The Mandate is a Tax!

The Supreme Court has declared that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) is a tax and since Congress has the power to tax the law is constitutional.  Let it sink in.  The mandate is a tax.

Haven't we tortured American English enough?  Since when can a mandate be defined as a tax?  Just for fun I looked up mandate in my Webster's Dictionary.  Basically it is a command or order.  True, one can be ordered to pay a tax, but the order is not the tax.  I guess once we accepted multiple and creative definitions of "is" anything goes from our public officials.

My point is that the mere statement that the "mandate is a tax" is nonsensical, or at least an oxymoron.  And if that is the case, how could this be the basis of judging the constitutionality of this momentous legislation?

I forced myself to read some of the Supreme Court's decision.  (I don't recommend this on a full stomach.)  Right there in the first paragraph it explains the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health coverage.  Those who do not comply must make a "shared responsibility payment" (the creative language belongs to Congress here) to the Federal Government.

A few paragraphs later we learn from Chief Justice Roberts that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax.  The reason he gives is that the individual mandate commands individuals to purchase insurance and that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.  Therefore, in the following pages he explains it must be a tax.  No matter that Congress, and President Obama, went to great extremes in passing the bill to call it a penalty or a shared responsibility payment.

Does it seem to you that Roberts wanted a way for this legislation to muster the constitutional scrutiny, so a mandate becomes a tax?  His opinion says Congress does not have the power to order citizens to purchase things under the Commerce Clause (Amen), so this mandate must be a tax. The logic is: it must be a tax because that is the only way we can uphold this thing!

In trying to substantiate the illogical, Chief Justice Roberts cites a previous decision, Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657, in that "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."  That's probably a good principle to keep the Court from a heavy-handed, overruling of Congress's duly passed legislation signed by the President.  However, there is no acceptable precedent  for unreasonable, no make that illogical and disastrous, construction.

Next step: repeal the Act.  To be addressed in a future blog, of course.

The Right Thing to Do?

President Obama announced unilateral changes to the country's deportation policies for young illegal immigrants yesterday (Friday June 15, 2012).  By unilateral we, of course, mean unconstitutional. Why is it that political observers on the Right are always objecting to Obama's policies as unconstitutional? Gee, I think it is because Obama is frequently trampling on the Constitution.

Here is another example of Obama using an "Executive Order" to enact a policy that is clearly against current law.  We have immigration laws, passed by Congress, that the executive branch is obliged to enforce. Obama, with a straight face, announced that this new policy of ignoring laws passed by Congress is "the right thing to do."  You got it; when questioned about this blatant disregard of the Constitution, Obama said it is the right thing to do!

Obama's policies would allow certain young illegal immigrants a renewable two-year deferral from deportation and provide eligibility to apply for work.  It's sorta like a get-out-of-jail-free card.  (Although liberals would tell us this provides "undocumented" individuals a needed get-out-of the-shadows card.) 

Obama's new policy would apply to those who are younger than 30 and came to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 with their illegal immigrant parents.  They would need to have lived illegally in the U.S. for at least 5 continuous years and, while being illegal immigrants be attending school or have graduated from a high school, or be illegal immigrants serving in the military (how does that happen?). 

If this sounds to you like it would be almost impossible to enforce you would be correct.  And that is probably part of the reason for Obama's Executive Order.  He knows very well that overwhelmed immigration officials could not possibly do the investigation to determine an illegal aliens status under the policy.  They would simply ignore all young, or young looking, illegal immigrants, granting them de facto amnesty.  In addition, the policy would be a magnet for fraud and inducement for more illegals to enter the country with their young.

These illegal young people are basically the people that the so-called DREAM Act was geared for.  Oh, and this act was NOT passed by Congress.You see, these policies were proposed and debated in Congress.  In an unusual instance of clarity and display of backbone the act was rejected.  Apparently a majority of Congress, our national legislature and representatives of the people, decided against such a law.  Obama wanted to do "the right thing," though, and found it necessary to circumvent Congress and the people and enact the law by kingly fiat.

I repeat my call for Congress to stand up for the Constitution.  Do not cede your delegated power to a tyrant.  Any member of Congress who thinks this Executive Order is the right thing to do has abrogated their duty to the Constitution and is not worthy of the office.