Would the Founders Love Obama Care? I think not!!!

Would the Founders Love ObamaCare?
The resistance to ObamaCare is about a lot more than the 10th Amendment.

The left-wing critics are right: The rage is not about health care.
They are also right that similar complaints about big government were
heard during the New Deal and the Great Society, and the sky didn’t

But what if this time the sky is falling—on them.

What if after more than a century of growth in the national
government, starting with the Progressive Era, the American people are
starting to push back. Not just the tea partiers or the 13 state
attorneys general seeking protection under the 10th Amendment and the
Commerce Clause. But something bigger than that.

The Democratic left, its pundits and academics criticizing the legal
challenges to ObamaCare seem to be arguing that their version of our
political structure is too big to change.

That’s not true. The American people can and do change the nation’s
collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil
rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example. (The
idea that resistance to Mr. Obama’s health plan is rooted in racist
resentment of equal rights is beyond the pale, even by current
standards of political punditry.)

Powerful political forces suddenly seem to be in motion across the
U.S. What they have in common is anxiety over what government has
become in the first decade of the 21st century.

The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the
most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It
is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown’s overthrow of
the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey,
an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the
disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of
state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against
the new health-care law. What’s going on may be getting past the reach
of mere mockery.

Constitutional professors quoted in the press and across the Web
explain that much about the federal government’s modern authority is
“settled” law. Even so, many of these legal commentators are quite
close to arguing that the national government’s economic and political
powers are now limitless and unfettered. I wonder if Justice Kennedy
believes that.

Or as David Kopel asked on the Volokh Conspiracy blog: “Is the tax
power infinite?”

In a country that holds elections, that question is both legal and
political. The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court
and the electorate is whether Washington’s size and power has finally
grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what
lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment.

Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But
government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly
expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these
anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does
the Democratic left think the national government’s powers are

No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday
morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this
government’s actions the past year indicate they do. In his “Today
Show” interview this week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy
acknowledged there are “folks who have legitimate concerns . . . that
the federal government may be taking on too much.”

My reading of the American public is that they have moved past
“concerns.” Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and
the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to
pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone
terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New
York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.

The 10th Amendment tumult does not mean anyone is going to secede. It
doesn’t mean “nullification” is coming back. We are not going to
refight the Civil War or the Voting Rights Act. Richard Russell isn’t
rising from his Georgia grave.

It means that the current edition of the Democratic Party has
disconnected itself from the average American’s sense of political
modesty. The party’s members and theorists now defend expanding
government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive
Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.

In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing
direction. That time may be arriving.

Faced with corporate writedowns in response to the reality of
Congress’s new health plan, an apoplectic Congressman Henry Waxman
commanded his economic vassals to appear before him in Washington.

Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama
laughingly replied to these people: “Go for it.”

They will.

As to the condescension and sniffing left-wing elitism this opposition
seems to bring forth from Manhattan media castles, one must say it
does recall another, earlier ancien regime.

WSJ Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575156031760261858.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: