There are a number of constitutional and logical slips in the seductive argument that Paul Krugman puts forward in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate. First, the question why any form of health insurance involves a question of “interstate commerce” at all. Under the current elastic and indefensible definitions of interstate commerce, any form of local activity that influences the quantity and price of goods in interstate commerce becomes itself a form of interstate commerce, at which point there is precious little that lies outside that domain.

Note the potential reach of this argument by the standard definition that Krugman embraces, getting sick and buying insurance influences the ability of the United States to deal with foreign nations, so that Congress can presumably regulate it as a form of commerce with foreign nations. More impressively, since the health of their populations influences health in this country, why not say that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to expand the health care benefits that Canada, Great Britain and the rest of the world supplies to their own population. It is a form of constitutional newspeak to treat all these local activities as though they were commerce among the several states, when they are, most emphatically anything but.

Tonight, as I am sure you’re all aware, is Earth Hour. I hope you all intend to take this event as seriously as I shall. First, I shall raid my attic for my last stash of rarer-than-hen’s-teeth incandescent light bulbs – you know, the kind without mercury in them; the kind that lights up a room; the kind that doesn’t give you headaches – and plug them into every available socket. Then, during Earth Hour, I shall light up my house like a Christmas tree, while turning on every conceivable electrical appliance, perhaps even to the point of opening my freezer door and melting the ice with a blow heater.

Yes, I know – what with the price of electricity these days, due to all those eco tariffs – that this will cost me a great deal of money. But that’s the kind of guy I am. I’m doing it not for me but for the Children of Tomorrow. I want them to have a future, a meaningful future with jobs, and a functioning economy and power on demand rather than rationed according to the whim of some Lisa-Jackson-style Eco Commissar.

In responding to Peter’s request that I address the question posed by Paul Krugman, I can do no better than to quote extensively from a piece entitled What is Wrong with the Individual Mandate? that I posted last December in response to a similar question posed by ParisParamus:

There is a simple answer to the question . . . . Government exists first and foremost for the sake of our protection. Without it, our lives and our property would not effectively be our own. Government exists also to promote our well-being. For its support, however, taxation is necessary, and we have tacitly agreed that, to be legitimate, these taxes must be passed by our elected representatives. By our own consent, we give up a certain proportion of our earnings for these purposes.