The Health Care Law, Wickard v. Filburn and Personal Liberty

The Devil always seems to be in the details.  But sometimes the Devil telegraphs his punch.  There is, in the language of poker players, a, “tell.”  We know what he is thinking because of how he holds his cards, or lowers his eyes, or hunches his shoulders.  Well, an intelligent person would (and apparently did) pick up the long range dangers inherent in the 1943 Supreme Court decision Wickard v. Filburn.  The decision, a precedent for the scope of Federal power, told an Ohio wheat farmer that he could not grow unlimited amounts of wheat on his farm and would be fined for each extra bushel. 

            Let’s boil this down to its basic parts.  A man owns his own land, pays for it with his own money, works it with his own effort, grows a legal crop, and is told by the government that he has a limit on how much he can produce because his work affects the cost of the product nationally.  A good farmer is punished so poor farmers can prosper.  Now government intervention is totally unnecessary.  The market place regulates all of this in a way that causes farmers, good and bad, to make decisions about their crops.  The Chicago Board of Trade offers the agricultural industry a venue to guard against the vagaries of production.  But, no, the Federal government periodically goes through a paroxysm of Big Brother control—sure that anyone working inside the Beltway is given divine knowledge of what is right.

            Trust me, the thought of our current crop of legislators acting like some latter day Oracles or Vestal Virgins, moving truth from God’s mouth to our ear, stretches the wildest imagination far beyond its limits.  But we now have the Democratic administration ready to use this case, Wickard v. Filburn, as the lynch pin for their mandated Health Care Law.  [By the way, I would like to humbly lobby at this point for the end of the term, “Obamacare.”  This is the work of the socially liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  They have wanted government health control for decades, tried it many times, and are simply using their pliant servant, President Obama, as their current tool of choice.  If you check the DNA, the paternity of this baby lies squarely in the Democratic Party.]   According to current thinking, if the government can tell farmers what not to grow, or be fined, they can tell everyone what to buy, or be fined. 

            Mr. Filburn, in filing suit to be able to grow his own wheat on his own land, said that this law would nullify Constitutional limits and move the country toward centralized government.  Mr. Filburn was a smart cookie.  He looked beyond his immediate problem toward its inevitable conclusion. 

I have many friends who are quilters.  They produce beautiful and unique works of art.  According to the logic of Wickard v. Filburn the government could limit the number of quilts made because it impacts the price of quilts imported from Mexico through NAFTA agreements. 

The point being, the original Supreme Court ruling was invasive and wrong.  We are stuck with it, but we certainly should not use one bad idea to perpetuate another.  I do believe we need good quality health care in this country for all of our citizens.  I believe in preventive care, and reward for healthy lifestyles.  I even believe in low cost birth control (let’s face it, the people who need it most are not going to be inclined to practice abstinence).   But the current law is not going to get us there. 

            Listen to Ohio wheat farmers, and keep the faith.