By: Les Dunaway
There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court’s decision “upholding” Obamacare { Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act} in
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL
v
SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
[full text]Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, in the majority opinion, what can, arguably, be called the most convoluted decision in the history of the Supreme Court when he said that Congress couldn’t, within the Constitution, do what they did but it was OK, because they could have done it another way.
There were and are those who call for Justice Robert’s tarring and feathering for the decision.
However, there’s more to the decision than the mandate vs tax issue.
Michael Opitz, President of the Madison Forum, has actually read the decision, all 193 pages. And, he’s found that important Constitutional principles are strongly upheld in it.
Here’s is Michael’s speech to the Georgia PSC on 18 Dec 2012:
Georgia PSC Comments
12/18/2012
By
Michael Opitz
My name is Michael Opitz. I am the president of the Madison Forum, a civic non-partisan organization focused on Good Government,” with a constitutional foundation, and in this year’s Georgia primary election, I was a candidate for Congress in the 11th District. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the PSC this morning.
Very few people have read the Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare written by Chief Justice John Roberts. His justification and writings supporting his ruling goes far beyond healthcare and taxation, and this bears great notation because it restates and underscores Federalism and the responsibility of the States to exercise their rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Justice Roberts is certainly no right wing radical, but he does support the fundamentals of the Constitution from his perspective, and his will is now the law of the land. So let’s understand the logic of his thinking that supports that law.
I quote from his written ruling:
“… our cases have recognized limits on Congress’ power under the Spending Clause to secure state compliance with federal objectives. We have repeatedly characterized . . . Spending Clause legislation as much in the nature of a contract.
Barnes
v.
Gorman
,536 U. S. 181, 186 (2002) (quoting
Pennhurst State School and Hospital
v.
Halderman
, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981)). The
47Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012)Opinion of R
OBERTS
, C. J
Legitimacy of Congress’ exercise of the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the contract.
Pennhurst, supra, at 17.
Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.
Bond
, 564U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting
Alden
v.
Maine
, 527U. S. 706, 758 (1999)).
For this reason, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.
New York, supra, at 162.
Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer. That insight has led this Court to strike down federal legislation that commandeers a States’ legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes. See, e.g., Printz, 521 U. S., at 933 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers);
New York,
supra, at 174175
(invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a power akin to undue influence.
Steward Machine Co.
v.
Davis
, 301 U. S. 548,590 (1937).
Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when pressure turns into compulsion,
ibid.,
the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.”
A PSC Commissioner spoke several months ago at a Tea Party meeting where he explained that because of EPA mandates, the cost of energy derived from coal burning plants for Georgians would increase; however, the PSC was challenging that ruling in Federal Court. I asked the question, “Where in the Constitution is it stated that a federal government agency has the power to direct a state to implement its directive?” As I recall, the commissioner had no answer.
What if some other federal agency issued the same guidelines as the EPA, by what authority do they have over the States. According to Chief Justice Roberts, they have no authority other than what the states wishes to give them as a full partner in compliance.
This leads us to another point. Why would a State take this issue before a federal court which may take years before reaching the Supreme Court for a final decision, when States are directed by the U.S. Constitution; Article III. Section 2. Paragraph 2.
“In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have “original Jurisdiction”. This provision of the Constitution makes us question why the States including Georgia begin their lengthy federal court cases with lower level courts when Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court shall have “original jurisdiction”.
It appears that the Georgia does not fully understand its constitutional powers and role in addition to the under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Why spend the time and money going through a lower federal court appeals process when it has the authority to go directly to the Supreme Court. Surely this appeals process is not just a jobs program for attorneys and wasteful spending, because The Supreme Court has already ruled in Georgia’s favor, and States are not the vassals of the federal government.
To repeat Chief Justice Roberts: “Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government.” I have already mentioned Justice Roberts’ reference to nuclear power regulations nullified by a previous ruling. I strongly recommend that this esteemed body review all federal regulations that effect PSC compliance, related costs, as well as good practices that have a negative impact on Georgia and its service providers.
A new day is before us and that day is not a footnote in constitutional legal philosophy, and is now reaffirmed by a most current Supreme Court ruling. I sincerely hope the PSC and other State Government agencies strongly defend Georgia’s constitutional status as an “independent sovereign(s)”, as we seek to solve our own problems.
Thank you,
(Michael Opitz)