Oddly, We Agree

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 states’ 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.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

6 Responses to “Oddly, We Agree”

  1. ichabod Says:

    Hi Jonolan;

    The words to “Hell in a hand basket” come to mind. When I was young, this fixation on “health” care did not seem to be as importance as now. Maybe it was of my youth giving me that perception.

    I remember the doctor coming to the house if he felt it warranted a visit. My father paid him.

    A democracy does not necessarily mean that the will of a fractional majority should trample on the wishes and rights of those who do not want to be involved. That alone is against the concept of liberty. What is being done today is forcing America to follow in the path of China and the former Soviet Union in respect to how government “controls” its citizens.

    Health care is an individual problem.

  2. Tweets that mention Oddly, We Agree | Reflections From a Murky Pond -- Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by jonolan. jonolan said: New Post – Oddly, We Agree – http://tinyurl.com/ycaozsa […]

  3. jonolan Says:

    To be brutally fair and just, ichabod, insofar as individual liberty, States’ Rights / Federalism, and anything resembling what the Framers of our Constitution intended for our country are concerned we been going to Hell in a Handbasket for a long, long time. It’s just that, under Obama’s regime, the bottom seems to have fallen out of the basket and we’re in free-fall towards The Pit.

  4. ichabod Says:

    Hi Jonolan;

    I thought of an analogy. This law is akin the a man forcing his wife to have sex when she says no. A marriage is often seen as a fifty fifty partnership, but when one partner forces another partner to do something against his or her will, what kind of partnership is that?

    Nowadays, the man’s actions may be construed as rape.

  5. jonolan Says:

    A very apt analogy, ichabod. The Government’s relationship with the American people has become more and more abusive, and like so many abused spouses the bulk of the American people both remain silent and keep coming back for more abuse.

  6. Unhealthy Consequences | Reflections From a Murky Pond Says:

    […] the wake of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid unconstitutionally enacting ObamaCare through a series of only marginally legal methods, it didn’t take long at […]

Leave a Reply