The Court Takes Center Stage

As a government teacher, among other subjects, there is nothing like discussing and analyzing Supreme Court decisions. For my students, it is a no brainer because the Court and its cases represent the most controversial issues of its day. How can that not grab their attention and bring them in? Last week, the Court heard The Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, et. al. and in doing so, stepped into one of the most contentious issues of the last decade. My students have opinions but they are their parents’ opinions. However, they are beginning to learn that they are not just watching a court case but a battle over the meaning and intent of our Constitution and our Founding Fathers.

As I’ve mentioned before, I give no hint to my political persuasion in front of my classroom but on this blog, I can flex my ideological muscles a bit. A few years ago, my school hosted some German students as part of a two week home exchange. This was around the time of the initial debate over what would be the Affordable Care Act, passed in the waning hours of 2009. These German students were sharp and very politically aware and since I was the history/government teacher, their teacher asked me to visit with the group to discuss the matter and explain the various sides of the issue. In particular, the teacher, who knew me and knew my attitudes, wanted her students to understand the opposition to the then-bill. Since they came from a country that accepts the notion of nationalized health care as a matter of course, they were confused about the objections.

When the Court heard arguments from the Solicitor General over the idea of the individual mandate, the justices were rather rapid-fire in their questions. The reason for so much attention to the idea that all Americans would be mandated to buy insurance is that it infringes upon a basic notion Americans have had since its inception. I told the German students that Americans have often defined freedom by the amount of choices they have. Throughout our history, we have balked at mandates, economic and otherwise. It dates back to the British mandating taxes, adherence to commerce restrictions and fealty to the Crown. I further explained that any time the government proposes taking choices from Americans, it has, as Justice Anthony Kennedy said last week, a heavy burden of justification. It is here where the law could meet its Waterloo.

When the Germans asked about those that cannot afford health care or insurance, I re-emphasized the point that programs exist for those individuals but these programs need a greater responsiveness by the government and more financial commitment. It was important that they understood that objection to the president’s plan did not equate to a heartlessness towards those who cannot afford health insurance, no matter the attempts, then and now, of the program’s supporters to propagate.

The president recently questioned the Court’s right to rule his plan unconstitutional and it does nothing to serve his cause. It also furthers the perception that he considers himself a bit above the process and the Constitution. The Constitution was not written to empower the federal government. It was written to limit the federal government. It is my assessment that the Affordable Care Act is, at least partially, unconstitutional. The Court will render its opinion by early June.