Calling Dr. Justice...

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over the next few
days over the legality of ObamaCare (from foxnews.com)

Today is the first of 3 days worth of oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "ObamaCare."  Two years ago, this law was signed sparking sharp debate from supporters and critics alike. 

I'll just cut to the chase, we here at Caputo's Corner believe that forcing everyone in the country to buy health insurance is totally, emphatically, and unequivocally unconstitutional.  Who is Uncle Sam to say what we can and cannot buy for ourselves?  Intrusions of government into our private lives such as this one are sickening, and would make the founding fathers, who praised individual liberty and the limited role of federal government, roll in their graves.  Therefore, the Supreme Court better rule this thing unconstitutional...or should I say, Justice Kennedy better rule this unconstitutional.  We all know how the other 8 are going to vote. 

Now that I got that out of the way, there are actually 4 different provisions here that the court will consider, and I'll take each of those individually next:

-The first challenge is more of a last ditch attempt to make sure the court punts for another 3 years.  26 states have challenged the law, and in 2 of the lower courts, judges have ruled that the penalty for not having health insurance (starting in 2014) is actually a "tax," and according to the archaic Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) passed in 1867 (yes, 1867!) challenges to tax laws cannot be heard until the tax is first collected.  This is rediculous on a number of levels.  First, the penalty is just that, a penalty.  Taxes are levied for the purpose of raising revenue for the government.  Assuming everyone does their "duty" and buys insurance, no money will be raised, thus producing no revenue.  Second, the law was passed during Reconstruction for the purpose of reintegrating the Southern States after the Civil War.  Sorry, but Reconstruction era legislation should have no bearing on policy decisions in 2012.  This matter is a joke, and most legal eagles believe the court will also see it that way.  The only reason this is even an issue at all is because it gives the court a potential escape from having to decide this law on the merits during an election year, which quite frankly would be highly irresponsible on their part.

-The second, and probably most important decision will be on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  As I stated above, this is most definitely unconstitutional.  It is not the business of the government to force people into buying health insurance.  Proponents will argue that the Commerce Clause gives the government the right to do so because health care is interstate commerce.  However, you can't be FORCED into interstate commerce.  The mandate does just that.  Liberals and big government advocates always seem to somehow spin the Commerce Clause in different ways (not to mention obscure legislative procedures) to get laws like ObamaCare passed.

-The third matter regards the severance of the individual mandate from the rest of the law.  The entire law as written was over 2,700 pages.  Yikes!  Clearly there is more to this than the individual mandate.  If the mandate is struck down, the issue becomes whether or not the rest of the law has to go down with it.  The administration itself has said that without the mandate, the law cannot stand.  So in that sense it really seems like an open and shut case.  Without the mandate, the entire law must go.  However, the court does not necessarily have to view it that way.  They can say the mandate is unconstitutional and then leave it to Congress and the president to figure out the rest.  Personally, the whole thing is unconstitutional and should be struck down on the merits, not just the mandate, but that's just me. 

-The final case to be heard on Wednesday afternoon deals with the expansion of Medicaid, which if made compulsory as the law would have happen, the costs would be astronomical, and would achieve the same effect of forcing people into insurance.  Thus the same arguments for striking down the individual mandate would hold for this provision expanding Medicaid. 

All in all, it is quite clear that ObamaCare is not popular with the electorate.  Majorities of voters in just about all areas (save of course for liberal Democrats) disagree with at least one portion of the law (mostly the individual mandate).  Republicans in Congress are working on getting some kind of a repeal measure through, but as long as the Democrats control the Senate and Obama is in the White House, that will never happen.  A ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will not come until early in the Summer.