When the Roberts Supreme Court made its June 2012 decision on Obamacare, it rejected the administration’s argument that forcing people to buy health care was constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

In recent years courts have twisted the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. When written, the Commerce Clause was intended to give the federal government the authority to regulate the transportation of goods from one state to another. It was not meant to cover goods once they reached their destination.

So, a truck full of poultry traveling from upstate New York to New Jersey could be regulated by the federal government but once the poultry was unloaded, the federal authority ended and the authority to regulate switched to the laws of the individual state (e.g., in this example, New Jersey). 

In the 2012 Obamacare decision, however, the Roberts court also found that the Congress/federal government — under its taxing authority — has the power to levy a tax (or penalty) against those who choose not to purchase health insurance. So the result was the same, but the authority used was different. Even though the administration claimed it was not a tax, in the end the court decided otherwise.

In the court’s more recent Hobby Lobby decision (June) it based its decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was introduced by the late Sen. Kennedy, D-Mass., by then-Congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in the House, and supported by Senate Democrats, many of whom are still serving today. It was then signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. 

The Roberts court found that this statute “trumps” a regulation issued by an executive branch agency. The court’s finding was not about contraception and it’s not a “war on women” as many in the media, the administration and Democrats are saying.

What these people are saying makes a good sound bite for the midterm elections but it is patently untrue! 

All the court was saying in was that for closely held companies if a government action imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, it must — under the 1993 Act — serve a compelling government interest and it must be done by the least restrictive means possible.

The court found that there are other ways in which the government could equally ensure every woman has cost-free access to the contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

So when a regulation issued by a department/agency conflicts with a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, the only right course of action is to side with the law. In the Hobby Lobby case that is exactly what the Supreme Court did.

But stay tuned — there are two more Obamacare cases in which federal courts have conflicting decisions. One of them may be heading for the Roberts Court for a final decision.

These cases question whether the IRS can offer health insurance subsidies to people who are using the federal exchanges. The statute passed by Congress was purposely crafted in a manner to encourage states to form their own exchanges using the carrot that if they did so, insurance premiums would be subsidized by the federal government. But with only 16 sates establishing their own exchanges, this tactic has backfired.

The law clearly states that in order to qualify for subsidies people must use “state exchanges.” If the court decides to stick with the letter of the law then the funding for Obamacare will quickly start unraveling and that could doom the law’s future.

Bill Sargent, Mark Mansius and John Gay are writing a series of columns on timely issues for today. All three ran in the 14th Congressional District primary.

(2) comments

Paula Flinn

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, & Kennedy! All males, all conservative right-wing-nuts. What do you expect?

A friend of mine told me that it seems like all you have to do to get a regular column in the Galveston Daily News is to run for office and lose. He called the "authors" of these columns the 3 Stooges and the 3 Losers! Another friend told me that she quit reading their articles because it made her stomach hurt!

George Croix

Kennedy is a 'conservative right wing nut"?
Has anybody told him about it....?[wink]
The last appointee to SCOTUS was Justice Elena Kegan, in 2010.
Prior to that, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in 2009.
The other Justices are the same as they have been, with Justices Ginsberg and Souter on the left, and Justice Kennedy split in the middle to slightly left overall.
With that in mind, consider that since 2012, meaning with THIS court sitting, the Obama Administration has been defeated in the Supreme Court by UNANIMOUS 9-0 vote, 13 times.
That's 13 times, defeat by unanimous vote. Including the 4 members firmly and emphatically liberal, and the one who's as likely to be as not, ALL voting with the 'right wing nuts ' against the Administration. And, 3 of the unanimous voters are female.
I bet that goes right past 'stomach hurting' to full blown nausea...
I believe that 13 is a record....[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.