Why An Ohio Farmer's Case Could Save Obama Care

Legal briefs trickling into the Supreme Court signal the launch of an epic battle over President Obama's brazen health care overhaul. Unless there are unforeseen delays, the court will hand down its decision in June, right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign.

In its coverage, the mainstream media has cast the legal contest as an ideological war pitting opposing views of providing health care coverage.  However, the case has much broader meaning for the country and its citizens.

At stake is the future of government's power to regulate most aspects of American life.  The decision in the case will frame for generations how much authority Congress will have to unleash its regulatory bullies on businesses and individuals.

Twenty-six states have joined forces to oppose the new health care law.  In their court filings, the states argue Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it mandated that Americans must purchase health insurance under threat of financial penalties.

In addition, the plaintiffs are challenging the health care law's unlawful expansion of the Medicare program.  They contend the statute will force states to add more poor and disabled people to the program or face loss of federal funds.

The president's lawyers counter that Congress is entitled to regulate health care under the Commerce Clause enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  For decades, courts have confirmed Congress' authority to pass laws to regulate economic activity within the nation.

However, it wasn't until 1942 that the precedent was established. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had struck down statutes that imposed regulations on economic activities within a state because the Commerce Clause expressly limits the federal government's authority to interstate matters.

But the case of Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn changed everything. In 1941, Filburn planted more wheat than his federal allotment permitted.  He used the excess wheat production to feed his chickens. He neither sold the wheat nor did he transport the grain off his farm.

Then Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was outraged.  He ordered Filburn to destroy his crops and pay a steep fine.  Filburn refused and took the matter to court, where a three-judge panel enjoined the secretary from enforcing penalties against the farmer.

The ruling ignited a flurry of legal and political activity.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worried the court decision could torpedo his New Deal programs, ordered his lawyers to file a motion to overturn the ruling at the Supreme Court.

Roosevelt knew he would find a receptive audience.  Earlier in his term, the high court had rebuffed his efforts to expand government intervention into every element of the economy. Roosevelt publicly chastised the justices for thwarting economic recovery.

When the justices refused to bow to pressure, the president warned that he was prepared to expand the number of Supreme Court members from nine to 15 by appointing six additional justices who would be sympathetic to his agenda.

After the presidential browbeating, the "supremes" began taking a decidedly more friendly view of Roosevelt's expressed interests. Therefore, it came as no surprise when the high court ruled against the Ohio farmer on November 9, 1942.

The unanimous decision written by Justice Robert Jackson became the legal tenant for future courts to follow in upholding Congress' right to regulate not only matters that cross state lines, but practically every activity within a state as well.

Now comes Obama Care, the quintessential Congressional power grab. When it renders its decision, the Supreme Court justices will have to either overturn or reaffirm the judicial paradigm established by the Wickard vs. Filburn case.

If history is a guide, high court justices have been reluctant in the past to scrap established legal precedent.  That's why those who believe the case against Obama Care is a slam dunk should heed what happened to an Ohio farmer nearly 70 years ago.

If the Supreme Court upholds the precedent, Congress and the federal government will be handed carte blanche power for unbridled regulatory intrusion, imperiling individual freedoms for future generations.

That prospect should frighten the daylights out of every American.