Alice in Supreme Court Land

Alice had a strange time in Wonderland. Here’s what she would have encountered had she fallen down the rabbit hole into the Supreme Court.

200 px

Photo credit: Wikipedia

When Alice fell down the rabbit hole into Wonderland, she encountered the Red Queen, the Mad Hatter and other strange creatures. The favorite expression of the Red Queen was “Off with their heads!” Unfortunately, the Mad Hatter’s comments were rarely decipherable. In its Thursday ObamaCare decision, the Supreme Court — unlike the Red Queen — did not yell, “Off with it’s head.” Instead, in a manner befitting the Mad Hatter, it held that the ObamaCare mandate is a penalty (as the Congress had referred to it) only for one purpose and a tax (as the Congress had refused to refer to it and as President Obama’s merry troops continue to claim it is not) for all others.

I sing of Obama!

The Court held it to be a penalty for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because as a tax it would not have been subject to judicial review prior to 2014. The Obama Administration had wanted it to be reviewed by the Supreme Court before the November election; that’s the reason it took the case there. However, the Court wisely told us that it is a tax for all other purposes because congressional taxing authority is essentially limitless. The Court did not expressly create a hybrid creature and call it, for example, a Tenalty or a Pentax; it is unknown what the Mad Hatter might have done.

According to this article,

The Roberts opinion does real harm to the broader credibility of our legal system. The individual mandate was called a “penalty” to get around a federal law (the Anti-Injunction Act) and then resurrected as a “tax” to make it constitutional. The joint dissent nailed this contorted legalese as “deep in the forbidden lands of the sophists.” To call Obamacare a penalty sometimes, a tax others, takes aim at the foundations of jurisprudence. If words have no meaning, law has no meaning.

Instead, Roberts reinterpreted the text by fiat and usurped the legislative power of the Congress. If the Congress was passing a tax, it was apparently news to them. This retroactive designation of a “penalty” as a “tax” displayed a breathtaking disregard for not just law—but our common understanding of language that creates it. It also opens the door wide to endless Congressional machinations to compel purchase of anything, for any reason, under the newly elastic “tax” definition.

As also noted here,

[T[he Court has rendered the limitations on congressional power placed in the Constitution utterly meaningless.   There is nothing Congress cannot make you do at the “barrel” of a tax.  Acceptance of this idea means buying either that the Framers designed our federal government to be one of unlimited power or the liberal notion that the Constitution is a living, malleable document.  It means disregarding the entire historical record surrounding our founding, as well as the purpose and construction of the Constitution.

. . . .

How far the Court’s decision will reach is unknown.  How and to what extent Congress will abuse the taxation power moving forward is equally unknown (a fact which those celebrating the decision should consider…can we say “tax on everyone who does not own a gun”?).  What is known is that Congress, if willing to impose additional “taxes” on inactivity, now has no constitutional limitation on what it can make you do.  So for those of us who think our constitutional system of limited government is important to the preservation of liberty, the decision is proper cause for mourning.

Ah yes, but we must look at it from the perspective of Humpty Dumpty, which more closely resembles that of the Supreme Court majority.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’

Surely, it is best for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be the master of his words and not a slave to the hackneyed usages of lesser lights. The Mad Hatter might agree; who knows what he might say or what he might mean by whatever he might say. It is unfortunate that he has not been appointed to the Supreme Court; uh, has he?

Congressman Allen West said,

The president said that this was not a tax, now we know that it is only Constitutional because it is seen as a tax. . . . “This was a horrific decision that was made yesterday because, basically, it’s granting unprecedented taxation authority to the federal government.”

He is, of course, correct. As I wrote here, the decision gives the Federal Government authority over commerce and everything else via the taxing powers of the Federal Government — even though the Federal Government seemed either not to have noticed or  to have paid much attention to that delightful possibility earlier.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Federal Government can tax the non-purchase of gasoline. Hence, it can apparently tax the non-purchase of every other good or service in or not in interstate commerce as it might wish. Should it decide to tax the non-purchase of vegetarian delights because veggies are good for us (or more likely to promote the businesses of veggie contributors so that the honorable members can receive more campaign contributions from them) that’s fine. On the same theory, it can presumably tax any other non-activity it may chose.  How about a tax on failure to work for a living? Nope, that would offend the devotees of free stuff. Guns? Please! Don’t be silly.

In my earlier article I acknowledged that I have found no cure for the SupremeCourtitis or MadHatteritis virus that caused these things (the Center for Disease Control has not announced the results of any research on the matter). We can try to amend the Constitution but success is unlikely. We can try to elect CongressCritters and Presidents  familiar with the Constitution and likely to read legislation before they vote on or sign it into law; if successful, that might help at least for a while. We can try to get ObamaCare repealed but that won’t cure the underlying problems created by the Court’s decision. We can even try to have another Civil War, but that would be folly; I guess.

This may help.

If that doesn’t help, maybe this will. CAUTION: YouTube has labeled this video as potentially offensive (if viewed there rather than by clicking on the arrow at the center of the screen here). View it at your own risk; I disclaim all liability.

In any event, on the Fourth of July be sure to ignite only safe and environmentally friendly fireworks and neither to do nor even to think anything even remotely militaristic.  Also, please do not call it Independence Day because that’s no longer cool.  Keep in step with the Modern American Way!

About danmillerinpanama

I was graduated from Yale University in 1963 with a B.A. in economics and from the University of Virginia School of law, where I was the notes editor of the Virginia Law Review in 1966. Following four years of active duty with the Army JAG Corps, with two tours in Korea, I entered private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in communications law. I retired in 1996 to sail with my wife, Jeanie, on our sailboat Namaste to and in the Caribbean. In 2002, we settled in the Republic of Panama and live in a very rural area up in the mountains. I have contributed to Pajamas Media and Pajamas Tatler. In addition to my own blog, Dan Miller in Panama, I an an editor of Warsclerotic and contribute to China Daily Mail when I have something to write about North Korea.
This entry was posted in Abuse of Power, Campaign contributions, Civil War, Commerce Clause, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Courts, Democracy, Elections, Fourth of July, health care, Health Control, Humor, Insanity, Justice, Justices, Law and Order, Lies, Nonsense, Obama, ObamaCare, Opinion, Republicans, Robert E. Lee, State of the Union, States' Rights, Supreme Court, United States and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Alice in Supreme Court Land

  1. Pingback: The Election May Show that the Nanny State is What we Want. - Tea Party Tribune

  2. Pingback: Opinion Forum » The Election May Show That the Nanny State Is What We Want

  3. Pingback: The Election May Show that the Nanny State is What we Want. | danmillerinpanama

  4. The Mad Jewess says:

    Its all too unbelievable for words..

  5. Pingback: Alice in Supreme Court Land - Tea Party Tribune

  6. Pingback: Opinion Forum » Alice in Supreme Court Land

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s