Listening to the philosophical argument that was advanced by the Republican candidate in the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, I couldn’t help but notice a certain symmetry.

What’s the practical difference between the arguments Rand Paul put forth as to why the nation’s civil rights acts in the 1960s, the Americans with Disability Act, and the Fair Housing Act all should have avoided regulating private economic behavior and Mike DeWine’s , the Tea Party version, “constitutional” arguments against the health care reform bill?

There is none.

And yet, the Ohio media has reported, without question, DeWine and Republican legislative leaders’s “legal” criticisms about the health care bill without pointing out it is as radical and against well-established law as Rand Paul’s rantings.