By George F. Will
As the new political group No Labels convened in Manhattan, a judge was issuing a decision that illustrated why the group’s premise is preposterous and its pretense is cloying. The premise, obscured by gaseous rhetoric, is that political heat is inherently disproportionate. The complacent pretense is that it is virtuous to transcend the vice of partisanship.
No Labels purports to represent a supposedly disaffected middle of the ideological spectrum. Some No Labels enthusiasts speak of eliminating “political retribution,” presumably meaning voters defeating candidates with whose positions they disagree. No Labels promises to police the political speech of the intemperate.
That would not include the scrupulously measured ruling of Henry E. Hudson , a federal judge in Virginia. He says:
The Constitution’s commerce clause empowers Congress “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” If this clause permits Congress to punish the inactivity of not engaging in commerce - refusing to purchase health insurance - then Congress can regulate anything, making a mockery of the American project of limited government.
Eventually, the Supreme Court’s opinion about Obamacare will be dispositive. Meanwhile, consider Hudson’s judgment - that liberty and the crux of the Constitution are at issue - when examining the pieties of No Labels, which says its purpose is:
read more at The Washington Post
Related posts:
