Constitutionally Speaking

I am a self-identified liberal and a self-identified Democrat.  For this reason, people make assumptions about my opinions on issues.  This is natural, but sometimes frustrating.  In the past couple of days, I've been reminded of the problems with this sort of "pigeon-holing."

If you're paying attention to the U.S. national news you know that the law dubbed "Obama-care" is before the Supreme Court.  One of the points at issue is whether or not the Federal Government can require its citizens to purchase health insurance.  One of the (many) arguments from its opposition, before it was even passed, was that this provision is "Unconstitutional."

So, yesterday or the day before, posts like this started appearing on Facebook:

So, here's my problem.  Sure, I support Health Care Reform.  I even support the "Obama-care" law.

BUT!

But I support the Constitution.  And support of the Constitution is more fundamental than support of any specific law.  In my opinion, one of the (many) excellent aspects of our particular form of democracy is the balance of power, and the reliance on a set of First Principles -- embodied in the Constitution. 

I don't know whether "Obama-care" is Unconstitutional or not.  Its opponents threatened to bring it to the Supreme Court, and as soon as it was passed, I said "Good; do that."

We need to know whether this law is a Constitutional way to attempt to accomplish one part of reforming a very complex health care system. 

So, it's frustrating that I see the Democrats trying to rally some sort of public outcry with the apparent attempt to influence the Court.  Now, of course, no Facebook message is actually going to affect the Court.  (Anyone think Justice Scalia is out there reading Facebook?)  And, if the Court operates as it should, the Court should not declare a law Constitutional unless it is, even if 90% of the nation disagreed.  [An amendment would be the way to go, then, but we aren't even close to a super-majority on this issue, so no such amendment would result in this case.]

Personally, I am happy about many parts of the law.  I don't know what happens if part of it is declared Unconstitutional.  I suspect some aspects of it w]could stay in force -- requiring insurers to allow children to be covered under a parent's policy until age 25, for example, is not a high-cost mandate tied directly to additional premiums, unlike the "pre-existing conditions" requirement -- but even if the whole law were discarded, it's important to understand that we need to keep the balance of government intact.  And part of that balance is the ability of the Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.