Thirteen state attorneys general have filled a lawsuit claiming that the new healthcare reforms are unconstitutional. Is this a real legal challenge or a political stunt?
I hate to say it, but Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, nails it:
A great deal if not most of the legislation passed since the New Deal has been and remains unconstitutional — e.g., where in the Constitution does it say the government has the “right” to impose the forced savings called “Social Security”? — but that hasn’t stopped anyone. The Constitution is an archaic parchment trotted out on special occasions for ritualistic purposes, and then put back under glass and steadfastly ignored. Where in the Constitution does the President have the power to send tens of thousands of troops overseas in an undeclared war — and doesn’t that document say only Congress has the power to make war? Again, the Constitution is politely but firmly ignored.
So the answer to the question is: yes, healthcare “reform” making the purchase of insurance mandatory is indeed unconstitutional. The problem is that nobody cares about the Constitution — and if they started caring now, at this late date, they’d have to repeal most of the “social” legislation of the past seventy years.
But hey, it’s worth a shot. The Hill also included Cato scholar Ilya Shapiro’s answer.
