Tying together strands from the legal reasoning in the twin Supreme Court cases on Obamacare, we find a principle that just might shield individual Americans from the coercive force of the federal government if it were ever properly applied.Details
It’s amusing to hear Democrats squawk about the possibility that their grand scheme for taking over the American health care system could be knocked down by the Supreme Court because of a strict reading of ObamaCare when President Obama, Democrats in Congress, the law’s architects, and assorted flunkies have all been lying to the American people for years about the nature of their ill-conceived little law. These people have no appreciation for irony.Details
On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of King vs. Burwell, one of the four cases challenging the IRS rule that ObamaCare subsidies can be given to policyholders who have bought health insurance through exchanges established by the federal government, contrary to the plain language of the law. The New York Times reported on the day of the Court’s announcement that the “case is likely to be argued in February or March, and a decision will probably arrive in June.”Details
On Sept. 30, Judge Ronald A. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma delivered his decision in Pruitt v. Burwell, the third of four related cases to have received a judgment. The four cases challenge the IRS ruling that ObamaCare subsidies will be given to policyholders who’ve purchased health insurance in exchanges established by the federal government. Like the verdict in Halbig v. Burwell, Judge White found for the plaintiffs and against the IRS, and he vacated the IRS regulation pending appeal. The other case to have received a judgment is King v. Burwell, which found for the government. So we have a 2-1 split. The U.S. Supreme Court must eventually weigh in.Details
Originally published at American Thinker
Democrats tell us that ObamaCare is “the law of the land,” and that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional, and that we should get used to it — it’s here to stay. Actually, the Court found ObamaCare unconstitutional on two counts, but let it pass anyway.
The problem for defenders of ObamaCare is that its court challenges just keep coming. One place to check up on them is the website Health Care Lawsuits. In September, American Enterprise Institute ran an article by Chris Conover headlined “Will the Courts Derail Obamacare?” The article covers several of the ongoing court challenges to ObamaCare, including the status of each case. (The article also ran at Forbes.)
On October 5, National Review ran a terrific article by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that addresses a specific legal challenge:Details
Originally published at American Thinker
There’s been so much malarkey meted out by the media about the budget C.R., the government shutdown, and the debt ceiling that the average American can easily lose sight of the real issue, which is the federal debt. Even certain honest, trusted members of the media trot out “default” as though it were synonymous with not raising the debt ceiling by Oct. 17.
Actually, default is not paying the interest/principle on what one has borrowed. Current federal revenue is way more than enough to easily pay what we owe on federal notes, bills and bonds.
If the feds do indeed have enough revenue pouring in to meet their obligations, then actual default would be an act of volition, a decision by the president. The president would have decided to squander the full faith and credit of the nation. Such an action would be an impeachable offense.
The president tells us that the deficit has been cut in half. He’s right, but that’s only because it’s come down from astronomical levels. Despite having fallen, the deficit for fiscal 2013 is still far higher than any pre-Obama deficit. Indeed, the six deficits since the Democrats took over Congress in Jan. 2007 are by far the largest in history.
Two big reasons for the smaller deficit for the fiscal year that just ended are tax hikes and spending cuts; specifically, the income tax rate hikes on the wealthy, the end of the payroll tax holiday, and sequestration. But the Democrats want to end sequestration. If that were to happen with no off-setting cuts elsewhere, the deficit would be that much worse next year. (It may be worse anyway, due to the rollout of ObamaCare.)Details
By Jon N. Hall, Originally published at the American Thinker
When the law no longer commands respect, one can pretty well write off a nation that pretends to be a constitutional republic. How can The People respect the law when the government doesn’t? President Obama seems to regard the law as a mere inconvenience.
In his must-read August 5 article “The Front Man” at National Review, Kevin Williamson sums up our Harvard Law School president’s taste for lawlessness. “He has spent the past five years methodically testing the limits of what he can get away with, like one of those crafty velociraptors testing the electric fence in Jurassic Park.”
With a compliant Congress in his first two years, and a divided, gridlocked Congress thereafter, Mr. Obama has been able to “get away with” an awful lot. One of ways the president flouts the law is by not enforcing it, such as in his recent “decision” to delay enforcing the employer mandate of ObamaCare. Where does the president get off thinking he has the authority to refuse to enforce a law? The president doesn’t seem to understand his job.
Also, under Obama the executive branch just makes up law, a task generally reserved for the legislative branch. Williamson reports that “although the IRS has no statutory power to collect Affordable Care Act–related fines in states that have not voluntarily set up health-care exchanges, Obama’s managers there have announced that they will do so anyway.”
That announcement brings to mind a provision in the ACA concerning enforcement of the individual mandate: “In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure. [Sec. 5000A(g)(2)(A), page 249]” With regard to this prohibition, it remains to be seen whether Obama’s minions at the IRS will announce “that they will do so anyway”?Details