The response Justice Kennedy gave to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. in the healthcare case caught my attention: 1 GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, 2 Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I 3 read the Court's cases is that the way in which you 4 ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere 5 and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is 6 by policing the boundary: Is the national government 7 regulating economic activity with a substantial effect 8 on interstate commerce? 9 JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason 10 this is concerning, is because it requires the 11 individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of 12 torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't 13 have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in 14 danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and 15 you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation 16 between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms 17 of that rule, but that's generally the rule. 18 And here the government is saying that the 19 Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual 20 citizen that it must act, and that is different from 21 what we have in previous cases and that changes the 22 relationship of the Federal Government to the individual 23 in the very fundamental way. Transcript: Health care Supreme Court arguments, Tuesday Part 1 - POLITICO.com To me, Justice Kennedy went right to the heart of the matter: The criticisms in question have no moral foundation. They are political, and they originate with the very people trying to legislate love for financial gain. Even if you concede that the criticisms are moral you cannot avoid the question Why your morality and not mine? The answer to the question is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . Every law that incorporates the morality of one individual over another is a violation of the First Amendment. Never forget that there is no law preventing anyone from stopping a blind man from getting hit by a car. For all practical purposes the Affordable Care Act is the only law that says you must intervene. For all of the things Socialists did to this country in the last century they realize they did not go far enough. The missing component was the governments authority to order Americans to purchase goods and services. It is that revelation, codified in HillaryCare II, that put Socialist morality on a collision course with the American people. Throughout socialisms long, sorry, life in America the Socialist priesthood failed to turn socialism and capitalism into one governing entity. Nevertheless, socialism in America will not be destroyed in one fell swoop. The best thing that can happen to this country right now is to see that HillaryCare II fails right along with the rest of socialisms failures. I would also point out that my morality has served the country well for more than two centuries, while legislating love is tearing the country apart. Bottom line: Should Supreme Court justices let the Affordable Care Act stand they will be making a moral judgement. Should the Court overturn the healthcare law it will reject the Socialist position expressed by Stanford University Law School professor David Freeman Engstrom: Alaska joins states' suit against federal health care overhaul: Health | Alaska news at adn.com Inactivity Regulating inactivity is at the core of socialisms governing philosophy; i.e., tell people what they must do rather than what they must not do. Socialism can only survive by prohibiting inactivity. Obviously, forcing activity is the only way to prohibit inactivity. Some might go so far as to call it slave labor. Good Samaritan laws Communists are all afflicted with a Messianic complex. They all have a perverted Good Samaritan complex as well if there is such a thing. I say perverted because the Good Samaritan in the Bible took care of the stranger that came into his life; Communist Good Samaritans wear the title while everyone else does the work. Good Samaritan laws also hand the government the authority to tell Americans what they must do even though such laws have nothing to do with Professor Engstroms economic inactivity. Good Samaritan laws are few and far between, but they do highlight the philosophical foundation the government is building upon with HillaryCare II. The worst part of Good Samaritan laws is that they are an extension of coerced charity. When the government can punish you for not supporting strangers it is only a baby step shy of forcing you to support the welfare state with your hard earned money. After all is said and done the healthcare reform bill is a Good Samaritan law that will enrich a very few with the forced labors of the many. Finally, an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the government from forcing Americans to buy anything should be considered no matter what the Court and Congress do with the healthcare act. A clearly written, comprehensive, amendment will block the next attempt Socialists are sure to try. Ill wager that they are already working on their next move without making the mistakes they made with HillaryCare II.