What Really Happened with ObamaCare

--By on --

Headlines after the Supreme Court Ruling on Obama Care and much of the rhetoric by elected Republican politicians illustrate just how badly is our understanding of the Constitution of the United States. Charles Lane for the Washington Post writes on Saturday June 29, 2012; “But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days.”George Will in the Washington Post on Friday June 27, 2012 writes;“Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday.” Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post on Friday June 27, 2012 writes;“By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He [Roberts] managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obama Care.” Even Congressman Rob Woodall in an editorial in the Gwinnett Daily Post on Saturday June 30, 2012 entitled WOODALL: The people will have final word on healthcare, agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts opinion; “It is not our (the Court’s) job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Rob Woodall say’s; “And he’s right.” Woodall continues on; “It’s not the Court’s job to protect us from our own bad decisions. As Americans, we do not want an activist judiciary that substitutes its will for the will of people. The Supreme Court this week rejected a degree of judicial activism …”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court decision was judicial activism at it finest. Those five justices legislated from the bench. The Supreme Court can only rule on the Constitutionality of a duly enacted legal law. The law was passed by Congress with the mandate as a penalty – fine. The Supreme Court changed that language, changed the law to define the penalty as a tax. That is fraud. These supposedly conservative writers and Congressman Woodall’s understanding of the Constitution is very convoluted.

Supreme Court







The Judiciary Branch is defined in Article III – The Judicial Branch of the Constitution of the United States. Section 2, defines the powers of the Supreme Court. It states; “[The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States ...” It was the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of Obama Care. It has no authority to write law. Yet in his opinion Chief Justice John Roberts says; “Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a '[s]hared responsibility payment’ to the Federal Government. The Act provides that this penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and ‘shall be assessed and collected in the same manner’ as tax penalties”. This is judicial activism because Robert’s makes the leap that Article 1, Section 8 gave the Congress the right to fine you for not buying health insurance. Justice Roberts put into existence, made law, that a penalty for refusing to participate in the health exchanges is a ‘tax’. But this is not all about this law that violates the Constitution.

The Obama Care Law is legislative and judicial fraud. Andrew C. McCarthy in his piece in PJ Media, Obama Care Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due Process, on Saturday June 28, 2012 writes; “They said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty—and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly.” The law legally signed by the President identified the mandate as a penalty, yet the Supreme Court changed the law to define the mandate as a tax. That is judicial activism and it certainly is not conservative or Republican.

About Bill Evelyn

Bill Evelyn was raised in the village of Oaks in Valley Forge, PA. Upon graduation from university, Bill entered the United States Air Force and flew F-4 Phantoms in the Philippines, Korea, Europe, did an exchange tour on the USS Midway. Bill has lived in Forsyth County since 2000, longer than any other place in his life. Bill is active in the tea party and Republican Party.

View all posts by Bill Evelyn

Share This Post


Subscribe by Email

7 Responses to What Really Happened with ObamaCare

  1. DavidRichard

    July 3, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    This is the typical glass half-empty response by those who don’t get everything they wanted, and don’t fully understand what happened.

    Sure, I think many people would have liked the whole law to be overturned via a court decision (myself included), but if you look a bit deeper, more was accomplished than lost in this ruling.

    First, you have a clear statement by Chief Justice Roberts that the Commerce Clause was an inappropriate and unconstitutional method for enabling Obamacare. That is THE FIRST judicial restriction of the Commerce Clause in the history of this nation, and it will successfully limit Congress’ whims to use it to justify anything else for years to come.

    Next, you have a clear ruling that the Federal government may not punish states in other areas for not expanding Medicaid under this law. Once again, the power of the Federal government has been specifically limited via a judicial act. The Court realizes that Federal programs are not always what they are cracked up to be, and they are finding ways to reduce or limit unfunded mandates from the Feds.

    Finally, Roberts puts the onus squarely on the Legislative Branch to clean up their own mess. He calls out Congressional Democrats for trying to hide an obvious tax as a penalty (and all the political downside of doing so) and makes it far easier to repeal the tax / penalty in future Congresses; as taxation and budgetary items can be done via reconciliation – making them filibuster-proof if it were to be brought up in the Senate under a Republican majority.

    So we really have three very good rulings and one bad one. Now it is up to the voters in each state to take advantage of the good ones by electing people who will vote appropriately in order to get the desired result we didn’t get from the bad one.

  2. Brad Wilkins

    July 3, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    David – welcome back to our new Comment section. I understand your point that this decision limits the commerce clause which is a big step for the courts. Do you have any concern that this restraint is simply offset by a now unlimited use of the power to tax.

  3. Bill Evelyn

    July 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Chief Justice John Roberts did not issue an “opinion of the court” regarding the Commerce Clause. It was his own personal opinion, which is very different because there is no precedence in a personal opinion.

    Then he changed the wording in the legislation calling what the Congress and President signed as a penalty, into a tax. That is judicial FRAUD!

    Expanding Medicaid! Where is the money going to come from expanding Medicaid?

    The Supreme Court was created to rule on unconstitutional legislation, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. It is one of the checks and balances.

    John Roberts will go down in history as the Chief Magistrate who fell down on his duty for his own vanity. Wanted good headlines in the papers and a posterity. That will prove to be exactly what he gets, and it will be what his unprincipled decision sought to protect him from.

  4. DavidRichard

    July 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Brad, Congress already had virtually unlimited power to tax, so nothing new here, imo.

    And Bill Evelyn, he actually sided with the four conservative justices who agreed that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. That was the very first judgment that came down in the ruling (the one that caused both CNN and Fox News to put up their jumping-the-gun headlines).

    His balancing act was a short-term decision with long-term implications; I don’t even think he knew just what he was enabling with his vote in his desire to find a more “political” decision.

  5. DavidRichard

    July 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    And again, Brad, I will point out that what Congress can tax, another Congress can un-tax, especially by using reconciliation in the Senate.

  6. Hal Schneider

    July 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Does anyone know if the Supreme court has ever ruled in the past that the Congress has the power to tax individuals for NOT purchasing a product or service? Has the Congress ever passed a tax on the failure of an individual to buy a product or service in the past before?

    It seems to me that everyone is overlooking the implications of this part of the ruling. The government can now mandate that individuals purchase any product/service that they deem “essential” to the welfare of the country, and charge a tax on anyone who refuses. That seems pretty profound to me.

  7. DavidRichard

    July 5, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Hal, it doesn’t matter anymore about the implications of this ruling – the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of issue and it has ruled.

    There is one option legislatively, and the is to repeal the bill completely and replace it with something else (a long shot given that the GOP has to take both the White House and the Senate, and hope that there are no Senators who would vote against repeal).

    And you have an even longer shot, that being getting the White House AND hoping that one or more SC Justices retire on the liberal side (Ginsburg is certainly a candidate for that) and hope that a new conservative majority would look to revisit the ruling at that time.

    Finally, your comment about taxing individuals who do not purchase a product or a service is simplistic, and doesn’t address the details of the ruling. Understand, I don’t agree with the decision, but the justification for it, that Congress can tax an individual for not purchasing a product or service WHICH DIRECTLY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTS ANOTHER PERSON’S HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES, is a very narrowly defined ability with this ruling.

    It is simply not as open-ended a ruling as you believe it to be.