Yesterday's 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court to affirm the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) was so historic that Political Warrior has come out of summer holiday to share some thoughts. First, my guy Chris Matthews said exactly what I was thinking when I stayed with the breaking news on SCOTUS blog and saw that the Individual Mandate was to be upheld by the deciding vote of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
Surprising, yes. But like Chris said, the Chief Justice's decision gives me faith to continue to teach government and politics.....not just politics. It also gave me, like the Harball host, faith in my religious teachings of social justice. The Chief Justice is one of several Catholics on the highest court in the land. Chris Matthews thinks he may have thought about his belief in social justice that made him rule the Afordable Health Care Act not only constitutional, but right. Interestingly, Roberts is one of 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court. He and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the law. Catholic dissenters were: Alito; Kennedy; Scalia and Thomas.
________________
SCOTUS blog, linked above, and Oyez.org, had the most accurate account of yesterday's historic decision. Other media outlets, not so much. CNN and Fox News broke the decision as the Individual Mandate being struck down. The Youdia has made for an historic photoshopped picture, appropriate since all Democratic presidents since Truman (remember seeing "Dewey defeats Truman") have been trying to reform healthcare in the U.S., the only industrialized democracy with so many of its citizens not currently covered by health care. (Thanks to WV AP Govt grad and former YG Governor Janesh Rahlan for sending me the pic!)
________________________
Several AP GOPO terms were in play yesterday. So as the Supremes used their judicial review to determine whether the policy under 'Obamacare' was constitutional, think about these that AP students should be familar with.
Congress Powers: While the adminstration expected to be upheld under the Commerce Clause (Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce) which is where the federal government has had its influence expanded greatly over the last 50 years (Interstate Highway Act), or the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Chief Justice found the the grounds to uphold the law by the Power of the Purse the authority to regulate taxing and spending.
Despite the fact that many conservatives criticize some liberal justices' decisions as being judicial activist (legislating from the bench) when Roberts sided with the four liberals he was using judicial restraint (letting what the lawmakers passed stand). As SCOTUS blog wrote:
"The Affordable Care Act including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
The Medicaid part of the decision may be a limiting of fiscal federalism, or marble cake federalism. On the Medicaid funding part, mandate is when the federal government makes the states comply with a policy. An unfunded mandate is when the federal government makes the rule but doesn't show the states the money. Traditionally, the federal government uses carrots (fiscal benefits) or sticks (holdbacks or penalties) to get states to comply with national policy. It will be interesting to follow what Republican state governors decide to do about federal monies scehduled to come their way as part of the now consitutional Affordable Health Care Act. Sarah Palin called on all governors to"be tough" and opt out of the Medicaid expansion. She also earlier tweeted, "Obama lies; freedom dies." Really?!?
Melissa Hart of the Byron White Center for Constitutional Law Studies also broke the High Court's decision down in valuable way for AP GOPO students, and all of us, Really.
"The Supreme Court majority acted exactly as we expect courts in our system to behave--with appropriate judicial restraint. By upholding the ACA as a valid exercise of congressional power, the Court showed respect for its co-equal branch of government and for the our nation’s Constitutional structure. The decision was a victory for the rule of law in our country."
________________________
BTW, this week The Supremes also struck down most of the contraversial Arizona Immigration Law, but left the provision that local law enforcement can still stop someone and ask them to present their papers (this may be challenged after someone has been detained because of being "paperless." I guess, I was wrong, and were are not all trying to Go Green that way). Anyway, IL Congressman Luis Gutierrez made just the beginning of some good political theatre on the floor of the House of Represenatives this week. CSPAN was "Must See TV."
By Thursday afternoon, by party lines GOP lawmakers in the House of Represenatives took the historic, but theatric step of voting Attorney General Eric Holder in "Contempt of Congress" over the "Fast and Furious" ATF plan that was charged as "walking" arms to Mexican drug cartels, which eventually led to the death of an ATF agent. Terms to use here: subpeona (Congress's power to use oversight and demand documents from the executive branch); executive privlage (president's power to keep information privlaged for issues of national security); special interests (like the NRA that vowed to fund opponents and place any lawmaker that did not vote against the Attorney General on an anti-gun legislator scorescard). This again is the difference between governing (or enforcing the law, which the ATF is supposed to be doing) and politics (which, according to the linked article below, is all that's went on yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill)
The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal
2 comments:
The more I read the article, the more I realize the seriousness of this. I don't understand how you can possibly deny the magnitude of this when the ATF has publicly admitted to their mistake. I thought this was a very "political" issue myself, but to deny that gunwalking occurred at all is just absurd.
Five law enforcement officers claim the ATF didn't allow this to happen; is 5 a magic number for some reason? And is there any proof behind these claims? Why is it necessary to use executive privilege to block the release of these documents if this scandal is truly blown out of proportion?
Overall I'm very disappointed with the way the Democrats have responded to a very reasonable request. All both parties can do is level accusations at each other based on what limited documents they have already and what they've heard from ATF agents and others involved (who can make whatever claims they want, really). The only way to REALLY put this ugly beast to rest is to released the subpoenaed documents and let things play out; should not be a problem for the most transparent administration ever.
Also, I understand it is merely a nuance, but the fact that Roberts declared the law a tax is not judicial restraint. As a matter of fact, it is diametrically opposed to the terminology applied to this law in years past by congressional Democrats and even (quite ardently) the President himself.
Post a Comment