Last update11:02:17 PM

Font Size


Menu Style

Back You are here: Home Columns Weekly Columns For Your Consideration For Your Consideration: Supreme Court Ruling

For Your Consideration: Supreme Court Ruling

Contributing Writer

One hesitates addressing rulings given by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s important for the electorate to understand the system that governs them.
The machinations utilized by the legal system makes the job of understanding our judicial system much more complicated; however, an examination of the rulings issued may give some insight into the process and shortcomings of our legal system. The ruling by the Supreme Court on the administration’s healthcare plan has created a controversy among political pundits; it would serve no purpose to assign a motivation to the Court’s ruling, but an examination of the actions taken and the potential impact of the ruling may have some merit. 
The Administration originally presented the case as being constitutional under the commerce clause, and denied the taxation aspect; however, it also suggested that it could also be constitutional under Congress’s authority to tax. The Court was split and Chief Justice Roberts ruled that it was not invalid under the Commerce Clause, but ruled that is could survive under the taxing authority of the Congress, but the states could not be penalized for not participating in the Medicaid portion of the program.
It would appear Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling did little to resolve the issue of the Administration’s healthcare legislation; there was no ruling on the validity of the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, and it would seem that the ruling complicated the issue by allowing it to stand under Congress’s authority to tax. Allowing the healthcare legislation to stand under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution presents more problems; it would appear that the only way this could be approved is under the clause that states “… for the common Defense and the general Welfare of the United States.”  This does nothing to address the very same problems that existed under the Commerce Clause, as a matter of fact it would seem to add to the problem, because the Anti-injunction Act prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling on a tax question until it has been applied and taxation does not start until 2014, and penalties are not due until April the 15th, 2015. This may be the reasons the administration would rather have this judged as a penalty.  
Many people feel that the taking of property for the common good has been taken too far, adding taxing under the guise of the general Welfare would appear to eliminate almost all restrictions on the Federal Government. The basic healthcare legislation passed by Congress has over 2,700 pages; over 13,000 additional pages have been added to the program by the agencies and departments that are responsible for administering the program. One can be certain that this is just a small glimpse of what is in store for the nation under this healthcare legislation.  
The suggestion that this legislation is going to cut the cost of our healthcare is ludicrous; the only way this could even come close to being rational in government thinking, is to discount the cost of administrating this program. One expects the cost of most government programs to be at least two to three times more than the stated cost, but ignoring the total administrative cost of this program as part of the healthcare program would insane.
The Nation cannot afford this program, and one would have to be delusional to buy into this program and still think that they are going to receive the same quality of healthcare that they are currently receiving. If the electorate thinks that the nation is in a recession now, they can be assured that this program will put the country into a depression, due primarily to the massive administrative cost of the program. The snake oil salesman is selling poison, don’t buy it.
It’s strongly advised that the reader not rely on the information presented here as it relates to the Supreme Court’s ruling as fact, the perception presented may be incorrect. Hopefully the information presented will stimulate awareness of potential abuse related to this ruling.