Tuesday, July 3, 2012

It’s a tax, it’s not a tax…..whatever.

It all amounts to the same thing. It is a mandate to trade with private organizations that currently make up an Oligopoly. This particular Oligopoly was created BECAUSE of government regulations in the first place. So first, they deny us the right to buy health insurance across state lines; and now they are forcing trade with those same health insurance companies…. I smell a rat. But beyond healthcare, we need to take a close look at what just happened at the Supreme Court. Here are a couple of thoughts I had regarding their precedent.
The first thought I had is that we no longer have the right to choose who we do business with. If the government deems the industry important in the scope of the American economy, Congress will use their new found power. When Congress is granted power, they use it. I am forced to think back to the auto bailouts, TARP and other extensive overreaches by the government designed to “stimulate” a failing industry in the name of “a sound American economy”.  What should happen if these industries start failing again? What happens if demand for American cars dries up? Under the new Supreme Court precedence it is theoretically possible that Congress can demand that the American people buy American cars or else pay a “tax/fine/whatever”. I can hear the spin now, “We need to support these American companies to help the American economy. If you are buying foreign automobiles, you are killing the American auto industry and should be fined/taxed/whatever….” This is simply not American and is certainly not free market capitalism. The only question is, “Do the people in power realize it?” My guess is yes.
The second thought is in regards to the reactions from my fellow “Liberty Minded” individuals. Many of them brought up the possibility of nullification. While I would support such an attempt, it is almost certain to fail. Every time nullification has been on the table it has been stricken down with the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. We would have to convince the Supreme Court that the 10th amendment trumps the Supremacy Clause in regards to participation in a federally mandated program. This isn’t likely. The only way any the legislative branch of government can “overturn” or “nullify” a Supreme Court decision is through a Constitutional Amendment and given the current nature of politics, I don’t see that happening either. The Supreme Court has been known to give contradictory opinions on cases, but that can only happen if the case reaches the Supreme Court. The politicization of the Supreme Court is just another step on the road to Totalitarianism.
My third and final thought on the Supreme Court precedent is this. In NO, way, shape or form is this decision “good” for the Republican party. $4 mil to the Romney campaign doesn’t change this drastic change to our market. Even IF Romney repeals ObamaCare the precedent has already been set. Similar legislation will be up again, and we will not be able to rely on the Judiciary Branch of government to protect us from Constitutional violations from the Congress. One of the scariest points that Chief Justice Roberts made in his opinion is that he believes it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the American people from Congress. He needs to understand that in the system of Checks and Balances it IS his duty to keep congress in line with the Constitution regardless of how many votes the representatives that created the bill received from the America electorate. If congress wants to change fundamental principles in the Constitution, they must do so with a Constitutional Amendment. The idea of Constitutional Amendments being so difficult to pass is to ensure that the American people are not divided on an amendment to the root law of this country. It is not right for Congress to use the powers of the judicial branch to change the principles in the constitution because it’s expedient to do so. Many pundits have missed this point.

“A republic, as long as you can keep it.” - Franklin

In Liberty,
Jake Severance

No comments:

Post a Comment