In ruling ObamaCare constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed President Obama a major victory. After months of bad news on the economy that has essentially turned his effort to gain re-election into a dead heat, this is a huge boost for his administration. But the grounds on which it has been validated is a poison pill that may come back to haunt him. The president and the Democrats claimed the expansion of government power was permitted by the Commerce Clause, but it survives only as a tax, something the president denied back in 2010 when he and the then Democrat-controlled Congress passed it.
Conservative legal scholars may console themselves about the fact that a Court majority placed some limits on the way the Commerce Clause could be interpreted. But the majority’s approval for it on the grounds the government’s power to tax citizens is virtually unlimited is actually a far graver blow to individual liberty than had it said the individual mandate was permitted under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling has made plain what many said when the legislation was passed: ObamaCare is the biggest tax increase in history, and far from being limited to the wealthy, it applies to everyone across the board. As much as this is a victory for the president, it hands Republicans an issue with which they can flay him until November. The Tea Party movement is now routinely dismissed as yesterday’s news, but the Court may have just brought it back from the dead.
In essence, the Court rolls the election calendar back to 2010 when the GOP was able to mobilize the country against the vast expansion of government power being undertaken by the Obama administration. Now Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republicans can argue that while the Court ruled it constitutional, its passage was the result of a deception, and the net result is a tax hike for the entire country as well as granting the government an unprecedented expansion of power.
The health care debate now switches from speculation about what the Court would do to one about whether the voters are prepared to re-elect a president who has snuck through a massive tax on the middle class on a technicality. While the president will attempt to spin this issue as one of helping the uninsured, Republicans can go back to the arguments that gained them a midterm landslide two years ago. Repeal of ObamaCare is now not a sidebar to the failing economy but an integral part of the GOP argument that the Democrats have not only worsened the nation’s finances but will sink it even deeper in the coming years as the bill is finally implemented.
The Court has illustrated that the real choice in 2012 is between two visions about the power of the government and its ability to tax and spend, and the only limit on that power comes from the voters, not the Constitution. It remains to be seen whether the result will be the same as in 2010, but Republicans can certainly argue that if the people want to place limits on federal power it must elect a Congress and a president who will take the country in a different direction.
The odds now have increased dramatically that Mitt Romney will capture the White House. Obama is forced to run on increasing taxes!
This is a FOOLISH argument, Jonathan. The dissent is right: It is NOT a tax. Why should Romney side with the Majority and say it is? Romney would have to make the awkward argument that, while he agrees with the Majority that it IS tax (Biggest Tax Increase In History), he still thinks that it is unconstitutional. How can he say that? The fact is, it is NOT tax. It was a PENALTY. That is key to the Dissent and to holding the law unconstitutional. Romney can't have it both way: He can't say "it is a huge tax" but it is unconstitutional. n nThe only way Romney can do this is to say it is a huge tax AND it IS constitutional. Perhaps that is the clever argument, but it will royally piss off every Republican, Conservative and American who values the constitution. n nJustice Roberts betrayed our Constitution. That is a fact. Romney cannot make the crucial point while also claiming this was a tax. Romney must either make a constitutional argument (ObamaCare is invalid) or it is a tax. He cannot make both.
One can still argue that while the Supreme Court has technically found it legal, it violates the spirit of the protection for individual liberty that inheres in the Constitution. It is a tax increase that in its scope and nature violates the essence of the Constitution.
Rebecca —- "violates the spirit" sounds akin to Jimmy C's sinning by having lust in his heart……
Mitt Romney does not have to debate the finer points of Constitutional law. He merely needs to run against increased taxes. That's probably enough to ensure victory.
Obama will correctly argue that the most conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with him that the ACA is not a tax. Who are Republicans to disagree with them? Frankly, Obama would be right, as Scalia and Thomas compelling argue.
Your comments sound like the queen in Alice in Wonderland. Romney DID say that the the act is constitional- the Supreme Court ruled on this today. However, he is absolutely right in pointing out the FACT of this decision- that this is one of the biggest tax increases hoisted on the American public by stealth and by decpetion. That will certainly be one of the main arguments to gvie Obama his walking papers.
Michael, don't believe me. Believe Scalia and Thomas. They explain why it is a penalty, not a tax. Do you disagree with them? If so, why and on what basis?
BDZ- When it comes to politics, the label isnot important- the effect is. Obamacare had a fig leaf by saying it is not a tax (see Obama vehemently denying it)and the president could say- with a straight face- that it is not a tax.Now, even that fig leaf has disapeared. Romeny and the Republican will hammer him on this.
This is certainly an eye opener and it re-confirms what we've known all along, that we can only trust men and women that are answerable to the voters. Our hopes may have been dashed, but our republican ideals are reaffirmed, only more so.
Conservatives are going crazy. It's like that scene from Scanners times 20. Let Romney go ahead and whine about TAX. We'll all be curious to see the health care plan he comes up with that won't cost a dime. GOP to the uninsured: drop dead.
"The Court has illustrated that the real choice in 2012 is between two visions about the power of the government and its ability to tax and spend, and the only limit on that power comes from the voters, not the Constitution." n nAn excellent point for those who believe it doesn't matter who is elected, or who believe there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Elections have consequences and Obamacare is the result of too many voting for an inexperienced candidate running an intentionally vague campaign. Congress and the President can make a mess of our lives and our futures, they are given that power within the Constitution, so it is important to make an informed choice and to expect more answers instead of questions about those elected to leadership before voting them into office.
I reject the apparent point of Tobin's post. Tobin is a sophisticated pundit but here he runs dangerously near to conflating principled legal reasoning. This judge, like the metaphor of the umpire he offered during the confirmation, called the issue as he saw it. The rule is that legislation is presumptively valid. The rule is that if there is a principled basis for upholding legislation, it should be upheld. Roberts ruled "conservatively" in Citizens United and in just recently voting against the Manitoba challenge to its holding. Here he "conservatively" rejected commerce clause grounds and "liberally" upheld the health care law on tax grounds. The scare quotes in these instances are meant to signify their stupidity in characterizing Roberts. The evidence is that he in good faith strives to call cases as he sees them on principled bases. If the reflexive amongst us could stop jerking their knees, they'd see how well off they are with such a principled Chief Justice and they'd honour him for that instead of slagging him. He's truly doing his job properly.
You are kind of a dope.
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.