Shutterstock
The Supreme Court justices are in the process of deciding whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. Somehow, the decision should be simple. There is no justification in the Constitution for the federal government to be involved in nationalized health care.
At the same time, the government should not be involved with public education, or taking over car companies, or mortgage companies, or banks. For that matter, they should not be involved in energy production in Utah, or Montana, or Wyoming, or California, etc.
Russell Bender
Nephi
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- White House press corps has been turned into...
- George F. Will: Obama takes a page from...
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- In our opinion: Sharing ideas across schools...
- My view: Fighting the ignoble reign of money
- Letters: Bennett is right
- Letters: No welfare, ever
Get The Deseret News Everywhere
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- Letters: Move to the center
37 - Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 34
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus... 33
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an... 32
- Richard Davis: Abortion laws should... 29
- Letters: Dismantle IRS 25
- Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem... 21
- Letters: The buck stops here 21
By Russel's definition, wouldn't the Air Force be unconstitutional? I haven't read anything in the Constitution about airplanes or jets.
Thank you, Mr. Bender, for offering a cogent rationale for the constitutionality of the "individual mandate."
You noted public schools.
Why do we have compulsory education laws in this nation? Because it is clearly More..
Russel, if it's deemed interstate commerece it's constitutional, regardless of the activity. Welcome to the 21st century. Much of commerce today is interstate vs. the commerce of the 1800's therefore subject to national regulation. More..