Does US AG Holder Believe a Law is Constitutional Because He Wants it to Be?

US AG Eric Holder seems to suggest that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it's constitutional and finds it "troubling" that the American people might want to check that it's legal.

Is it possible that the US has an Attorney General who thinks that a law is Constitutional merely because the president wants it to be? Is the country's top law enforcement official saying we should make it up as we go along? It seems so.

Responding to the Virginia court decision that the ObamaCare insurance mandate (the requirement that all US citizens be required to buy health insurance) is illegal, AG Eric Holder suggests that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it is constitutional:

Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work. The legal arguments made against the (health care reform law) gloss over this problem...

Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans... who've been locked out of our health insurance markets, and shifting more costs onto families who've acted responsibly.

Perhaps so; but the mere fact that a law would do something presumably good, does not make it Constitutional. Remember when Sen. Tom Coburn asked Supreme Court justice nominee Elana Kagan about a law requiring we eat fruit?

Senator Coburn asked Kagan whether it would "violate the commerce clause" if Congress passed a law mandating that "you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day."

Certainly, if all Americans ate fruit and veggies every day, we would get healthier and our medical costs would go down. So, why can't the US Congress make such a law? Explains Kagan later in the sessions:

"I think that there are limits on the commerce clause," Kagan said,"primarily about non-economic activity and Congress not being able to regulate non-economic activity."

If that is so -- and it is -- isn't deciding to not buy something by definition "non-economic activity"? Are we going to allow our federal government to measure the potential impact of everything that we don't do?

In another recent ObamaCare lawsuit, Judge Norman Moon decided just that:

...there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.

If we allow this, the government can come up with a "rational basis" to make us do or purchase anything we normally wouldn't; the list of things that we could be forced to "substantially affect the interstate health care market" is endless. But, none of these things would be ethical, moral, or legal. Including being forced to buy health insurance.

So stipulates U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson:

No Supreme Court decision has authorized Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

Somehow Holder and the Democrats can't understand why unprecendented numbers of the American people are opposed to this provision and find it "troubling" that the American people might want to ensure its legality.

So, should we just take Obama at his word that this thing is totally legal, Mr. Attorney General? Yup:

Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made... supporters of repeal should work with us to implement this law effectively.

Let the 60% of Americans who want ObamaCare repealed know that their president and his staff want them to drop their silly arguments and just get with the program. I am right and you are wrong. I won and you lost. It's my way or prison time.

White House spokeman Robert Gibbs assures us "the White House was not surprised by the ruling." Mr. Gibbs, anyone who believes in the US Constitution was not surprised.