Local VA School Board Finally Fires Superintendent at the Center of Student Rapist...
North Carolina's State Treasurer Calls on BlackRock CEO to Resign
And a Player to Be Named Later...
DeSantis Tops Trump in 2024 Primary Race Poll
Why Sinema's Defection Just Made 2024 More Interesting
Biden's Non-Binary Nuke Official Busted Again for Stealing Luggage at Another Airport
The GOP Is Not Listening to the Base
Biden's Deal for the Devil
Analysis: With 2022 Midterms in Rearview Mirror, Hard and Clear Lessons Emerge for...
Veteran Congressman Reveals Shocking Place One Democrat Stored Her American Flag
Inflation Surges Past Expectations Again
Top Democrat Criticizes Biden's 'Deeply Disturbing' Prisoner Swap Decision
Why Oregon Teachers' Union Has Lost 20 Percent of Its Membership
One State Lowers Teaching Qualifications to Address Teacher Shortages
Critics Notice Something Unusual in Video of Prisoner Exchange That Freed Griner
Tipsheet

Not Out of the Question

WaPo's Charles Lane concedes that at least one challenge against ObamaCare has some real legal merit: The possibility that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.


Indeed.  It's one thing for Congress to regulate economic activity in which Americans engage, under its Commerce Clause powers.  It's quite another for congressmen to jump into the realm of economic inactivity, telling people that they are legally required to enter into a commercial relationship with a private company.

Sure, as Lane points out, one could argue that the choice not to purchase insurance has "economic ripple effects."  But that's sort of a "butterfly effect" approach to Commerce Clause jurisprudence -- one that, if taken to its logical extreme, would leave no area of our lives immune from government purchasing mandates.

Hey, if a Democrat majority can overrule the will of a majority of American citizens and tell me I have to purchase health insurance, would it be OK for a Republican Congress to do the same sort of (freedom-sapping) thing, and require everyone to buy a gun?  No doubt that if the Court adopts an expansive approach to Commerce Clause powers, there'd be some way to shoehorn in an argument about the "economic ripple effects" that would justify Congress in requiring a gun-toting (or at least gun-owning) citizenry.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Video