XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, rec.arts.tv   
   From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com   
      
   On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:36:46 -0400, Ubiquitous    
   wrote:   
      
   >ObamaCare is still the law of the land, and we blame George W. Bush. In   
   >National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, four associate   
   >justices adopted the position of Florida's Judge Roger Vinson, voting to   
   >strike down the entire law--we read Anthony Kennedy correctly back in   
   >March--and the other four voted to uphold the individual mandate as a   
   >legitimate exercise of Congress's authority to regulate interstate   
   >commerce.   
   >   
   >That left Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by Bush in 2005, with   
   >almost the full range of options before him. Except on the question of   
   >ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion--on which Justice Stephen Breyer and Elena   
   >Kagan found it unconstitutional to withhold existing funding to states   
   >refusing to participate in the new program--Roberts was the decider.   
   >   
   >His decision was a disappointment to those, including this columnist, who   
   >are anxious to be rid of this monstrous law. That will require   
   >legislative action. But on the most important question of constitutional   
   >doctrine, Roberts handed a big defeat to the legal left.   
   >   
   >The chief justice agreed with the dissenters that the individual mandate   
   >cannot be justified as an exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power   
   >(citations and footnotes omitted):   
   >   
   >	Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel   
   >	individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted   
   >	product. Legislative novelty is not necessarily fatal; there   
   >	is a first time for everything. But sometimes "the most telling   
   >	indication of [a] severe constitutional problem . . . is the   
   >	lack of historical precedent" for Congress's action. At the   
   >	very least, we should "pause to consider the implications of   
   >	the Government's arguments" when confronted with such new   
   >	conceptions of federal power.   
   >   
   >	The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate   
   >	Commerce." The power to regulate commerce presupposes the   
   >	existence of commercial activity to be regulated. If the power   
   >	to "regulate" something included the power to create it, many   
   >	of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous.   
   >	For example, the Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin   
   >	Money," in addition to the power to "regulate the Value   
   >	thereof." And it gives Congress the power to "raise and support   
   >	Armies" and to "provide and maintain a Navy," in addition to   
   >	the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of   
   >	the land and naval Forces." If the power to regulate the armed   
   >	forces or the value of money included the power to bring the   
   >	subject of the regulation into existence, the specific grant   
   >	of such powers would have been unnecessary. . . .   
   >   
   >	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.   
   >   
   >Roberts even endorsed the broccoli analogy, the one that drives liberals   
   >crazy:   
   >   
   >	The Government argues that the individual mandate can be   
   >	sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health   
   >	insurance is a unique product. According to the Government,   
   >	upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory   
   >	purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the   
   >	Government puts it, "[h]ealth insurance is not purchased for   
   >	its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing   
   >	health-care consumption and covering universal risks." But   
   >	cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their "own sake"   
   >	than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need   
   >	for transportation and food.   
   >   
   >And yet ObamaCare, even the individual mandate, stands. Roberts accepted   
   >the alternative argument that the penalty for defying the mandate is a   
   >legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing power:   
   >   
   >	Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health   
   >	insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an   
   >	additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That,   
   >	according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded   
   >	as establishing a condition--not owning health insurance--that   
   >	triggers a tax--the required payment to the IRS. Under that   
   >	theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.   
   >	Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing   
   >	the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.   
   >	And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain   
   >	taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within   
   >	Congress's constitutional power to tax.   
   >   
   >If Roberts agreed with the central constitutional arguments of the   
   >plaintiffs and he had four justices willing to strike down not just the   
   >mandate but the whole law, why did he go through the trouble of finding a   
   >way to uphold it instead? The prevailing explanation--especially from   
   >those on the left, who'll cheer the outcome--is that he bowed to   
   >political pressure, in a sort of inversion of the old adage attributed to   
   >Andrew Jackson that "one man with courage makes a majority."   
   >   
   >In a depressingly prescient piece posted on Salon, last night, for   
   >instance, Robert Reich wrote:   
   >   
   >	Roberts is--or should be--concerned about the steadily declining   
   >	standing of the court in the public's mind, along with the   
   >	growing perception that the justices decide according to   
   >	partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The   
   >	5-4 decision in Citizen's [sic] United, for example, looked   
   >	to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome,   
   >	with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions   
   >	on independent corporate expenditures violate the First   
   >	Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that   
   >	such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption   
   >	or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the court's   
   >	notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.   
   >   
   >This is a familiar argument. Reich was holding out hope that Justice   
   >Kennedy would join, to make the decision 6-3 in favor. Instead Kennedy   
   >read the jointly signed four-justice dissent from the bench--and people   
   >who were in the courtroom say he seemed angry as he did so.   
   >   
   >So what we have here is another 5-4 decision, just like Bush v. Gore and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)