For Whom the Bells Do NOT Toll – Obamacare

The Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare was unexpected, not to mention peculiar. Let this be a lesson to you young 'uns with a political bent: elections and Supreme Court decisions are never sure things. The fact that the ruling was a surprise should not be surprising.

The government's case was poorly presented, and an impressive array of opponents where lined up against it. Kennedy did some hard questioning, and the consensus of political pundits was that just the individual mandate would be struck down 5-4. That is not what happened: the Chief Justice joined the Liberal side to uphold the entire law (including the individual mandate), but striking down the state Medicaid provisions. 4 justices, including Kennedy, voted to strike down the entire law; we came that close to killing Obamacare.

Read the Supreme Court Decision For Yourself

It is a 193 page PDF file, and you can download it here:

(page numbers refer to the PDF file, not the pagination within each document)

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

• the summary is p. 1-6
• the majority decision written by Roberts is p. 7-65
• separate opinion by liberal justices is p. 66-126
• minority opinion by conservative justices p.127-191
• interesting dissent by Thomas p. 192-193

A Tax?

I am not a Constitutional lawyer, and I do not play one on TV, and will leave analysis to others. Nevertheless, I read the entire decision, paying special attention to the part where Roberts upholds the individual mandate: he holds that it is indeed unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but is allowable anyway because it can be construed as a tax, and Congress is allowed to tax to their little hearts' content.

Huh?

On page 37:

...if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.

So, because it might be a tax, it is still constitutional?

In response, on page 144 of the minority opinion:

...we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.

The Chief Justice's rejoinder can be found on page 45:

The joint dissenters ... contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.

Wait a second: is not the 'label' used by Congress prima facie evidence of their intent? Is not congressional intent a key consideration in determining the constitutionality of a law?

Houston, We Have a Problem...

Under this logic, yes: the federal government can constitutionally force us to do or buy anything (including broccoli) as long as it is couched as a 'tax'. Now that this principle has Supreme Court precedent, Congress can invoke it whenever and as often as they like. Yes, if Romney gets elected President, he and both legislative houses under Republican control can repeal Obamacare, but any subsequent President/Senate/House combo can exercise this power, since it is now written in stone.