The Supreme Court Did Its Job with Obamacare

Two days ago the Supreme Court handed down an opinion on what is likely the biggest and most controversial case of my lifetime thus far: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. (More reasonably known as the Obamacare case.) I along with many political observers assumed the swing vote would rest with Justice Kennedy, who is generally considered a wild card when it comes to voting. Most also assumed that Kennedy would vote with the conservatives and the law would be overturned in a 5-4 decision. Instead Chief Justice Roberts voted with the liberals on the court to uphold the bill in its entirety. At first I couldn’t understand why in the world Roberts would uphold this law, after all Roberts is a conservative! But as I read his opinion, I realized his stance simply made sense. So let us dig into what his opinion says and what it means for our nation going forward.

As we neared decision day, both sides of the political spectrum wanted the Supremes to validate their position on the bill. If it was upheld, then Democrats would be able to say, “It was a good law, the Republicans should stop trying to get in the way of a much needed fix of the healthcare system, and the Supreme Court agreed with us!” If it were overturned then Republicans would be justified in their opposition. It would allow them to say, “Obamacare was obviously a huge mistake, it wouldn’t have fixed anything, and the Supreme Court agreed with us!” Heck, a few days before the decision was handed down, the Republican Speaker of the House felt the need to warn Republicans not to gloat and “spike the football” if Obamacare was overturned! In the minds of the right and the left, the Supreme Court would decide if Obamacare was a good law or a bad law. Roberts simply refused to play that game.

Roberts instead chose to remind us that the Court doesn’t decide the merits of the law but the constitutionality of a law. A law can be good and unconstitutional or bad and constitutional. In this case Roberts looked at the law and declared it bad and constitutional. To quote Roberts in his majority opinion,

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

That’s Seperation of Powers 101. Congress legislates laws, the President enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the laws. A law could seem to be the most noble and righteous law ever, but if it oversteps its boundaries and infringes on our rights and freedoms it must be denied. For anything that limits our rights is inherently ignoble, despite its aims.

           

So what did Roberts do?

           

If you’ve been following the case since the oral arguments were presented a few months ago, you know that Roberts didn’t accept the federal government’s argument for the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Obama’s administration argued that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause. Without going into too much detail, the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the power to regulate any business that occurs between states. For example, the government can control how much corn farmers in Indiana can produce because they ship the corn to other states. Obama’s team argued that they could use the Commerce Clause to compel people to buy health insurance because by not purchasing healthcare, they are hurting the economy. Roberts said not so fast fella’. The government can’t be allowed to interpret a choice to not purchase something as a chance to tell the individual to purchase something. Roberts suggested that would give Congress way too much power. For example, the government could decide that everyone must purchase a car or else face a penalty. You may say that you don’t need a car, but that won’t matter. You must act for the good of the economy. To again quote Roberts,

“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. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”

            Roberts has now set up a precedent that Congress cannot compel individuals to purchase something that they have decided not to purchase. It’s not a crime to not buy something. And all the lovers of freedom rejoiced.

            Roberts instead viewed the individual mandate as a tax. Basically, the Federal Government has placed a tax on not owning healthcare. It is collected by the IRS and is much cheaper than actually paying for healthcare. The government is trying to affect behavior by taxing what it doesn’t want you to do. Roberts therefore doesn’t see this as compelling action. (That’s a problem for the individual mandate. If enough healthy people pay the tax instead of buying healthcare, then there won’t be enough money in the system to pay for all of the people with pre-existing medical problems who now can’t be denied healthcare, causing premiums to rise ever higher.) Again, nudging people to change their behavior through taxation isn’t necessarily a good idea, but it is constitutional.

            I have problems with Obamacare. I don’t think it will succeed in making healthcare more affordable. As I mentioned above it’s still going to be cheaper to pay the tax than it is to pay for healthcare. This sinks the law by itself. A big part of Obamacare was to prevent insurance companies from dropping or refusing to help expensive patients. Obamacare accomplished that by making it illegal to deny care to people with a preexisting condition. The individual mandate would then compel healthy people to buy insurance and subsidize the expensive people with a preexisting condition. If healthy people don’t buy healthcare, then insurance companies are just stuck with sick people they can’t turn away. Providing health insurance is very expensive if only sick people are being covered. As long as it is cheaper and easier for people to avoid paying for health insurance, they will avoid doing it. Further Obamacare as now created several new taxes to convince your employer to provide insurance for you, which will increase the cost of doing business. Either they pay for your insurance or they pay the tax. Either way, businesses now have to pay more to stay in business.

            I also think this ruling will increase the pressure on Obama during this election. He now must contend with accurate accusations that this law is a tax on Americans. This becomes an even bigger problem since he campaigned for this law specifically promising that it wasn’t a tax. Also it has energized the Republican base. Between the release of the Supreme Court’s opinion and this writing, Romney has raised 5.5 million dollars from more than 47,000 individual contributors.

            In short, yesterday the Supreme Court carved out a huge restraint on Congress’ ability to use the Commerce Clause, upheld the importance of separation of powers, and declared the individual mandate a tax. They let a bad law go through, but it’s not their job to deal with bad laws. It’s the job of the American people and Congress to deal with bad laws, which is exactly what they should do.

As always, tell me what you think. I invite you to read a summary of the decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Thank you for taking the time to read this even though its been ages since my last post.

Proverbs 14:15

Tyler Holmes

Gadhafi’s Post-Mortem and The Future of Libya

Last Thursday Moammar Gadhafi was killed near his hometown of Sirte. It’s still unclear exactly what occurred that day. But a couple of things are certain. A badly wounded Gadhafi was put on display in the town square of Sirte. There after he stumbled, people pressed around him. It appears that he died in that square, but the cause of death isn’t known. However, what is known about Gadhafi’s death provides a good foundation to guide the discussion about what Libya will look like in the aftermath.

I would have liked to see a trial. Since that is impossible now, it would be the best-case scenario for the new government if he was indeed killed because of wounds sustained in a firefight. In that instance there is nothing they could have done to change the situation. Neither their soldiers nor their citizens would be responsible for any brutality or vengeance. The National Transitional Council could simply wash their hands of the whole situation and move on. The NTC is certainly asserting Gadhafi died of wounds inflicted during the battle. However, I get the feeling that simply isn’t the case. There are already calls for an investigation and a full autopsy from the international community, including American Secretary of State Clinton.

Problems arise if Gadhafi wasn’t killed in a battle. If on one hand, the people in the square killed Gadhafi, then it highlights the fact that the Libyans were more motivated by revenge and anger at Gadhafi than by a desire for reform. Think about it. If the people had cried out to keep him alive and make him face trial, then there would be an opportunity to list the grievances and abuses of Gadhafi and convict him, thus establishing a distinct line between Gadhafi’s regime and the new government. It’s similar to America’s Declaration of Independence. Besides the famous bit at the beginning, the Declaration was a list of “the abuses and usurpations” of King George. It was a foundational document establishing what America was for, not just what it was against. Gadhafi’s quick death robbed the people of that golden opportunity. If on the other hand the soldiers executed him, then it highlights how little control the new government has over these former rebels. With Libya as divided as it is, a lack of control over the guys with guns is a scary thing. The government must be sure to rein them in.

How Libya reacts to this will be very important. Now that Gadhafi is dead, the national search is over. The citizens of Libya no longer have an external threat to direct their ill wishes toward; they must now turn in on themselves and deal with the sticky business of developing a new nation under self-rule. This task will certainly be more difficult than hunting Gadhafi was. This task will be especially difficult considering that Libyan civil society is essentially being built from scratch. The one thing most people have in common in this country is Islam, which has the West worried. One should not be surprised to see Islam incorporated in new government. It is simply too much a part of their identity to expect anything else.

My last point is that NATO did its job. NATO came in with the clear objective of clearing out Gadhafi without putting troops on the ground and that’s exactly what happened. Clear objectives work very well. It makes a world of difference when the people who living in the nation ask for your help and are already fighting for themselves. However, NATO’s job isn’t done. If the West wants to keep radical Islam from taking over in Libya, they need to make it abundantly clear that it’s bad for business. Fortunately, this isn’t the Iranian revolution. The Libyans weren’t fueled by equal parts “death to America” and Islamic radicalism. The Libyans were more interested in removing a dictator and living freer lives than in establishing Islam and crushing infidels. The West can work with that.

These next few months will be crucial for Libya as they attempt to craft a new government with the eyes of the world watching their every move. With the West intimately involved and the same fervor that the Libyans had pursuing Gadhafi turned to crafting a new nation, Libya should have no problem beginning the long road of a democratic nation. That road will be long and Libya certainly won’t have a perfect democracy on their first try.

Tyler Holmes

Proverbs 14:15