WASHINGTON, June 27, 2015 — Your most valuable possession—you—is no longer yours. You are now the subject of arbitrary law.
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president can unilaterally change legislation if, in his opinion, it reflects the will of Congress. If he doesn’t like the clear meaning of the words, he can interpret them to mean that he gets what he wants.
A 2,700-page, totalitarian piece of legislation, Obamacare, that lawmakers had to pass before they “could find out what’s in it,” is now our master. We are no more than cogs in this destructive government machine.
Under the Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell, Congress passes mere suggestions and the president transforms them into law. Thus the high priests of the high court legitimized arbitrary, authoritarian rule. America officially began its slide into authoritarianism Thursday. Justice Antonin Scalia lamented in his dissent,
“Words no longer have meaning … Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to be the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
Scalia got to the heart of the constitutional question, saying the high court’s “philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘all legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution.”
According to the letter of the law, federal subsidies can flow only to states that have created Obamacare insurance exchanges. Only 14 states have such exchanges.
Obamacare’s Supreme Court boosters feared that without federal subsidies, the program would rapidly collapse under its own weight.
“The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence,” wrote Scalia.
This creates a host of horrific “what if” scenarios.
What if a president decides he understands the “real” intent of Congress, say, concerning gun-control legislation? He says federal gun laws may not have established an outright ban on so-called assault weapons, but that, in his view, it was clearly the intent of Congress.
Further, he “knows” the law can only work with the confiscation of all such weapons.
What if the president decides that hate-crime legislation should be expanded to include microaggressions? He believes that Congress would surely have added microaggressions to their legislation if it had existed outside the sheltered cloisters of the university; he sees it as clearly the intent of Congress. And so, the law is expanded to restrict microaggressions concerning race, ethnicity, gender and political discourse.
It is his interpretation that rather than restricting free speech, Congress merely intended to enhance the quality of that speech.
As Scalia noted, “words (the letter of the law) no longer have meaning.”
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
The Supreme Court just declared you convicts and your country a transcontinental prison camp.