Click here to subscribe to The Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends,

This week the Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments in a legal case. That case, of course, is President Obama’s health care legislation.

The Obama plan is fraught with problems. It requires, under penalty of law, every American to hold health insurance. This is a mandate - a command - unparalleled in U.S. history. As Justice Kennedy noted in his comments, if implemented the Obama health law “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

The Director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, constitutional scholar Ken Klukowski, JD, has been in the Court to listen to the arguments. You can read his analyses here. It was Ken who first raised the issue of the mandate’s inherent relationship with every other facet of the Obama health law in litigation he submitted for FRC last year (the issue of severability), and which is now regarded as central to the case by both proponents and opponents of Obamacare (read Ken’s legal brief here).

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote that during yesterday’s hearing, Justice Ginsburg, no friend of conservatives, stated that “taxes are designed to raise revenues, but penalties” - fines for not having insurance, or providing it if you are an employer - “are to compel behavior, and if the penalty works perfectly (i.e., everyone buys health insurance), the penalty will raise no revenue at all” In other words, contrary to the President’s argument, the taxing power included in the U.S. Constitution is not the same as the power to impose a penalty for not participating in a commercial exercise (go to www.cuccinelli.com to listen to an audio of the AG’s remarks).

On Tuesday evening of this week, FRC Action held a webcast titled, “On Trial: Freedom vs. Government Healthcare.” Hosted by FRC Action President Tony Perkins, the forum included Members of Congress, leading medical experts, Ken Klukowski, and AG Cuccinelli, and offered first-hand insight into the Court’s deliberations.

What’s at stake is whether or not Uncle Sam can command us to do its bidding in any area of public or private life - it comes down to that. That stake is sufficiently high to drive all of us low - to our knees, to be specific.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice-President

Family Research Council


Educational Freedom and Reform

Homeschooling

Legislation and Policy Proposals

Government Reform

Regulation

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

Health Care

Abstinence

Conscience Protection

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

Homosexuality

Human Life and Bioethics

Abortion

Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research

To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

Human Trafficking

Women’s Health

Marriage and Family

Adoption

Family Economics

Family Structure

Media

Pornography

Internet

Religion and Public Policy

Religious Liberty

Religion in America

Secularism

International

Israel

International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts

Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews