Both Eileen Ambrose ("Oppose health care act at your own risk," April 1) and Dan Rodricks ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3) miss the issue before the Supreme Court. The issue has nothing to do with the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act concerning health care, insurance, etc. The sole issue is the constitutionality of the mandate that requires each citizen to purchase insurance or pay a penalty thereby forcing each citizen to enter into a private contractual relationship with another.
The fact that the statute may provide needed benefits does not justify doing it in an unconstitutional manner. The unconstitutional mandate was not necessary. The necessary funds could have been raised through taxes. But even though the Democrats had substantial majorities in both the House and the Senate, they did not have the political will to adopt the necessary tax to finance the measure.
Mr. Rodricks should watch his language. If he disagrees with Justice Antonin Scalia's analogy he should call it "mistaken" or "inapplicable" or "irrelevant." Calling the analogy "dishonest" indicates the columnist practices sub-standard journalism motivated by passion rather than objectivity.
- An incomplete report on payments to doctors from drug companies [Letter]
- Why don't Dems question Md.'s flawed health exchange rollout?
- Obamacare is no failure [Letter]
- Obamacare cartoons [Pictures]
- Naked modeling
- The roll-out
See more photos »
- Barack Obama
- Health Care Reform (2009)
- U.S. Senate
See more topics »
Fearing that the Supreme Court will probably declare health care reform unconstitutional, Mr. Rodricks joins the chorus lead by President Barack Obama calling such a move "judicial activism," trashing the court and its justices and the manner in which they questioned the government's lawyers. President Obama shows how intellectually dishonest he is when he declares that if the Supreme Court overturns the law, it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
As a former law professor, the president full well knows that the Supreme Court has been doing this for 209 years and has done it with statutes passed by much greater majorities than those that supported health care reform.
Evan Alevizatos Chriss, Baltimore