Editor, The Herald:

Today, 3-26-2012, marks the opening debate in the Supreme Court on the issue of the Healthcare Act. Some Americans support the bill, but, if the polls are correct, a sizable majority does not. My concern today is not, however, if one is for the bill or against it, but will it be ruled Constitutional? Does the Constitution actually allow the government to force its citizens to buy insurance. It will all hinge on the interpretation of that part of the document dealing with interstate commerce. In 1942, in the case of Wickard vs Filburn, the court ruled that the farmer who raised wheat for his own chickens negatively affected interstate commerce. That is because by not buying wheat for feed he caused the price of the product to go up for everybody else. Thus he could be regulated by the Federal Government. Absurd! Because I don't like and don't buy chitterlings, am I negatively affecting Interstate Commerce by causing the price of these tubular delicacies to go up for everybody else? If that is right, then there is no part of my life that is free of government regulation. Is there no longer any room for common sense in interpreting the law? More everyday, as the life is sucked out of the Constitution, it seems like Marxist ideology is turning Uncle Sam into Uncle Scam.

Each of the Justices are required under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Why does that not give me comfort in the deciding of this monumental case? Recently in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was speaking to a group that was concerned with the forming of a new constitution for that country. She was asked whether or not they should seek guidance from the constitutions of other nations. Her response was affirmative, but added that they should not seek guidance from the Constitution of the United States. Her implication was that it was out of date and not capable of dealing with modern issues. Therefore, I don't expect her to uphold it; I think she will see how far she can bend it. Here I sit on the verge of a health care nuke, I'm depending on the protection of the founding document and wondering how many at the helm were serious about their oath. The President took the oath, the members of the House and Senate took it, and so did the Justices. What does that mean? Maybe nothing…we will have to wait and see.

Lewis Brandt

Dillwyn