A new Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare could still stand
In December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year ending the individual mandate’s penalty, which is the heart of Affordable Care Act, also made the National Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare, unconstitutional without it. Nineteen other state attorneys general joined in the lawsuit Texas v. Azar. This is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court essentially resolved this question June 2012 with the same five-to-four composition of the court that now exists, when Justice John Roberts changed sides ruling that the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine, therefore making it constitutional — a position previously denied by Democrats. But it saved Obamacare. Justice Roberts could again be the deciding vote. If he betrays the original intent of the Constitution as before, he may again do heavy damage to it.
Prior to Roberts’s unanticipated vote, Anthony M. Kennedy had been the unpredictable swing vote on the court. Justice Kennedy, not happy with the Roberts’s switch saving Obamacare, said, “The court majority regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, not hiding his disdain for it, he added, “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning, which is what Justice Roberts did. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so: “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist, or legislate, that changed Obamacare as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax, and the political party passing it and its president, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such.
Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best: “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress.”
Judicial legislation or activism is not new. The desire for the court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last 60 years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the people’s representatives. By altering legislative law, it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police — to name but a few. In broadening its power base far beyond constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments: one federal, the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act, the Supreme Court has effectively restrained further encroachment (or mutilation) of the Commerce Clause formerly used to increase its power but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes.
So does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently, judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!
We must return to our foundation, the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law — any law — and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the very limited powers of the federal government. So even Congress cannot make any law it likes.
The issue of health is not listed and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document it is charged with upholding.
Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling rendering Obamacare unconstitutional may give the Supreme Court a chance to return to the Constitution as written. Unfortunately, the deciding vote remains again with Roberts, who can’t be trusted constitutionally, and so Obamacare could still stand.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
