Skip to comments.How Obama Distorted the Obamacare Ruling
Posted on 06/30/2012 3:31:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
Did the Court agree with the president that "no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin?
Yesterday, a giddy President Barack Obama began his remarks on the Supreme Courts Obamacare decision by saying,
Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, theyve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America in the wealthiest nation on Earth no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.
Two things are striking about these opening sentences. First, its both amazing and amusing that, 27 months after its passage, Obama (rightly) thinks he has to tell the American people the name of his centerpiece legislation. The citizenry, of course, knows it as Obamacare. Moreover, thats a much better name both because it identifies the perpetrator and because calling the 2,700-page monstrosity the Affordable Care Act is only somewhat more accurate than calling it the Liberty Act.
The second and more important striking aspect of Obamas first two sentences is this: He claims that the Supreme Courts ruling reaffirmed the principle that here in America no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. But does the former part-time-constitutional law lecturer and current president really think the Court reaffirmed any such principle?
In truth, the majority opinion said nothing that praised Obamacare as a matter of policy, and rightly so both because Obamacare is horrendous policy and because the Court has no business weighing in on such matters. As such, anyone will search in vain in the Courts ruling for evidence supporting the principle that government-provided health care should be made available to all Americans who need it.
In fact, the opinion flatly states that the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
Although the Court did not remotely uphold the principle that Obama alleges, it did uphold a crucial principle that he apparently missed.
It upheld the principle that despite Obamas ongoing claim to the contrary, Congress has no power under the commerce clause to force Americans to buy a product or service of the federal governments choosing. Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the Court, writes,
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated .
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
Chief Justice Roberts adds, The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congresss actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now even though [t]he Government [the Obama administration] sees things differently.
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it .
The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.
Thus, the chief justices writes, Congress only has the power to impose the individual mandate because contrary to what Obama has repeatedly claimed the individual mandate is a tax:
The Affordable Care Acts requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
As this passage suggests, one might also add this: The Court upheld the principle that, when it comes to matters of policy, the American people should decide. Accordingly, if this election was ever primarily about the economy (a doubtful notion), it is no more. Its now about Obamacare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.