The Torch, Spring/Summer 2010

14 TORCH | Spring–Summer 2010 CRISTIAN BAITG | ISTOCKPHOTO which suggests the Court will uphold the health care reforms. The Court has allowed the government to limit how much grain farmers can grow (Wickard v. Filburn), determined that businesses that purchase only a fraction of their goods from out of state are subject to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause (Daniel v. Paul), and has allowed states (but not the federal government) to mandate vaccinations (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). On the other hand, in U.S. v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Congress did overstep its boundaries when it used the interstate commerce clause to ban handgun possession in and around schools. The Court found that regulating handgun possession was too far removed from interstate commerce for Congress to make it illegal. Also, the Supreme Court has previously struck down large portions of major legislation (like the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), suggesting the Court could strike down at least parts of the health care reform law. What the Court actually does may depend on which direction Justice Anthony Kennedy leans, since he is a common swing vote. He sided with the majority in the Lopez case, which suggests he might be sympathetic to states’ concerns with the law. But veteran Court-watchers know better than to assume Kennedy will be consistent in his handling of the two cases. There is no question the recent health care reforms are historic and might redefine citizens’ relationship to government. Since the Constitution defines that bond, the Supreme Court must weigh the law’s fidelity to our founding document. Some critics have argued that if the Court nullifies portions of the law, it will merely reveal a Court drunk with the power of judicial activism, replacing the will of the people with its own policy preferences. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Court must ponder this law through the eyes of the Constitution, and only then will it fulfill its obligation to our scheme of government. Dr. Mark Caleb Smith is assistant professor of political science at Cedarville University and the director of the University’s Center for Political Studies ( www.cedarville.edu/cps ) . He holds degrees from Bryan College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the University of Georgia. A frequent commentator on religion and American politics, he has served at Cedarville since 2004.