This article discusses our government's modern basis for support of Obama-Care by looking back at the 1942 ruling on Wickard vs. Fulburn. In this case, Filburn sued the federal government for punishing him with a penalty for every extra bushel of wheat he grew on his own property. He took this case all the way to the Supreme Court; however, the court ruled that he Federal government has the right to regulate state and interstate commerce via the Commerce Clause. Present-day supporters of the new health care plan say that the Filburn decision shows how much leeway the federal government has under the Commerce clause. Thereby, leading supporters to say that if one can be penalized for their crops, they can be penalized for not going out and purchasing health care. Opponents of the new health care bill passed by President Obama feel that the ruling set the true limit of power of the federal government, and that controlling health care is constitutionally out of their reach. Even Mr. Filburn was reported saying in 1942 how much power the government was granted after the ruling. Despite the major controversy around this ruling over 60 years ago, there is still no legal definition or limit to the powers of the Federal government. This case purely proves that there needs to be a clear understanding of where the powers of government lie, and what they are exactly. This leads to the question, where does government's power lie? and with whom?
For article, click here.
--Sean Ramras