The decision of Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia v. Sebelius is no bird of passage that will easily be pushed aside as the case winds its way up to its inevitable disposition in the United States Supreme Court. THE UNITED STATES GAVE THE CASE ITS BEST SHOT, AND IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT IT WILL COME UP WITH A NEW SET OF ARGUMENTS THAT WILL STRENGTHEN ITS HAND IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION.http://ricochet.com/main-feed/ObamaCare-is-Now-on-the-Ropes
The key successful move for Virginia was that it found a way to sidestep the well known 1942 decision of the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, which held in effect that the power to regulate commerce among the several states extended to decisions of farmers to feed their own grain to their own cows. Wickard does not pass the laugh test if the issue is whether it bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design. It was put into place for the rather ignoble purpose of making sure that the federally sponsored cartel arrangements for agriculture could be properly administered.
At this point, no District Court judge dare turn his back on the ignoble and unprincipled decision in Wickard. But Virginia did not ask for radical therapy. IT RATHER INSISTED THAT “ALL” WICKARD STANDS FOR IS THE PROPOSITION THAT IF A FARMER DECIDES TO GROW WHEAT, HE CANNOT FEED IT TO HIS OWN COWS IF A LAW OF CONGRESS SAYS OTHERWISE. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE FARMER MUST GROW WHEAT IN ORDER THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO REGULATE.
It is just that line that controls this case. The opponents of the individual mandate say that they do not have to purchase insurance against their will. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE HOW PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET, BUT IT CANNOT MAKE THEM PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET. For if it could be done in this case it could be done in all others.
This will help you understand the decision.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
AT THEIR BEST, THE ORIGINAL PROGRESSIVES RESPONDED TO DRAMATIC SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC UPHEAVALS GENERATED BY THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. THEY TOOK THE SIDE OF THE EXPLOITED, THE WEAK, AND THE WRONGED. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence’s and the Constitution’s original promise of freedom and equality for all.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century.
But progressivism went astray owing to a defect in its basic orientation. IT REJECTED THE SOUND PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE OF A CRITICAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT HUMAN NATURE. Progressives believed that great improvements in the moral character of humanity and in the scientific understanding of society had rendered the Constitution’s scheme of checks and balances — or better its separation, balancing, and blending of power — unnecessary to prevent majority tyranny and the abuse of power by officeholders. Whereas the makers of the American Constitution believed that the imperfections of human nature and the tendency of people to develop competing interests and aims were permanent features of moral and political life, progressives insisted that PROGRESS ALLOWED HUMAN BEINGS, OR AT LEAST THE MOST TALENTED AND BEST EDUCATED HUMAN BEINGS, TO RISE ABOVE THESE LIMITATIONS AND CONVERGE IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS TRUE AND RIGHT.
Progressivism basically ends up with a group of elitist telling themselves and others that they know better than everyone else. From Michelle Obama declaring “WE CAN’T JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE PARENTS.” To Barack Obama saying “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, THEY CLING TO GUNS OR RELIGION OR ANTIPATHY TO PEOPLE WHO AREN’T LIKE THEM,” to Rahm Emmanuel declaring “Never let a crisis go to waste,” you have a political movement that is the antithesis of what they declare themselves to be concealing ITS DEVOTION TO TOP-DOWN GOVERNMENT IN BOTTOM-UP RHETORIC.