Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues The Supreme Court and ObamaCare's Demise?

The 1918 Case That May Have Foreshadowed Obamacare's Demise

It took decades for Congress to address the problem. When, at long last, federal legislation was passed, some people raised constitutional objections, but few took them seriously. The objections required the Supreme Court to adopt unheard-of constitutional theories, hamstringing well-established powers on the basis of hysterical fears about a tyrannical federal government. Even the law’s opponents were surprised when the Court took those objections very seriously. Some warned that the Court was overreaching, and that its intervention would seriously hurt large numbers of innocent people, but the Court thought it was more important to rein in Congress.

You might assume I’m talking about health care reform. I’m not. I’m talking about child labor—and a 1918 decision by the Supreme Court that history has not looked kindly upon.

~~Snip~~

The parallels between the child labor issue and the health care issue are remarkable. In both cases, the legislation in question was the product of a decades-long struggle. Universal health care has famously been a goal of American liberals since Theodore Roosevelt proposed it in 1912.

~~Snip~~

What the Court actually accomplished in 1918 was to thwart democracy and consign large numbers of children to the textile mills for more than two decades. Health care is another context in which the fear of federal power creates a serious risk of ravaging the lives of large numbers of actual people. If the law is upheld, no one is going to be forced to buy broccoli. But if the law is struck down, large numbers of people will die of preventable or treatable diseases, or be bankrupted by medical expenses.

Please don't tell me that it doesn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican gets elected President. Had the SCOTUS allowed Florida to count its votes in 2000, there would be no Chief Justice Roberts or Associate Justice Alito. Instead, there would be a Supreme Court that would honor decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and precedent.

Please don't tell me that it doesn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican gets elected President.

Dunno, Chuck. The question that comes to mind for me...and I have to assume for everybody else: Is it humanly possible for a person to separate his or her political beliefs from his or her duties to interpret the law?

Thus far, my guess is...depends on the person, but probably not. Or maybe it's just a matter of degree?

When a SCOTUS decides to reign as a type of Congressional body, then obviously we've got problems with division of power. There will always be a majority of one political influence or another.

But how is possible to circumvent such actions by the Judaical Branch when clearly the law of the land states gives it the power to virtually act as both legislators and judicial members. The Supreme Court must interpret the legality of laws whenever there are conflicts surrounding laws - created by law making bodies - at all levels.

To me, it seems like the Supreme Court has always been somewhat of a shadow branch of government. Most people don't really pay attention to the process of the S.C. or how it's influenced by political philosophies, etc.

But it's activities and power are becoming more and more visible every day...well, at least to me.

Political influence or biases exist in the S.C.. It always has - regardless of the party in control. There's nothing to stop judicial activism whatever way the political leaning of the WH.

The test is essentially as follows: is the challenged legislation rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest? Under that test, it is not necessary that a particular justice actually "agrees" that the legislation is "proper"; it is only necessary that a rational argument could be made to support the legislation; essentially, if reasonable minds could disagree over the legislation, then it should pass the test.

And if the legislation is so outragous that it cannot be allowed to stand? Should they just bow to Congress' wishes because they have done so for the last 80 years or should they actually do their job and protect the Constitution?

Thanks for the link Ausrin R.,

That articles description of the similar propaganda then and now makes me think that the one thing that is missing today is FDR's 'nothing to fear but fear itself' observation.
It seems like then, as now, the oligarchs have shown the skills of invoking fear and herding the citizenry is their particular artistry. We see the arguments of Obama care made repeatedly and obstinately on fear of federal government overreach or the resulting demise of western medicine in the U.S.
We saw fear lead us into a war in the middle east. A bank giveaway that had no strings attached.
I'm starting to realize that the progress of a more civil society will not come from the elected but from a minority of courages people, such as it had for civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights, labor rights, etc.

I'm still puzzled over the motivation of people who would willingly lie about another nations healthcare or the 'death panels' we would surely see if Obama care ACA is implemented. But then Pinkerton and Pullman found no shortage of the types who would club women and children as well as the men striking for better wages or conditions from our nations past history. I see know difference today's actions to help deny people of humane health care availability.

The other, and perhaps most important, analogy is that the challengers to the law, ordinary folk who have been persuaded that they are fighting to preserve their liberties, are likely to be badly hurt if they win. They are frightened of federal power, but they really should be frightened of their “friends” who are trying to shake off government regulation.