Fundamental Question: How Much Does A Supreme Court Ruling Impact My Freedom?
Answer: A Whole Lot, Especially Considering The Court Has The Power To Inform Us, The People, Of Whether Or Not A Law Passed The Congress Is Permissible Under The U.S. Constitution. Without This All-Important Branch Of Government, No One Could Stop Presidents and Congresses From Making and Enforcing Laws That Would Tyrannize The American People.
Case For Discussion: The Court's Recent Ruling Over the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Known By Many Simply As "Obamacare."
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative justice appointed republican president George W. Bush recently shocked everyone by switching his vote at the 11th hour from the position of the conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, which with Roberts' vote would have given a majority ruling declaring the Obamacare law unconstitutional) to the position of the liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg, giving a majority ruling in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the law). The Obama administration's lawyers argued their case based on the Constitution's "commerce clause" which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The position of the conservative justices was that the constitutionality of Obamacare can not be supported by the commerce clause because regulating commerce is not the same thing as forcing people to participate in commerce (in reference to the law's mandate forcing the American people to buy health insurance or face a penalty). These four justices were prepared to strike the law down.
The position of the liberal judges was the same as the case argued by the administration's lawyers. At some point, the lawyers also argued that the penalty was a tax and therefore fell under Congress' power to tax. It was on this basis that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote to bolster the constitutionality of that law. The Obama administration won its day in court.
The fundamental question is, How does this impact our freedom? Regardless of what you think about the Obamacare law, did Roberts' judgment help or hurt American freedom? Is that law unconstitutional? Is it bad policy or both? I invite your input.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly caught up on the situation since I just got back to this side of the world, but one question I have is if Roberts justified his ruling based on the power of Congress to tax, then what's the issue? What's the difference between Congress taxing to pay for war machines or even building a new highway (though someone might not agree with either of these)? I am not necessarily arguing for or against Obamacare just wondering what is (or what could be considered) unconstitutional about it?
Beyond this, I was wondering what affect Roberts' ruling had on the definition of the commerce clause. I've heard a bit from both sides but I don't know if I have the facts straight in my head.
--Will McDonald
Excellent question, Will. The definition of the commerce clause has historically expanded, contracted, and expanded again based on the views of different supreme courts at different times. I'm currently reading a biography on FDR by Jean Edward Smith. That author claims FDR's expansion of government power in the 1930's (through the New Deal programs) was made possible by a simultaneous expansion of the commerce clause by the (supposedly conservative) Hughes Court. Prior to this, certain industries such as agriculture, were excluded from the commerce clause based on a very narrow interpretation of it by the Supreme Court of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Hughes restored the commerce clause to its fairly expansive interpretation made by legendary Chief Justice John Marshall. It is too early to tell, by I suspect Roberts' ruling may not have any bearing on the commerce clause because he excluded it as the basis of the ruling in the Obamacare law. Roberts ruled it constitutional based on Congress' right to tax.
ReplyDeleteSo did he limit the commerce clause as some have claimed . . . did Roberts allow it so that he could end (slow?) government expansion? Did he set any precedent concerning limiting the use of the commerce clause in the future by Congress? Thus limiting big government? I've read some people justifying his ruling on those grounds.
ReplyDeleteThere are conservatives who are sympathetic to Roberts' ruling and are looking for ways to justify it on conservative grounds. One view is that by tripping over backwards to look for a way to save a law passed by a legitimately elected congress and president from unconstitutionality, a conservative Court upholds the constitutional separation of powers. Whatever considerations Roberts may have had, my suspicion is that it will make no change in the way the commerce clause is currently interpreted because Roberts himself rejected the administration's argument that the Obamacare law is constitutionally permissible under the commerce clause. If Roberts had stopped there, he would have been in agreement with the conservative justices who dissented in the ruling. Yet, Roberts then pivoted over to the administration's other argument that the law is sustainable through Congress' right to tax. On that basis, Roberts sided with the other justices and penned their majority opinion. Since the commerce clause was excluded from the final reckoning, my guess is that this case will have no bearing on the future interpretation of the commerce clause, unless time proves me wrong. According to the majority ruling, Obamacare is constitutional entirely through Congress' right to tax. That is the bedrock of the ruling.
ReplyDelete