Lyin' and denyin'.... God help us.

For the second time this week, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has endorsed abuses of federal power. First it was in their ruling – in effect - against any kind of state sovereignty in Arizona v. U.S. And yesterday it was a defacto endorsement of abuses of federal power against individuals in its ruling on the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare” aka forced socialized medicine).

The majority of the issue about the Affordable Care Act of 2010, as it’s officially known, is whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the legal power to mandate that every citizen buy health insurance. This begs the question; has it ever been required in the legal history of our country for private citizens to be forced by the federal government to buy any product either directly from the government or from a private enterprise? The answer is no. There is no precedence for such an “individual mandate.” One would think this kind of history would make the Court’s decision a “no brainer.”

While there have been state mandates (e.g., Kansas law requires motorists to buy adequate liability insurance) but such has been federally deemed as the states’ sovereignty to do so or not. Thus, one would think that such a heavy-handed approach by the federal government would be an abuse of power at the expense of individual liberty. (However, the SCOTUS showed its utter contempt for state sovereignty earlier this week.)

I’ve heard it said that lawyers cynically describe a criminal case as an exercise in “lyin’ and denyin’” what with all the lies, excuses and trickeries defendants and their lawyers do in attempt to mount  the “best defense possible under the law.” Through lies, excuses and trickeries, the former-lawyers now justices of the US Supreme Court who voted to uphold the this week lied and denied all over the map as they upheld the Obamacare individual mandate by claiming it was valid under the federal government’s taxing powers as granted in the Constitution. This supposedly because of the fine (let’s call a spade a spade) imposed on individuals who do not buy the mandated insurance. The court thinks of that as a “tax.”

A financial criminal penalty is now a “tax?” Really? Seriously? “Mr. Defendant, the court has found you guilty of violating Law XYZ. You are hereby sentence to 30 days in jail and to paying a $1,000 tax. And by the way, the IRS thanks you for your business.”

And yet, the Court in its own ruling on this issue says “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.” So…is it a tax or not? I’m getting confused here.

Apparently so is Obama. While in its “reasoning” the SCOTUS ignores the outright express contradiction in Obama’s upholding the individual mandate as a tax in his own public defense of his pet legislation. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in 2009, President Obama adamantly denied that the individual mandate was a tax. "I absolutely reject that notion," the President said.*

Most confusingly, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.

So…not only must we ask is it a tax…or not? We must also ask, Mr. Chief Justice, is the individual mandate by the federal government to require its subjects (the Court has more than demonstrated its opinion this week that we’re no longer citizens granted rights by any Constitution) to purchase a product Constitutionally allowed or not? Apparently the answer from Roberts’ and his Court is yes, no, maybe.

Well done, Justices. A marvelous example of the “lyin’ and denyin” and in fine lawyer fashion.

Roberts in his opinion asserts that if the public doesn’t like the laws that Congress has the right to pass, we should not re-elect them to the Legislative or the Executive branches of the federal government.  But, he claims the SCOTUS is not there to do the voter’s job. While I agree with that in philosophy, personally I disagree with Roberts’ endorsement of the Court’s endorsement of this abuse of federal power. In my humble opinion, he’s hiding behind that excuse at least in part by siding with the majority in this issue.

And this endorsement and the “lyin’ and denyin” involved in this confusing ruling sets a very dangerous precedent. First of all, it empowers the federal government to force commerce. I don’t remember reading that anywhere in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 – the “Commerce Clause” – only allows the federal government to regulate commerce, not mandate that it happens and between whom it happens.** Seems to me that when the mafia forced people to buy their products (illegal booze, “protection”, etc) that was legally held to be extortion.

I can't help but wonder how these same SCOTUS justices would react if the next conservative president in office made a similar individual mandate...er...tax...for every person in America to purchase a gun?

Secondly, this ruling seems to turn the IRS into a national police force who forces the will of the government to impose commerce and thirdly, which products the people are forced to buy. What’s next? “Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America. This is your president speaking. The coffers of Government Motors – what you may remember as formerly General Motors or GM – are down a little. We’ve determined this to be because nobody is buying our hybrid minicars like the Chevy Volt. Thus, I have directed Congress and the SCOTUS to require every man, woman and child in my kingdom to purchase a new Chevy Volt from their local dealership by close of business this Friday. Don’t make me send my SEALs and IRS agents out there to enforce this individual mandate.”

I’m no lawyer, but I do know that the SCOTUS this week has thrown its lot in with some very dangerous agendas. Consequently, these are some very dark days for our country, its Constitution and our way of life.

* Wolverton II, J. (2012, June 28). mandate is permissible tax the New American, Retrieved from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11899-supreme-court-rewrites-obamacare-rules-individual-mandate-is-permissible-tax

**U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 8, Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html