There is no way the mandate can survive constitutional scrutiny

The suggestion has been made that the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision can serve as a constitutional precedent for the mandate on individuals to purchase medical insurance. Fortunately, as A. Zarkov shows, there is no analogy between the 1942 case, in which the government required a farmer to reduce his production of wheat, and the requirement that individuals buy health insurance.

However, while the Supreme Court must—unless it chooses to become an openly revolutionary body—shoot down the mandate and thus cripple the health care bill if it is passed, the Democrats continue to move, “with Tarquin’s ravishing strides,” toward passage of the bill.

A. Zarkov writes:

With the capitulation of Sen. Nelson yesterday, passage of the health insurance bill seems almost assured. Unless the House won’t accept the lack of a public option, the bill now seems like a done deal. While we don’t know details at this point, it does seem that one way or another Medicare takes a hit. Now have long heard that Medicare is the “Third Rail” of American politics. What happened? Has something changed? Why do the Democrats not fear the Third Rail any more? At one time politicians were reluctant even to talk about Medicare out of fear that something their words would get misinterpreted, sending a panic through the elder voters. Now they openly declare their intention to cut benefits. With the elder population increasing as the baby boomers retire, the voltage on the Third Rail keeps increasing, making it ever more lethal for those who dare touch it. Perhaps the Democrats think that the Republican party is now so enfeebled, so lacking in leadership and courage that they can safely go where they feared to go before. The scary part is they might be right.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 19, 2009 03:25 PM | Send