Oral arguments began in the Supreme Court concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Monday. Arguably the most significant aspect of what the court will hear is whether Congress has the power under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to mandate individuals buy health insurance.

Thankfully, the mandate seemed to take a hit Tuesday, when many of the justices seemed doubtful of the government’s argument on the issue. But it is important to look at the principle and the potential effects the mandate has if it is upheld by the nation’s court of last resort.

If the court were to interpret the Constitution in the proper way, derived from the document’s original meaning, there would be little doubt of the lack of legitimacy of the government’s case in front of it.

Unfortunately, many of the current justices, who affect current court decisions through the principle of stare decisions, have taken a more evolutionary view of the governing document of our federal system. The view blurs the lines of the permissible and allows for an ever changing document.

Not only has Congress overstepped its bounds when it comes to the Constitution, it has also pushed aside the principle of a limited and enumerated federal government. For these reasons the implications of the mandate being upheld are catastrophic.

If Congress has the power to regulate nonparticipation by compelling commerce because nonparticipation has a negative effect on a certain market, anything can be mandated in a similar way. Congress would have taken unlimited power for itself, and it would have been vindicated by the court.

One of the most disturbing and remarkable aspects of the litigation up to this point is the government has not once been able to come up with a principle that would limit the power of Congress to impose economic mandates.

The mandate by Congress should be viewed skeptically because of the natural progression of federal power. The government’s argument before the court is that health care is a special industry that must be regulated in a nontraditional fashion.

This is not a principle that limits the power to mandate because other industries could be subsequently declared similarly different or special. One need not look past the creation of the income tax for an example. The income tax was sold to the American people as a tax only on the very rich. Over time the tax became much more encompassing and now applies to about half of working-age employees at a wide range of incomes.

Once Congress has the power to force the public into buying something, it will surely expand this to other areas. This is why the framers gave Congress only enumerated powers and stressed the federal government must be limited in size and scope.

The Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly be one of the most consequential in the last hundred years and possibly in the history of our republic. It will set the course for future congressional power and show the institutions deference to the constitution.

Going forward, one can take comfort in the fact the law is as constitutionally permissible as it is poor in essence. When it comes down to that, the act in general and the individual mandates more specifically are in serious trouble.

Patrick Mocete is a senior political science and policy studies major. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at pdmocete@syr.edu.  

Published on March 28, 2012 at 12:00 pm