Both Eileen Ambrose ("Oppose health care act at your own risk," April 1) and Dan Rodricks ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3) miss the issue before the Supreme Court. The issue has nothing to do with the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act concerning health care, insurance, etc. The sole issue is the constitutionality of the mandate that requires each citizen to purchase insurance or pay a penalty thereby forcing each citizen to enter into a private contractual relationship with another.
The fact that the statute may provide needed benefits does not justify doing it in an unconstitutional manner. The unconstitutional mandate was not necessary. The necessary funds could have been raised through taxes. But even though the
Mr. Rodricks should watch his language. If he disagrees with Justice
Fearing that the Supreme Court will probably declare
As a former law professor, the president full well knows that the Supreme Court has been doing this for 209 years and has done it with statutes passed by much greater majorities than those that supported health care reform.