This week the Supreme Court started its landmark 3 days of hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, in order to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate included in the bill. Many have argued that the constitutionality of the law hinges on whether or not the commerce clause allows Congress sufficient authority to mandate that people must purchase health insurance, others would say that the mandate is protected under necessary and proper. Protesters line the steps of the court house on both sides of the issue while inside the court the same ideological battle rages while testimony is given. Most Americans seem to have an opinion on the issue of whether or not the bill should stay, and whether or not it is constitutional, but I feel that my opinion differs somewhat from the normal view: who cares?
Let me clarify: I don't think the constitutionality of this bill is important within the scope of the discussion. I don't think that this is the appropriate time for partisan politics and legal semantics, and make no mistake, that's exactly what this is. Claiming that the bill is unconstitutional is an incredibly easy way to frame the debate beneficially to opponents of the ACA, nothing more. The question we should be asking ourselves now is whether or not we are willing to sacrifice the potential health and well being of 30 million Americans because of some misplaced, self inflicted duty to uphold a 225 year old document written by men who could not possible conceive nor comprehend the moral and ethical dilemmas of the 21st century. To be clear, I do understand the importance and value of a strong constitution, and a founding document helps build a cohesive political identity which is important for any representative democracy, but at what point does that cross the line into absurdity? Should I really have to make an argument to demonstrate the dangers of moral absolutes? I, and I hope there are other Americans like me, don't feel that what is constitutional is always necessarily right, nor is it always just. The document's drafters new this when they wrote it, hence the vague language and provisions offering differing interpretations. My point is, enough is enough.
Constitutionality is not always the benchmark of morality. The constitution is not the moral arbiter of the entire nation, nor should we ever view it that way. While it provides an adequate framework to guide our proceedings, in this instance, it is leading us astray, and being used by partisan forces in ways that were never intended for it. What we as a people need to do is take responsibility for an unfair system we have created, in which those who cannot afford health insurance become second class citizens to those who can afford it. How is it acceptable that being forced the purchase health insurance sparks a national outrage, yet the people who die every day from a lack of insurance and adequate care go unnoticed? It's time to do whats right, in spite of the buzz words like socialism, and death panels, in spite of partisan games in a congress with one of the lowest approval ratings of all time, and in spite of those who have insurance, but feel no compassion to help their fellow man.
