding it a bit more difficult. Last week, Administration lawyers motioned for a one-month extension in Florida district court, where 20 state Attorneys General and the NFIB, the small business association, are arguing that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Justice is asking for the suit to be dismissed, presumably on the same assumptions of the Washington establishment. Only "presumably," though, because the government lawyers say they need more time to file a brief. Could ObamaCare's constitutional problems be more serious than liberals advertise? At the core of the suit is whether the Commerce Clause gives the government the power to compel all private citizens to buy insurance. "Requiring individuals to purchase something simply because they are alive is unprecedented," as NFIB president Dan Danner recently wrote in these pages—and if this individual mandate stands, the question is what remains of the Constitution's government of limited and enumerated powers. Yet neither the House nor Senate thought the question deserved even a hearing before the law passed. Taking these matters with more gravity was Judge Roger Vinson, who denied Justice's extension request on Friday. A delay isn't warranted, he wrote dryly, because the defendants "have at their disposal the very substantial resources of the federal government, including numerous attorneys and staff within and outside the United States Department of Justice." Then again, maybe this is the first time they've actually had to think about what they've done. |
| Posted by:Beavis |