Our future is in the interpretation

After three days of hearings, America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law concerning the future of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. When the justices announce their decision in June, it will undoubtedly influence the future of our country not only in terms of health care reform, but also in terms of regulating commerce to the point of undermining many freedoms that we take for granted.

The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to mandate that American people buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court decides that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it should find the individual mandate unconstitutional. Then the Court would need to decide if all or part of Obamacare is unconstitutional as well.

If the Court upholds the mandate, the federal government gains unlimited power and resources for future decisions. However, before the Supreme Court can make any ruling, it must take into account the Anti-Injunction Act. Under this 145-year-old federal tax law, people cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. So, if Obamacare’s individual mandate is viewed as a tax under the law, it could not be challenged at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Unfortunately, some people think that the Court could rely on the Act as a means to avoid answering the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.

While there is no doubt the Supreme Court has a difficult decision to make, there are doubts that the Court will keep politics out of its ruling and remain objective in upholding the law-of-the-land – the United States Constitution. Enforcing the Constitution must be the Court’s number one priority. However, I’m not convinced the justices can keep politics and personal opinions out of their decision.

For example, when she was Solicitor General for the administration, Associate Justice Elena Kagan helped prepare a legal defense for the bill. Now she refuses to accept recusal from the Affordable Care Act decision. One would think this is a conflict of interest. However, Associate Justice Kagan doesn’t see it that way.

Now 89 years old, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “I would not look to the U. S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Rather, she recommends looking to South Africa’s Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Then we have Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has quickly become the most well known member of the Court’s liberal wing. In fact, the Los Angeles Times printed that Associate Justice Sotomayor is a “reliable liberal vote.” Once quoted as saying, “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law,” we can only hope she abides by her words.

The future of our country is now in hands of the highest court in the land. If the Supreme Court uses its judicial power to interpret and enforce the U.S. Constitution as a means of protecting its citizens from their government rather than empowering the government to control the people, it will make the right decision.

tgrasson@gie.net