Finally, Some Sanity on the (Un) Constitutionality of ObamaCare

Encouraging news from an article on today's Opinion page in The Wall Street Journal by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey: "The Supreme Court's most important ruling this year may have been its unanimous decision in Bond v. United States, which held that individual citizens can challenge federal statutes when they encroach on authority the Constitution reserves to the states."

This remarkable, unanimous decision supports each citizen's right to challenge federal laws that exceed the authority of the Constitution. "The court stated without equivocation that "[b]y denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When the government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.""

Rivkin and Casey conclude: "That's why the decision is bad news for those who defend ObamaCare—the most extravagant challenge to that dual system in our history."

The dual sovereignty of the federal and state governments was established to guard citizens against the absolute power, or tyranny, of a single government. The Constitution provides clear boundaries for the federal and state governments. "In enacting the ObamaCare law, Congress seized for itself the very type of power—the ability to regulate individual conduct regardless of any significant connection to interstate commerce or another legitimate federal regulatory interest—that the Constitution reserves solely to the states."

ObamaCare overrides the individual's personal decision of whether or not to purchase health care insurance. Additionally, ObamaCare places the sole authority of that decision with the federal government which stands in stark opposition to the Commerce Clause which delegates the authority to regulate commerce to the States. The Supreme Court's decision in Bond v. United States sets a clear and welcome precedent.