Obamacare vs. The Constitution

On Monday, January 31st, a federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, ruled Obama’s new health care law unconstitutional. The recently passed health care law includes an “individual mandate,” which means that every citizen is required to purchase health insurance, or face the penalties. Florida district judge Robert Vinson ruled that forcing all Americans to purchase a good or service, and punishing them if they don’t, exceeds the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, therefore making it unconstitutional. Unlike Henry Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who recently ruled only the individual mandate unconstitutional, Vinson took it a step further by stating that because the individual mandate is inseparable from the rest of the bill, the whole thing must be declared unconstitutional, and therefore null. It is evident that the case will be moving to the Supreme Court, wherein it may finally be thrown out once and for all.

The argument in favor of Vinson’s ruling is that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to force Americans to buy something. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” and certainly does not grant the power to regulate commerce down to every individual. The argument in opposition to Vinson’s ruling, on the other hand, states that Congress, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, is, in fact, granted the ability to make laws which are deemed, obviously, “necessary and proper.” There is a fault in their argument, however, and the dispute may be solved, as can so many disputes, by looking at history.

During the long and tedious process of debating and discussing the proposed United States Constitution, Anti-Federalists (those opposed to the Constitution) expressed concern that the Necessary and Proper Clause would, in essence, give the federal government limitless power, always with a justification that it was necessary and proper to expand the powers of Congress. However, the Federalists (those in support of the Constitution) assured them that the clause only permits the execution of powers already granted to Congress by the Constitution. Indeed, it clearly states that Congress has the power to make laws that are necessary and proper “for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” thus eliminating the argument that Congress can do anything they deem necessary and proper, and invalidating the opposition’s entire base. Even Founding Father James Madison wrote, in his Federalist No. 44, that without the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Constitution would be, in essence, a “dead letter,” and argued that it did not grant Congress the ability to grant themselves more power. The checks and balances in our government, he argued, as well as citizens being able to use the power of the ballot, shall never allow it.

And that is where We the People, and Judge Robert Vinson come in. The American People, the supreme voice in the land, have clearly stated via the ballot last election that Congress was overstepping its powers in passing a plainly unconstitutional law. Judge Robert Vinson is doing his part by keeping his vow to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is not legislating from the bench by skewing the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify any action Congress decides to take, but instead he is interpreting the Constitution honestly and straightforwardly. We showed Congress in the last election that we disagree with their policies, and the Judicial Branch is beginning to take steps to justly uphold the Constitution as they vowed. Twenty-six states have sued the federal government because of this law, and if that doesn’t express our grievances clearly enough, we can only pray that the coming Supreme Court ruling will.