Key arguments set on Washington takeover of your life

Mathew Staver

Key court arguments are scheduled tomorrow in Richmond, Va., on what critics have dubbed Obamacare, the president's signature law to take over the health care decision-making processes in the United States.

But the arguments before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will go far beyond the dispute over health care and its related issues of privacy, federal limits on treatment, an unaccountable panel imposing its payment rates on doctors and others.

Get the solutions offered by U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, in "Doctor in the House"

According to Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, the fight really is about just how much of your life can Washington simply take control of and dictate.

"This really is a major step toward centralized government," he told WND. "This is government by coercive power."

The appeals court will be hearing arguments in two cases. In the first, Liberty Counsel is arguing that the law's individual and employer mandates are unconstitutional. It was brought on behalf of Liberty University and several individuals.

In the second argument, the state of Virginia also will be arguing the law's unconstitutionality.

There also remain several additional cases that are advancing on the appellate court level at this point, including one in Florida where the judge ruled the law unconstitutional at the request of more than two dozen states.

Critics have argued that by expanding the definition of "interstate commerce" to include someone in his or her own home, not participating in any business transaction, there simply is nothing that the federal government could not do in pursuit of providing a "better" life.

For example, critics have said the government then could ban certain foods, or require consumers to buy others, ban certain vehicles or require consumers to buy those earning government approval. There even have been accusations that the government could restrict a person's purchases or activities based on a health profile that a person would be required to provide, in order to "protect" the person.

Liberty Counsel's case was the first private case filed as a federal lawsuit against the Obamacare law. It was filed March 23, 2010, the same day Obama signed the legislation that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said would have to be adopted "so that you can find out what's in it."

The Liberty Counsel arguments are the first to reach the appellate level.

Liberty University's challenge alleges both the individual and employer mandate are illegal. The second case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, alleges the individual mandate is illegal.

Under the law, consumers must purchase the health insurance mandated by the government or pay massive fines and penalties to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Employeers have mandates to provide certain levels of coverage – also all under the thumb of government bureaucrats who are scheduled to watch to make sure the government's demands are met.

Staver said the issue of health care is significant, but he said the Obamacare plan, which is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, moves far beyond what the Constitution allows.

The government's arguments cite the Commerce Clause, which allows regulation of "interstate commerce." Bureaucrats then defined someone sitting in his own living room, not making purchases or requiring services, to be part of the definition of "interstate commerce."

"This massive health insurance law goes beyond the outer limits of the Constitution. It is a big step toward a centralized government. … This case goes beyond health insurance and is more about the role of the federal government to control private decisions and burden the free enterprise system," Staver said.