The Obamacare Mandate and the New "Dred Scott" Ruling

by Will

Will Grigg?s Liberty Minute

June 29, 2012

Defenders of the Obamacare individual mandate insist that health insurance is like mandatory car insurance: Since drivers are compelled to purchase liability insurance, why shouldn?t government force us to buy officially approved health insurance as well?

This talking point is a bit like saying that because a rose smells better than a cabbage it will also make better soup. Leaving aside the fact that no government has the legitimate authority to compel us to buy anything for any reason, it must be acknowledged that millions of people don?t buy insurance because they don't own cars.

Each of us owns him or herself, but the Regime, in presuming to compel us to participate in Obamacare, is exercising a proprietary claim over each of us. In upholding the mandate, Chief Justice John Roberts is essentially playing the same role played by Roger Taney, the Chief Justice who wrote the notorious Dred Scott ruling.  Those who insist that the Obamacare ruling is the "law of the land" are the direct intellectual descendants of those who said that Dred Scott settled the question of whether it was "constitutional" for one human being to own another.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

No feedback yet