I do not dispute the perspective as regards the constitution as viewed by constitutionalists. I am a progressive so my basis tends to lie with progressive scholars but my point is – it seems to me that the arguments against are as good as the arguments for, on most issues.
Therefore gives final jurisdiction to – the SCOTUS interpretation.
This means that the biggest hurdle with constitutionalists, in the face of ambiguities or interpretations and an active and well liked “program” – is that SCOTUS, not the original words; the SCOTUS interpretation rules! These decisions by SCOTUS instead of by We All, are a convern, given our SCOTUS is just a few men/women but it too has rhyme. I feel there is a more important purpose that the forefathers had in mind in our founding documents.
1. The ACA or any other “program” need not be specifically mentioned constitutionally is not needed nor were specifics intended. That our Constitution is vague or ambiguous is to allow for significant (as needed) interpretation. I feel that this wording is important, purposeful, and intended/inspired by the forefathers. They walked a fine line between ability for future generations to adapt, and to provide a proper and well protected “due process” that would protect freedom and democracy.
In other words, the constitution has a certain vagueness. Why? To force us to a battle of important ideas and to force We the Current to shape our now by continued due process but also by working together towards the center, to consensus. Even gridlock was intended because it is better to have gridlock than take over/rule by tribal government or dictatorship. They porovided a due process that if utilized by honorable men, limits forces of anti-democracy from taking control using democracy.
This brings me to my part two.
2. What I feel needs to occur, if indeed We the People want various “programs”, including Medicare, Medicare for All, K-14 public education, etc. etc. If we want our programs to be constitutionally protected from the fallout of Congress and partisan tribal tendency, even that of the SCOTUS; is what FDR once suggested and what should have occurred in the 60s. We need another amendment!!
An amendment specifically creates new constitutional basis therein. Of course, getting there is a very, very hard road eh? – and without an amendment, all things must be and will continue to be interpreted, hopefully using due process.
Some scholar might say something like if Medicare is constitutional then Medicare for All must be. I cannot say that because I am neither legal scholar nor am I SCOTUS justice. Extrapolation is also an in terpretation. But I know our battle by due process will, over time, draw our results towards center and towards what most of us want.
That then is to me, the purposeful intent of the ambiguous wording in our founding documents and is what I feel was inspired – to force us to interpret, and to consensus with one another.
Let us hope that some mastermind genius of a wealthy and powerful criminal does not figure out a way to circumvent this due process or working towards consensus and simply craft what he/she/the few wants – for the few.