Professor Jonathan Turley is an attorney, a legal scholar mostly specializing in Liberal interpretations of constitutional law, and a frequent commentator in many of the Leftist MSM’s papers and shows.† He also maintains an interesting blog, Res ipsa loquitur. Prof. Turley and I rarely agree on anything. That is why it is odd that he and I are in agreement on one of the more disturbing aspects of ObamaCare.
With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of statesí rights would be left if it prevailed.
— Prof. Jonathon Turley
Is the Individual Mandate Constitutional?
Think about Prof. Turley’s statement, “If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens.” To any true American, one who would guard his liberty and that of his progeny, that is a chilling statement made all the more so because the reasoning mind can find little in the way of factual argument to refute it.
At this time (April 2, 2010) at least 14 States have filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s health insurance reconstruction legislation colloquially known as ObamaCare. So it is obvious that others besides myself agree with Turley’s estimation of the situation.
If the Gods are at all mercifully inclined towards America, these lawsuits will result in a key provision of ObamaCare, the individual health insurance mandate, being struck down on Constitutional grounds and the whole legislation having to go back to Congress in order to create a new – hopefully wiser and more American – rendition of the legislation.
So – oddly, Professor Turley and I are, for once, in agreement. It should be, but isn’t any longer, even odder that the one circumstance where two staunch proponents of differing views on so many issues can reach agreement is in opposition to President Obama and his agenda.