“This duty is not properly limited, as ObamaCare’s increasingly desperate supporters claim, to judicial enforcement of the Bill of Rights and other affirmative prohibitions on congressional power. The Constitution must be interpreted and applied as a whole, and its basic architecture—in particular the limitations inherent in the enumerated nature of Congress’s powers”
Whgo wrote this? Congress’ powers being inherently limited to what’s enumerated is made explicit by the 10th amendment. The Bill of Rights includes the 10th amendment. Therefore, striking down Obamacare for not being justified by the interstate commerce clause, or anything else for that matter, would be “judicial enforcement of the Bill of Rights.”
Of course, long ago in the heyday of progressivism the court distinguished “civl rights,” or however they put it, from other kind of rights, banely the ones they didn’t care about. :argely this was a middle finger to decisions like the infamous Lochner that struck down federal laws in the interest of economic liberty via the contracts clause, due process, etc. This bit of arbitrariness is how come free speech, for instance, has been “incorporated” to apply to the states and the 2nd amendment hasn’t.
No doubt many will see Obamacare’s (hopeful) downfall (knock on wood) as a retreat to pre-progressive Lochnerism. But it won’t be about that, really (again, hopefully). They won’t be reviving long dead economic liberties. It’ll be about the limited nature of federal power, which, as I said, is well covered by the Bill of Rights.
Overturning an unconstitutional law is just another day at work for the court.