Last week, after three days of debate from both sides of the aisle, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court convened to make their preliminary decisions about the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as Obamacare.

 The Court’s decision on the act will not be made public until June and opinions and votes may change between now and that time. Regardless of political affiliation, the question boils down to whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.

The Supreme Court can decide this through the power of judicial review and will use it to examine how far one of Congress’ powers can stretch: the Commerce Clause. This is one of Congress’ enumerated powers and allows the branch of government to regulate commerce within the states.

Specifically with Obamacare, the issue is whether or not the federal government can require a citizen to purchase health insurance, effectively accepting a tax penalty if they decline to do so.

As black and white as that sounds, exceptions exist for those whose religious beliefs require they not receive medical treatment or fall into a low-income category and cannot afford the mandated purchase. Despite these provisions, this is one of the most divisive acts of current legislation. A poll by CBS and The New York Times found that 47 percent of Americans are opposed to the law and that a minority of 36 percent support it.

Those who argue that the act is unconstitutional claim that coercing a citizen to unwillingly purchase health insurance impedes on the inalienable rights to freedom guaranteed to every citizen and the concept of federalism itself.

On the opposite side of the issue, supporters say that the choice exists to decline health insurance and that the bill is looking out for the benefit of the American people as a whole. Looking past political considerations or affiliations, this situation recalls the concept of a slippery slope.

As with free speech, or any other explicit freedom held by the citizens of the United States, the slippery slope illuminates the idea that when some freedoms are given up, it becomes easier for others to follow.

Such, it appears, is the case with PPACA. A ruling in favor of Obamacare would greatly impact and strengthen the Commerce Clause and make future laws and acts easier to pass and defend, using the current ruling as precedent.

If the act were repealed, however, it may not be the end of a universal, or close to, health care plan.

Realistically, a ruling would give lawmakers the ability to write and formulate a new plan that would meet the needs of the people, without endangering the freedoms that are inherent rights of this country’s citizens.

Obamacare would move the United States into the company of countless nations that have some type of universal healthcare.

If it were repealed, this would still be possible to accomplish, but much of the political support, not to mention financial funding, would need to align again much as it did in 2010 when PPACA passed in a Democratic House, Senate and with a Democratic President.

Either way, the Supreme Court, and especially Justice Robert Kennedy (the swing justice on this case), must consider these and many more arguments.

However, it may be more important to protect the freedom of the people than to push through an act that may one day place the nation on the slippery slope leading to a loss of liberty.