Provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, "may violate the constitution of Ayn Rand, but they do not violate the Constitution of the United States," acting solicitor general Neal Kumar Katyal told a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday.(Read the full text of "ObamaCare gets put through judicial wringer".)
Conversely, attorney Paul Clement, representing Georgia and 25 other states, framed the issue of mandated purchase of health insurance as an issue of liberty.
"Can the federal government compel an individual to take part in commercial activity in order to better regulate that individual?" he asked the judges.
I'm encouraged that the fundamental issue of liberty vs. government compulsion is being discussed in such frank terms. I'm also encouraged that the statists are identifying Ayn Rand as their explicit philosophical opposite.
The more that Americans understand Rand as providing a philosophical defense of liberty and individual rights, the better off we'll be in the long run.
(H/T: Beth Haynes and Sasha Volokh.)
Update: Ilya Shapiro has a nice report from the courtroom as well.
(And fixed a typo in the original title!)