Of the People, By the People, For the People

The daily polls seemed pretty clear last summer. They were consistently against the proposals of Obamacare. The preponderance of citizens opposed to the bloated bill grew on a weekly basis and the more it was discussed the more we disliked it.

That doesn't mean the law was wrong or that it would be improper for honest and righteous legislators to act contrary to the popular will. A truly dedicated representative would willingly vote against the public clamor if he knew and understood that he was acting in the public interest and he would be able to return to his constituents and clearly explain to them the justification for his actions and the errors of their opposition. That's why representative government is supposed to be superior to direct democracy.

But the federal system our forefathers designed was expressly to be limited. It was not without boundaries. There was a clear division regarding what the national level could do and what the states would reserve to themselves. There are excellent reasons why the system was designed that way.

As we ease within 30 days of the election we see a conspicuous absence of legislators willing to stand up and take responsibility for that healthcare bill so many Americans opposed. Almost every day there is a new revelation of cost escalation or coverage degradation that proves our worst fears are going to be realized. We were right and they are unable to prove us wrong. They now seek to disavow their responsibility for the bill. They distance themselves and dissimulate about their involvement. It isn't their fault. They can't justify their support and they don't want to talk about it.

State legislatures and governors and attorney generals, however, are looking at hard numbers. They have to deal with paying the bills and most states demand that the budget not be in deficit. Mandated federal healthcare is going to be costly and the states are trying to preserve their viability financially.

Voters Offered Chance to Opt Out

These results aren't public opinion polls. They are going to be actual elections with the voters making the choice. This isn't 1000 registered voters polled with a margin of error of 5% and 93% reliability. It is citizens telling their government their choice.

Tossing out the supremacy clause as evidence that the results won't matter is an act of desperation. The Tenth Amendment hasn't been exercised much lately, but it is increasingly being dredged up as the federal government becomes more aggressive in seizing authority in areas far afield from the enumerated powers. The essential question of whether you can be forced to buy a product from either the government or a private vendor against your will is a pretty tough one to deny.