Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not known for his measured understanding of the Constitution. He once suggested that Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution, and he opposes the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters because he believes allowing widespread segregation is “the hard part about believing in freedom.”
Nevertheless, in a op-ed attacking the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Paul digs in even deeper — likening that decision to others protecting slavery and Jim Crow:
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.
Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education.
For the record, the Affordable Care Act will rescue hundreds of thousand of Americans from medical bankruptcy, enable thousands more to take a new job or start a business, and save as many as 45,000 lives every year. It in no way resembles slavery.