Supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care Act have spent more than two years battling in federal courts and for public opinion over the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate. But what's to happen come late June after the Supreme Court justices make their final ruling, then skip town for their summer recess, leaving the combatants to push forward or pick up the pieces?
In truth, things do not look good for either side. Should the federal government lose, national efforts toward universal health care will be set back to square one. The challengers will have it only slightly better. If they lose, they can still turn their attention to the ballot box in November, where they can try to elect a president and a congressional majority devoted to repealing President Barack Obama's signature health reform measure. But a repeal would not erase the fact that the most conservative Supreme Court in three-quarters of a century found no constitutional infirmity with Congress' most ambitious economic regulation in as many years.
In the final installment of a four-part video series, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal and libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett, both Georgetown law professors, take stock of the consequences of a loss for their respective sides. Katyal defended the Affordable Care Act in three federal appeals courts before entering private practice and returning to academia. Barnett was one of the architects of the constitutional challenge to the mandate and is now on the legal team for the private plaintiffs in the case.
Barnett himself has plenty at stake. In 2005, he challenged the federal government's power to prohibit a woman from cultivating marijuana for her personal, state-legalized medicinal use. The court ruled against him, Gonzales v. Raich, and used its decision to reaffirm Congress' very broad powers to regulate interstate commerce. The health care challenge, then, could be the last, best hope for Barnett and his cohort of libertarians now rising within the conservative legal world to deal a blow for a sharply limited federal government. He is so invested in winning that he told HuffPost that he has not even contemplated losing.
"People may say they haven't thought about things, I really haven't thought about that at all," Barnett said. " I think it would be very bad for the country if we don't prevail and very bad for the Constitution, and that's why I'm really only thinking about prevailing at this point."
Katyal, too, considered a loss in stark terms. "I do think that it would be a grave step for the court to strike down this act and remove health care and this solution from the national discourse in terms of what legislatures are able to do constitutionally," he said.
For Katyal, the issue comes down to the democratic benefits of judicial restraint. "Look if you don't like Obamacare, there's a very easy solution, which is to vote the president out of office," said Katyal.
"This isn't as Chief Justice Marshall said in a great opinion called McCulloch v. Maryland ... some sort of law that passed 'unsuspecting' in the night," noted Katyal, referring to the widely revered third chief justice who molded constitutional law in favor of strong federal power during his tenure from 1801 to 1835.
"This is something that all the eyes of the country were upon ... and in the end of the day the Congress voted for this act. For the court to come in now and undo that I do think would be a grave step," said Katyal.
Video produced by Sara Kenigsberg.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the 1819 Supreme Court decision McCulloch v. Maryland.
Ann O'Leary: Kids Should Be Part of This Adult Conversation
Health-Care Reform 2011 - Tracking the National Health-Care Debate
A Historic Moment for Health Care? - NYTimes.com
Supreme Court health care case tests old rule that federal funds come with ...
Health care debate shifts to Medicare panel
"Words matter. The most powerful words have helped launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history." - Frank Luntz, The Huffington Post, March 1, 2011
When you first read that quote from Republican propagandist Frank Luntz, it sounds high-minded - great Read More... words can lead great causes. What it belies, however, is that Luntz intentionally uses words to distort the truth and manipulate change.
He is the primary architect of the edifice of lies that stood against the healthcare and financial reforms sought by the Obama administration. Instead of engaging in an open dialogue about the merits of the obviously necessary reforms, the Republicans, protecting their benefactors in the insurance and financial industries, distorted the debate under the guidance of wordsmith Luntz. Health insurance reform became "a government takeover of healthcare." Financial institution reform became "taxpayer-funded bailouts."
I smell the odious work of Frank Luntz again this week. In the orchestrated outrage over the wholly-concocted charge that Obama is attacking religious freedom with birth-control requirements in the new Affordable Health Care for America Act (tarnished and tarred as ObamaCare), the Republicans are all parroting the phrase "government-granted rights", using it as a perjorative.
At this year's Conservative Political Action Committee convention, Republican presidential contender Rick S "Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don't come from the government, that they come for a much higher authority?"
He went on to say, “There are those in the Oval Office who believe that’s not the case, that rights do, in fact, come from the government, and they have gone around convincing the American people that they can give you rights. We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”
So, the message of the Right is that the government is trying to take away the people's God-given rights and has no authority to grant any further rights to its citizens. And that any rights the government does grant enslave the electorate. These are outrageous corruptions of the truth.
Indeed the Declaration of Independence starts with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." That's pretty clear - "certain unalienable rights."
But, the Republicans are ignoring the next line of that declaration, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" Ah, yes, the "consent of the governed."
Loading comments… 
Posted: 03/22/2012 7:54 am Updated: 03/22/2012 10:38 am