Just about everybody knows the Lee Greenwood song, Proud To Be An American. The refrain's lyrics say this: "And I’m proud to be an American,/where at least I know I’m free...."
Well, if "freedom" now means that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States (or, rather, Congress's right to tax us apparently with no limits) can be interpreted to mean that the Federal Government has the right to force individual Americans to purchase a consumer product (or face a heavy, heavy tax for failing to do so), then we're still free, and can still be proud. Otherwise? Not so much.
What do you think our founding fathers would have thought of the idea that freedom means being forced to buy something (or face a huge tax as a consequence of failure to do so)? Oh, I know the argument: health insurance isn't just "something." It's not a normal consumer product, like toothpaste or ice cream, but a super-duper special consumer product that only works if everybody has to buy it. Kind of like when the Mob wants every small business on a block or street to buy "protection;" protection's not guaranteed so long as the Vietnamese noodle shop in the middle of the block refuses to pay. It's all or nothing.
In his famous Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:
...It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.Mr. Lincoln, government of the people, by the people, for the people did not go out with a bang in a battle of that Civil War--it went out with a whimper in the wretched chambers of the Supreme Court, still reeking and putrid with the blood of fifty million dead American children who perished at the hands of pusillanimous and craven judges, the fitting predecessors of today's ignoble body. Not only does Obamacare make us all accomplices in similar murders yet to come, but it solidifies the principle that America has become and will forever be a government of the Ruling Class, by the Ruling Class, and for the Ruling Class--because it was the Ruling Class, alarmed that their stock options were being dragged downward by health care costs, who went to their lackeys in the government and demanded that a way be found to force middle-class and working Americans to pay for the care of those who cannot or will not pay for themselves, lest the billionaires and multimillionaires be forced to forego some of their exquisite pleasures and pay a tad more to help the poor, whose jobs they have colluded in sending to China.
No, I'm not proud to be an American today. Who can be proud of serfdom? Is there any other name suitable to give a system in which we must bend in one direction to let the government rifle through our wallets (oh, but it's just taxation, and we even have representation to show for it!) and then the other to pay more at the doctor's office for care we've been paying for all along?
And as a Catholic American, I'm worried. If the interstate commerce clause (sorry; taxing authority of Congress) gives the Feds the right to force us to pay for things, then I have an uneasy feeling this Court will decide that the principle of religious freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights only means that the State should be free of religious people and their bothersome consciences, and order--in the name of religious liberty, of course--the Catholic Church to pay for the hellish birth control the Ruling Class wants the masses to take, lest they grow too much in size to be manageable.
Let's face it. Expecting the Supreme Court of the United States of America to rule on principles backed by the Constitution is a vain hope in an era where decisions like this one are clearly drawn from ideas emanating from the penumbras of the Court's collective posteriors.
UPDATE: Just to clarify, yes, I realize that the Court pretended that the commerce clause had nothing to do with this and that it's Congress's power to tax that makes this thing legal. However, since that argument means that Congress apparently has the power to tax economic inactivity, that is, the failure to purchase something, I fail to see how commerce is not involved.
UPDATE 2: To make it even clearer, I'm amending the original post, with amendments in red so latecomers can see them.