Ronald Dworkin has an important essay in the New York Review of Books. Read the whole thing here. Here’s a key passage:
If the Court does declare the act unconstitutional, it would have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedyâ€”not because that national remedy would violate anyoneâ€™s rights, or limit anyoneâ€™s liberty in ways a state government could not, or be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Courtâ€™s opinion our constitution is a strict and arbitrary document that denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program. If that opinion were right, we would have to accept that our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden we cannot escape, a straitjacket that makes it impossible for us to achieve a just national society.
I wish I had written that.