We are now less than 2 weeks away from opening arguments in the United States Supreme Court regarding Obamacare. The Court will take up the case starting on March 26^th and hear arguments through March 28^th.

On March 26^th, the arguments will center around something very odd, unless of course, you keep an eye on liberals.

March 26^th will be a stall tactic by the Obama administration. They will argue that it’s not applicable for the High Court to even hear the case until AFTER the individual mandate kicks in. That, of course, would be 2014. By then, nearly any vestiges of private healthcare would have been laid waste making a return to private healthcare nearly impossible – and IF possible, extremely costly.

The other and possibly more veiled reason for this stall tactic would be the possibility of a new Supreme Court nomination by a reelected Barack Obama.

Either way you look at it, the delay or stall move is one of desperation on behalf of liberals and the Obama administration.

On March 28^th, the arguments are again scheduled to revolve around the expansion of Medicaid and its constitutionality and also around the question of whether or not Obamacare as a whole can stand should the individual mandate be struck from it.

The bulk of the case will be heard on March 27^th. On that day, the idea that the government can mandate what We The People buy, as goods or services, will be challenged by the 26 Attorneys General who have filed suit against the Obama administration.

This part of the Obamacare case will directly involve the Commerce Clause.

The Obama administration will argue that the government does have the power to mandate the purchase of goods or services under the commerce clause of the Constitution and will no doubt cite several Supreme Court cases which took place between 1937 and 1942.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, U.S. v. Darby, and Wickard v. Filburn will likely comprise the bulk of the Obama administration case. These 3 cases radically altered the original intent of the framers and the Commerce Clause and were all the result of The New Deal, which broke new ground in socialist intrusion into the private lives and businesses of the people.

Of the 3 cases, Wickard v. Filburn will most likely be the Obama administration’s lynchpin.

In THAT case, the Supreme Court found that entities engaged in commerce among the several states when they fed their own wheat to their own cows because these activities in combination had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. In reality, they were NOT a part of it but, that’s how THAT Supreme Court saw things and ruled as such.

From THIS, the Obama administration will claim that the government DOES have the right to mandate commerce.

The Attorneys General who have filed suit AGAINST the Obama administration will most likely point to several United States Supreme Court rulings BEFORE that 1937-1945 time span as evidence that the framers and original intent of the Commerce Clause was a far different matter.

Primary among the cases which will be cited by the 26 Attorneys General is Gibbons v. Ogden in 1924.

THAT case dealt with…STEAMBOATS and whether or not the operators of two steamboats between New Jersey and New York, would have to respect and hold to an exclusive franchise originally given to Robert Fulton and Robert Livingstone (and later assigned to Ogden) to operate those steamboats in New York state waters.

Chief Justice John Marshall’s Supreme Court found that, “State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress.”

Another case likely to be cited by the Attorneys General is, Hammer v. Dagenhart, which, in 1918, found that, Congress was barred from prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made in factories that did not conform to the federal minimum age standard for child labor. Once again, it was clear that Congress could not use its power over interstate commerce to control activities that were reserved to the states under the original constitutional scheme. Since, moreover, direct regulation was off-limits to the federal government, so too was taxation. In 1922, the Child Labor Tax cases held that Congress could not seek to pressure the states by taxing all goods made with child labor that were shipped in interstate commerce. The basic constitutional structure held firm.

This is quite important as the Obama administration WILL claim, despite their initial denials, that Obamacare IS a tax and therefore, is constitutional.

Case law is one thing and take my word for it, trying to gain a full understanding of THIS case by reading through all the cases which may be used by both sides of the argument WILL leave your head spinning.

There is, of course, an easier to understand practical side to this Obamacare case.

What Obama wants, goes beyond the federal government’s constitutional right to regulate commerce which by any definition, is activity. Obama wants the federal government to be allowed to regulate INactivity and to do so, they must make the case either that the Commerce Clause provides that right outright or, that the Commerce Clause can be expanded to include that right.

Should the Supreme Court UPHOLD the Individual Mandate, i.e. Obamacare, they WOULD be expanding the Commerce Clause to such an extent that the federal government COULD require ANY citizen to purchase a good or service…ANY good or service, regardless of the individual citizen’s desire to HAVE or utilize that good or service.

Essentially, this means that an administration, ANY administration could mandate that YOU purchase ANYTHING that administration deems necessary for whatever reason that administration chooses.

YOU may well NOT want to own a Chevy Volt but, an administration could MANDATE that you purchase one and you would have no choice in the matter. YOU may well NOT want plant a garden in YOUR back yard but, if an administration MANDATES it, you WOULD have to plant said garden.

YOU may well NOT wish to buy red wine, or visit Gettysburg or use contraception…yes…Use contraception however, if an administration MANDATES it, you WOULD be drinking red wine, visiting Gettysburg and yes…USING contraception.

Are these examples wild hairs or extreme? No, not really. The issue at hand is the opening of floodgates from which there would be no return.

The other practical matter which cannot be ignored, is the Constitution itself. In essence, what we are talking about here is not the proper use of or expansion of the Commerce Clause, it is, in fact, the virtual elimination OF it should the Supreme Court uphold the individual mandate.

This would add to the list of various parts of the Constitution laid waste by Obama and this administration. Advice and consent of Congress, a president who unilaterally decides what laws will and will not be defended, freedom of speech being just some of those essential and foundational elements of the Constitution already done away with in the last 3 years.

While the very case laws which are most apt to be cited BY the Obama administration to uphold Obamacare are those brought about by the greatest expansion of socialism in our history, the New Deal, it should come as little surprise that Obamacare would effectively expand socialism as an ideology foisted upon We The People to an extent never before experienced.

Obamacare IS the natural progression of progressives toward a socialist nation which would have little use for, or nary a need of, the Constitution upon which this nation was built.