By Matt Laslo
Northern California is represented by two respected legal
minds and the two lawmakers couldn't disagree more on how the
Supreme Court ought to rule on the constitutionality of the health
care law. Let's start with Gold River Republican Congressman Dan
Lungren. The former attorney general of California says the court
ought to deal with the basic question of congressional
power.
LUNGREN: "My hope is that they will focus on the
question of the limitations of government reach contained in the
Constitution in a foundational way and if they do I'm confident
that they will rule in the direction that I would hope they
will."
Lungren and other Republicans say the government has the power
to regulate commerce - power granted under the Constitution's
Commerce Clause. But they say it's an overreach for the government
to force people into a monetary transaction, such as the mandate to
purchase health insurance. Lungren says the individual mandate is a
slippery slope.
LUNGREN: "If in fact they find that there is this ability
under the Commerce Clause then there are absolutely no limitations
whatsoever so it's a fundamental question that they have to
approach."
Democrats disagree. Four term U-S Senator Dianne Feinstein is
the third highest ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. She
says the foundation of the law is a belief that every American has
an innate right to medicine and treatments.
FEINSTEIN: "The point that health care is a basic right
then everybody is entitled to it."
When the health care law was being crafted in the back rooms
of the Capitol party leaders decided not to include a government
run insurance program…or public option… as a part of the package.
But Democrats argued that without the public option the only way to
move towards universal coverage was to include the individual
mandate. Feinstein says if the court invalidates that mandate, the
rest of law unravels like a cheap sweater.
FEINSTEIN: "It's clear to me that the whole plan only
becomes viable with an individual mandate. You can't cut the cost
without an individual mandate."
Fairfield Democrat John Garamendi argues that because health
care makes up about one fifth of the U-S economy the court should
rule that it fits under Congress' power to regulate commerce.
GARAMNEDI: "We think we have a strong argument under the
Commerce Clause as a result of this is national, these issues move
across state lines, and health care is not just a local issue it is
a national issue."
Then there's the matter of the politics of the law and the
court. Democrats disagree with what they say are recent politicized
court decisions. And Republicans have been using the president's
signature legislative accomplishment to unravel his support. While
talk of "repeal" makes good campaign rhetoric it's much harder for
the G-O-P to carry through with it in Washington. That's why the
party has so much riding on the Supreme Court case. But Chico
Republican Wally Herger says even if the court upholds the law his
party isn't letting up.
HERGER2 "Oh, it's not our last stand. No we'll keep going.
I mean this is very unpopular; this is very harmful to healthcare.
We're not going to stop until we have it completely
repealed."
Congress will be dealing with other issues this week, but
every lawmaker will have one eye across the street on the majestic
pillars of the Court. And as opinionated as politicians may be, few
are willing to venture a guess as to how the court will rule.