The Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare
You heard it here first. Patriotslog reporting live from the Supreme Court on the decision finally made regarding the Obesity Initiative for Nutrition and Care act of 2048, commonly referred to as OINK. After being tied up in the court system for six years we finally have the verdict. According to the 8 to 7 split decision on the Supreme Court, the government can in fact create mandatory diet plans for all residents (both citizens and illegal immigrants via the Immigration compromise of 2023) of the United States. It is expected that former First Lady Michelle Obama will be delivering an address on her lifelong initiative from her home any minute now. After her many years of hard work and dedication to “save Americans from themselves”, we may finally see the national obesity rate drop below 96%. Former Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is refusing to comment on the ruling, and in an apparent attempt to starve herself to death in protest has barricaded herself in her nursing home room, refusing to speak to anyone. Her only correspondence is a hand written sign taped to the outside of her door which states: “They can tell me what to eat, but the sure can’t force me to eat it.” Not yet, anyway. However, one has to wonder how long it will be until legislation is passed which states they can.
Chief Justice Holloway, in his opinion, stated that consumption and participation are essentially the same thing; therefore, under the power of taxation the government can indeed pick your meals for you. The Administration argued that health care costs are rising at a rate unaffordable to the people, and to the government under the Affordable Care Act (once known as Obamacare) due to the 98% obesity rate in the America. Therefore, to help keep costs down, the government will now “regulate” the consumption of food nationwide.
In order to implement this program the American government will re-instate the 50 individual states…well, sort of. After all governing authority was annexed by the federal government, and the states themselves were absolved in 2029, the government will now re-create states, with a presidentially appointed nutrition general as the head authority of each state. While no state legislature will be created, each state will have their own Bureau of Obesity or BOO. The cost of all of this is anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $96 trillion over five years, offset in part by a $31 trillion tax increase, while the remainder will be added to our national deficit, now totaling $6 quadrillion. Moody’s warns that America may lose their AAA credit rating.
Though this future scenario is unlikely, it is now possible thanks to the Supreme Court. Despite the Obama administration insisting for three years that the individual mandate penalty was not a tax, the law was upheld not under commerce clause, but under the congressional taxing power. This decision essentially states that the government has no right to force you to buy something; however, they can issue a tax penalty, the size of which can be unlimited, if you do not buy it. Unfortunately, under the federal anti-injunction act the government has specified that any excise taken from a citizen, whether it is called a tax, penalty, punishment, fine, or any other name one can come up with, is treated exactly the same as a tax under the federal tax code, and is issued and overseen by the IRS, and given to the general revenue fund. Here is how Chief Justice Roberts described it in his opinion:“Congress did render the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to the individual mandate, albeit by a more circuitous route. Section 5000A(g)(1) specifies that the penalty for not complying with the mandate ‘shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.’ Assessable penalties under subchapter 68B, in turn, ‘shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.’ (Section 6671(a))…by directing that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes,” (Section 5000A(g)(1)) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.”
To put that in plain English, no matter what Congress calls it, it is a tax. Because it is a tax, unfortunately Chief Justice Roberts is correct that it can be constitutional. Vocalizing his personal distaste for the law, Chief Justice Roberts essentially stated that it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not a law is wise or profitable. That, he said, is the job of the voters who elect the Legislatures. If we do not want this law, we can vote the lawmakers out of office. This is exactly what needs to be done. Because of the vast nationwide unpopularity of the individual mandate, Patriotslog has mused over whether or not Chief Justice Roberts upheld the law in order to incentivize independents to vote for Mitt Romney this fall; however, with no evidence of this (and with a perhaps naive optimism) we should not assume foul play.
Chief Justice Roberts could have struck this law down, easily stating that this is beyond the taxation power, and the spirit of the law (that argument has been used before); moreover, previous laws have also been struck down for lack of precedent. Indeed, Roberts himself even quoted such a statement in his opinion:
In the 2010 Supreme Court decision Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight, it was stated that “the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem…is the lack of historical precedent for Congresses action.”
Regardless, we now have the law, and it is up to us to vote out those elected officials who support the law; because if we do not, our nation will fall further into financial ruin. President Obama has now fathered the largest tax increase in the history of our nation, as well as the largest expansion of federal power. The radical scenario seems unlikely; however it is not possible with the precedent set in stone by the Supreme Court. How long now before the next liberal law maker requires citizens to buy a hybrid/electric car, join a union, go to college, or mandate what you do at your job? How long before the next conservative lawmaker mandates you purchase a semi-automatic rifle and sidearm, or require two years military service? Now that it is clear that Congress can indeed mandate these things, enforceable by taxation, there is no telling where this will go. We know that when the government gets power it runs away with it, never to relinquish it. For this purpose Patriotslog proposes the following constitutional amendment:
Neither Congress, nor the government shall be granted the authority to require or mandate participation in any market, trade, exchange, or anything like unto them, against the own free will of the people, by enforcing such participation through the means of any tax, penalty, fee, excise, or anything like unto them.
Neither Congress, nor the government shall be granted the authority to require or mandate the purchase or consumption of any good, service, product, idea, resource, or any monetary transaction, against the own free will of the people, by enforcing such purchase or consumption through the means of any tax, penalty, fee, excise, or anything like unto them.
Congress shall have power to pass laws enforcing the provisions of this amendment.
The fact is if we do not stop the Federal Government they will never willingly give up their power. This overreach of power has gone too far. The individual mandate is universally unpopular; we have gone from government by the people and for people, to government bypassing the people and forcing the people. We do not need the help of Congress to pass this Amendment; please join Patriotslog in working to have the legislature of your home state ratify this amendment and we can keep the government from possessing this wild expansion of power.
29 June, 2012
Posted on June 30, 2012, in Constitutional Law, Patriotslog Articles, Politics, Taxes and tagged Affordable Care Act, Amendment, Congress, conservative, Constitution, democrat, Descent, economy, election, health care, healthcare, individual mandate, law, liberal, medicine, Obamacare, Opinion, patient protection and affordable care act, politics, presidential election, republican, supreme court, taxes. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.