The Ruling by
SCOTUS did not ignore the Constitution but affirmed
it.
One problem is the tendancy of liberals to assume any lack of a dogmatic "no," is a "yes." Another problem is
that many conservatives wanted the SCOTUS to affirm their conservative POLICY just as dogmatically, which
would undermined the Constitution. Perhaps they expected SCOTUS to wipe the slate clean of
Obamacare altogether. This is not the scope of SCOTUS--they determine the
constitutionality of law, not irradicate it. In this case, it was a law so all-encompassing—and
legally invasive, entangled in all forms of governance and consuming—that the only responsible way for SCOTUS to
address the many issues was to thoroughly parse them out one by one. That they have.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:
WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:
The
Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional.
Instead, what
they did was discuss the most dominant themes. Thus, instead of a one-fell-swoop-decision, SCOTUS pointed out to
America—read: reminded America—of the
many checks and balances afforded in that great document. Among the many major points SCOTUS
re-affirmed are these Constitutional paradigms:
1.) That Congress has the authority to tax.
There is nothing
new here. (See Art. I, Sec. 8.) The Justices did not say
Obamacare was constitutional. In fact, having read the document (only 60 pages),
I can attest that what is being reported (by those who have neither read it,
nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually
misrepresenting the Ruling. What the justices said was constitutional was that
Congress has authority to collect taxes. This is merely a reiteration of Art. I,
Sec 8 of the Constitution. Additionally,
they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of
monies are, contrary to what supporters of the Healthcare Act have told the
public, a tax. That makes Pelosi, Obama, et al. deceivers of Americans.
2.) The "regulating" referred to in Art I Sec 8 does NOT mean "create." Therefore, Congress cannot regulate a non-activity.
Congress cannot
create new authority--only make regular those authorities already granted in
the Constitution. (This goes to the Mischief Rule.)
The Court was
quite vocal about the inappropriateness of Congress' attempt to create a power
they have never had in legislating (read: forcing) citizens into action. This
was clearly stated in the Ruling. (567 U.S. __2012, 21-27) Specifically,
Roberts writes,
…the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost
any problem…People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that
would be good for them…Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress
to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would
have them act.
That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. (567
U.S.__2012. 22,23)
Clearly: To this end many hoped the Supreme Court
would, in simple terms, throw the entire Act out, or at least disable it
sufficiently to render it null and void. Sadly, many are so enraged by poor
information that they don’t realize that SCOTUS actually did, in large measure,
do that very thing, as cited above. But in the process, also reminded Americans of their responsibility to act on their own authority.
3.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED that the power to control legislation by Congress lies with the PEOPLE--not SCOTUS.
Furthermore, the
Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole Act out,
saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to choose their legislation
via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to
exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the
people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. That is what was said. (ibid. 6,7)
Apparently some are celebrating the assumption that the people will not
exercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be
enacted in the first place. (You might remember that the preponderance of
Representatives was fired. I suspect, after this nod from SCOTUS, more is to
come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow. That is, if people actually
understand what SCOTUS said.)
The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel any one or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS has actually reinforced state and individual sovereignty and liberty, not slighted it.
The idea that
Congress has created taxes against the will of the people is only partially
true, at best. The verity is that Congress is elected by the people, thus what
Congress does, technically and by Constitutional authority, has been sanctioned
by the people. The people then, having the ultimate authority can “fire” the
Representative or Senator who neither respects their wishes, ignoring their
duty to representation, nor obliges the sovereign will of their respective
states. This is true for any legislation irrespective of its relationship to
taxes. (However, it is difficult to imagine any legislation by Congress as
being unrelated to taxes.) Quoting one of the most arduous defenders of the
Constitution, John Marshall, Justice Roberts emphasizes the difference between
the constitutionality of passing an
act and enforcing one. He writes
“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that
we strike down authority to pass [the]
act in question [when] clearly demonstrated…[Policy judgments] are entrusted to our
Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their
political choices. (567 U.S.___2012, 6. Emphasis added.
The people are
responsible for finding those who adequately and accurately reflect their
wishes. SCOTUS simply reminded—and more
effectively hinted—to the people of their
solemn Constitutional duty—that is not
the Court’s. In other words, SCOTUS
was not obliging to the people passing the buck to them.
4.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of the individual.
Justice Roberts writes that the argument held
by the Government that they have the right to require our “participation” under
the Necessary and Proper Clause is unfounded.
While quoting from precedence, (McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418), Justice
Roberts re-affirms, through the Mischief Rule, a fundamental doctrine of the
Constitution, saying
‘…we have…carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those
laws that undermine the structure of government established by the
Constitution. [They] are not consistent with the letter and spirit of the
constitution, and are not proper...Rather, they are…merely acts of usurpation.’
(ibid. 28)
Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained.
(ibid. 29
…The commerce power…does not authorize the mandate. (ibid. 30)
Roberts further
expounds on the constitutional principles behind the Necessary and Proper
Clause, explaining its misuse by the Government in defense of “Obamacare.”
(ibid.29)
5.) SCOTUS
RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of States to determine whether a federal program is
pertinent and applicable to their individual state.[i]
The Court made a
clear distinction between mandating a state to comply if they opt in to
Obamacare and penalizing a state for refusing to participate. Roberts says that they are not curtailing
Congress’s power to require States interested in accepting Affordable
Healthcare Act funds, to comply with their stipulations. But they cannot compel
a state unwilling to participate in the Act either by requirements or
penalizing them by reducing their existing Medicaid funds. This is of paramount importance in a time
where the Federal Government has increasingly used forms of coercion on states
through a financial choking. (ibid. 55)[ii]
The only main
concern, which is clearly constitutional, if unfortunate in this case, (given
Congress has the authority to tax), is the reaffirmation of taxing for
Obamacare independent of the acceptance of health insurance. It is not the
authority to tax that is at odds with Americans. It is, as this Court has
suggested, that it is unwise to do so.
Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to sources, including main stream media, who don't know how to read--let alone understand--the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.
Just because SCOTUS didn't come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” all together, does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.
Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to sources, including main stream media, who don't know how to read--let alone understand--the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.
Just because SCOTUS didn't come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” all together, does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.
It would behoove
Americans to learn, first, to read the actual texts for themselves; and
secondly, to know and understand constitutional tools such as Rules of
Construction, historical imperatives, the many discussions and debates of the
Framers, and so forth before believing anything they hear or read from, in particular, but certainly not limited to, main stream media. My concern is that some
people would like it if Americans were not aware of what this ruling actually
says. It is up to each individual American to circumvent this attempt, by being
well equipped to counter nothing other than nonsense.
(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )
(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )
[i] Refer to 1995 SCOTUS
decision written by Scalia re-affirming Marshall, re-affirming the
Framers. (Also see Amends. 4, 5, 9,
& 10)
[ii] In early 2012, Mr. Obama threatened the State of Texas
that if they refused to oblige the abortion section of Medicaid, he would choke
the state by withholding $35M in funding.
Governor Rick Perry did not flinch. He said the State would find the
funds elsewhere; and the Attorney General to Texas, Greg Abbott filed suit. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3995; www.foxnews.com/.../perry-blasts-obama-for-federal-funding-cuts-to-medicaid/ )
