ObamaCare declared “unconstitutional” by US Supreme Court
First, of all, the subtitle is mischaracterized. ObamaCare, en toto, has not been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Only two provisions were so found: the individual mandate and the penalty on states to not embrace the Medicaid expansion. It is interesting reading and a link is provided in the document. It is true that forcing young adults to buy insurance has its basis in smoothing out the costs for doctors and hospitals and insurers; however, the law does not authorize Congress to compel anyone to enter commerce, only to regulate it. The other issue is that states have the right to choose, or not, whether they want to participate in the expanded Medicaid provisions without penalty.
So, the entirety of the Act is not defeated by two provisions being found unconstitutional based on the principle of severability. The two issues are simply severed from the Act and the remaining provisions stand.
This article is based on a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court actually did. ObamaCare in its entirety is not a tax, only the penalty for not having insurance is considered a tax. And the Supreme Court did not "rewrite" ObamaCare. It severed from ObamaCare that which it considered unconstitutional.
Another inaccuracy is that CJ Roberts did not write a 193-page opinion. His opinion ends on page 65, and J. Ginsburg's dissenting opinion begins. After that follows more dissenting opinions, but Roberts' opinion is the majority opinion and thus the law.
Another inacurracy is the following:
Specifically, the following parts of the 193 page decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts are as follows.
1) Congress did NOT pass ObamaCare by constitutional legislative process, but rather by a heavyhanded strictly partisan process which completely eliminated half of the US Representatives from the process in the dark of night. Further, it did NOT pass as a “tax” bill under the Direct Tax authority of congress, which must initiate in the House.
Paragraph 1) is nowhere in that decision but it reads like the author is saying that it is. Supreme Court justices don't write emotionally.
The emotional discussion of "extortion" is based on this text:
"Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class[es] of activities,” Gonzales
v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in whichthey are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 153 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in‘extortionate credit transactions’ . . .” (emphasis deleted))."
Roberts is not suggesting that ObamaCare is extortion, he is drawing a distinction between classes of activities and classes of individuals.
Here is a total misconstrual of what was said:
Part 2 of the Ruling
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.”
"This part of the ruling establishes that the Act as passed in original form by congressional Democrats is beyond the scope and authority of congress under both the Commerce Clause (used by Democrats to pass the Act) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, (used by Democrats to defend the Act). Once again, as written and passed, the Act is ruled “unconstitutional” as-is under the constitutional authority granted in these two clauses."
This is author commentary. The italicized part speaks of the individual mandate being invalid, not all of ObamaCare (which he refers to as "the Act.")
I stopped at the "Original Jurisdiction" section. Who the heck is northamericanlawcenter.org?
Anyway, this was an exercise in showing how much misunderstanding and emotionalism is making the rounds. Don't believe everything you see or hear without verifying it.
Comments