Judge upholds constitutionality of Obamacare

Kerem Oner
U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon - a Bill Clinton appointee - in Lynchburg, Virginia, became the second judge to uphold the constitutionality of the insurance mandates of the new federal healthcare law.  The suit that was brought by Liberty University essentially argued that the mandate to buy insurance or to pay a penalty was not a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his opinion, Moon wrote, "there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market."

Under this rationale, everything we do or refuse to do under the sun can be regulated by the government using the Commerce Clause argument.  As anyone who has been following the legal twists of this saga knows, even the Obama administration had started to give up on the Commerce Clause argument due to its weakness and was starting to focus on the government's ability to tax as the enabling constitutional argument to defend the law.  Apparently, Judge Moon is so partisan that, as a legal scholar, he could not even see past the foolishness of using the Commerce Clause as the proper constitutional argument behind this legislation. 

This opinion is just the latest mockery of what our founding fathers would have envisioned our justice system to be.  Let's hope that the judges in subsequent cases as well as the Supreme Court have a better understanding and more respect for our Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon - a Bill Clinton appointee - in Lynchburg, Virginia, became the second judge to uphold the constitutionality of the insurance mandates of the new federal healthcare law.  The suit that was brought by Liberty University essentially argued that the mandate to buy insurance or to pay a penalty was not a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his opinion, Moon wrote, "there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market."

Under this rationale, everything we do or refuse to do under the sun can be regulated by the government using the Commerce Clause argument.  As anyone who has been following the legal twists of this saga knows, even the Obama administration had started to give up on the Commerce Clause argument due to its weakness and was starting to focus on the government's ability to tax as the enabling constitutional argument to defend the law.  Apparently, Judge Moon is so partisan that, as a legal scholar, he could not even see past the foolishness of using the Commerce Clause as the proper constitutional argument behind this legislation. 

This opinion is just the latest mockery of what our founding fathers would have envisioned our justice system to be.  Let's hope that the judges in subsequent cases as well as the Supreme Court have a better understanding and more respect for our Constitution.