Health-care reform and the courts

Tuesday, February 8, 2011; 8:16 PM

Matt Miller ["The GOP's Obamacare boomerang," op-ed, Feb. 3] suggested that opponents of the health-care mandate are shortsighted, because a judicial ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional might lead to an expansion of Medicare. But perhaps these opponents simply recognize that personal policy preferences are irrelevant to the question of the mandate's constitutionality.

The Constitution was designed to prevent the kind of runaway government we have today. Legislative and executive overreaching and judicial abdication have transformed the Constitution from a charter of liberty into a source of virtually limitless government power.

Now Congress asserts the far-reaching power to force Americans to enter into private contracts. It is not our courts' job to decide whether this action preserves the role of the private sector in health care. Rather, the role of a properly engaged judiciary is to enforce the limits on government power enshrined in our Constitution.

Paul Sherman, Arlington

The writer is a lawyer with the Institute for Justice.

Post a Comment

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2011 The Washington Post Company