It’s hard to think of a time that
the U.S. Supreme Court has played
a more important a role in our nation’s
life than it is right now.
The Court has handed down
many decisions that altered the
course of our nation’s political and
social history, some of them monumental.
Marbury v. Madison in 1803,
for instance, is often called the
most important case in Supreme
Court history, as it defined the
Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter
of the constitutionality of laws and
executive actions.
Brown v. Board of Education
(1953) unanimously held that racial
segregation of children in public
schools violated the Constitution,
which laid the groundwork for the
civil rights changes that swept the
nation over the next few decades.
New York Times v. Sullivan
(1964) established what is today
considered the “freedom of the
press” under the First Amendment.
Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965) was the initial recognition
of a constitutional right to privacy,
which has since become a
precedent for abortion rights (Roe
v. Wade) and homosexual rights
(Lawrence v. Texas).
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
established the “Miranda rights,”
which require police to inform
criminal suspects who have been
detained of their right to an attorney
and protection against self
incrimination.
Last week the nine justices
spent three days – a lengthy period
for a Supreme Court case – hearing
arguments on the constitutionality
of President Obama’s universal
healthcare law, the Affordable
Care Act, more commonly known
as “Obamacare.” They voted after
conferring together on the case
last week, but only they and their
clerks will know the outcome until
their written decision is announced
before the court term, likely on or
around July 4.
At issue in this case, Florida
v. The Department of Health and
Human Services, is whether the
government can force individuals
to buy health insurance, the “mandate,”
as it is known.
Without going into all the arguments
for or against the law,
which would require much more
space than we have available here,
we will only say that this case
highlights the importance of the
Supreme Court in our governmental
system.
Those who believe that this
healthcare law is symptomatic of
a move toward wholesale socialism
– or worse – in America, as
increasing numbers of citizens get
sucked into dependency on government
and relinquish their individual
rights and responsibility in
the process, will see the Court as
one of their last hopes to stop that
process.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,
one of those in the courtroom last
week, put it thus: “As government
grows, individual freedom shrinks.
That’s what this case is all about.”
Those who believe it is the
government’s responsibility to
provide for the health needs of itscitizens, and end the $43 billion-ayear
cost-shifting of free care provided
the uninsured by taxes and
rising insurance rates, will see the
Court – or at least its five-justice
“conservative” majority – as the
major hindrance to solving that
problem.
Thus we have the questions:
Can Congress compel individuals
to buy health insurance, especially
with the threat of a financial penalty
if they fail to do so? Can Congress
threaten to withhold funding
of free basic health services for the
poorest and the disabled – Medicaid
– to punish states that refuse to
implement Obamacare?
The Court’s decision will likely
focus quite narrowly on whether
Obamacare is supported by the
Commerce clause of the Constitution,
the Tenth Amendment, which
empowers Congress to regulate
interstate commerce. Obamacare
opponents say that, though it gives
the government power to regulate
existing commerce, it does not give
Congress power to compel people
to enter commerce – to force them
to purchase something regardless
of their personal preferences. Supporters
say that it is constitutional
under the Commerce Clause generally, under the Necessary and Proper
Clause of the Commerce Clause
(also known as the “elastic clause,”
which allows the U.S. government
to “make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers,
and all other powers vested by
this constitution”) and under Congress’
power to tax.
Though the Affordable
Healthcare Act was formulated by
the Obama Administration, it was
approved by Congress, over loud
protests from dissenting members.
The Supreme Court’s decision will
be final and will set a precedent
that will likely be heard loudly.
No matter what it is, the decision
will be controversial. If it is
upheld, civil disobedience, lawsuits
and the inefficiencies of government
management may result.
Polls have shown that a majority of
Americans actually oppose Obamacare.
Then, if only the individual
mandate is struck down, how workable
would the remainder of the
law be? If the entire law is struck
down, what to do about the problems
that prompted its creation in
the first place? Today’s world of
medicine is indeed excruciatingly
unaffordable for many.
The other point to remember
here is the role the Court is playing
in the existing controversy, the
battle between those who oppose
Big Government and those who
see government as the solution to
our problems.
This case should mark a turning
point in America’s political and
social history, but the upcoming
November election will be even
more significant. The Supreme
Court’s six men and three women
range in age between 51 and 79.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 79, appointed
by President Clinton, is the oldest,
with Antonin Scalia and Anthony
Kennedy close behind, at 76.
The justices are appointed for
life, or until they resign, and the
likelihood of one or more stepping
down before the end of the next
presidential term, if not this one, is
high.
The current Court is divided
between four conservative justices,
of whom Scalia is one, four
liberals, including Ginsberg, and a
swing vote – Kennedy.
It does not take political genius
to see how the next elected president
– whether it be Baruch Obama
or someone else – will affect not
only the legislative direction of our
nation, but the makeup of the U.S.
Supreme Court, the final arbiter of
whether laws stand or fall in the
face of the U.S. Constitution.