Land of the free, home of the brave.

Another legal challenge against the mandatory prong of Obama's healthcare reform law. David Kopel:

In the complaint, the material about the interstate commerce power and the tax power is fairly standard. What makes the lawsuit significant is a well-developed argument (subject, of course, to the caveat that a complaint is not a brief) on medical privacy issues. Primarily, that the compelled disclosure to insurance corporations and insurance agents of private medical information (as well as urine or DNA samples and so on) is a violation of Fifth Amendment liberty, and of the constitutional right of privacy. Further, coercing individuals to associate with insurance companies and insurance agencies is a violation of the right of association, a right derivative of the First Amendment, but, as developed in later case law, not at all limited to classic First Amendment associations such as political or expressive organizations.

No matter the strategic overreach of the Commerce Clause in precedent to "fix" America's regional social differences, I suspect the Court will in no way choose to expand even the federal government's role. Presumably we've learned from the abortion struggles and ... reduction in services, that it might have been best to proceed on a state-by-state basis. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you have a "right" and no access, or the "rights" are morally determined by the local people. Some states = no abortions.

Ditto the most important social science experiment in American history: what if, instead of looking out for the self-esteem levels of the little black girls who preferred a white dolly to play with, we had experimented state by state, or even school district by school district, to determine what policies would best genuinely educate and bring the opportunities of education to all? Would we have a better educated populace? Would children of all races and ethnicities have a chance -- if they so valued it -- to receive a top quality public education? Would we have proud black neighborhood schools with parental and community involvement, along with specialized magnets, open enrollment, and other offerings?

Would the variety of our choices on the ground be different, if the standards and mandates were not federally dictated? Maybe.

Perhaps the parents of a disabled child might respond differently, but I'm confident that if the will to help your child succeed is there, people can move mountains. It's just a shame to take the resources needed to obliterate a mountain, and then later find out nobody was much interested in a pass there anyway.

Even with an unconstitutional health insurance mandate, the system is sick and will need reform -- or better yet, overhaul. We haven't addressed the spiralling costs of care, we're just punishing those who have up-to-now refused to toss their coin into the game. For the sake of a healthy society, give those individuals the option to opt out: if ever we needed the power of dissenting Americans to show us alternatives to the Big Business way of educating our children, taking care of our sick and elderly, preparing our foods and preserving our ways of life ... the time is now.

And if Big Business way fails in the end, despite the numbers, for heaven's sake let them die a dignified death, without requiring taxpayers to pump in emergency funds until the next winning stock bubble and round of bonuses is established to get them back on the fast track agin. Let people gamble, sure, but don't force us all to pay for the consequences. How will people learn from their actions? Or what will they learn?

We're just beginning to learn the consequences of man-made actions with no checks by nature. For heaven's sake, don't protect us from that.