30ashopper
SoWal Insider
Fairly stated, this is the conservative constitutional argument: Health care for all is a good cause. But if, in the name of that noble goal, you construe Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly as to encompass individual choices that have never previously been thought of as commercial, much less interstate, there would be nothing left of the commerce clause's restraints on Congress's power. And then, the argument goes, Congress would be free to impose far more intrusive mandates. Judge Vinson suggested that Congress "could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," and that is hardly the most absurd or mischievous imaginable consequence.
PostPartisan - Give me liberty or give me health care
The crux of the problem, it's no so much what the mandate does, it's the precedent it sets. This law, if improperly found constitutional, stands to significantly broaden the authority of the Federal Government beyond all boundaries we've set over the last two hundred and fifty years. It?s easy to see how this new precedent could have a substantial negative impact on our individual liberty. I?m reminded of that old Acton quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
For progressives, please consider that this expansion of federal powers will also apply to republican politicians. If that doesn?t strike fear in your heart, I don?t know what could.