The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part II

Here's the problem. Under our Constitution, only the legislative branch - Congress - has the power to write laws. It was bad enough that the Executive branch - President Obama - decided to rewrite the ACA on his own when he delayed implementation of certain provisions, contrary to the express wording of the statute; and unilaterally granted certain exemptions not provided for in the statute. Now, the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to write laws by rewording the statute. We have an extraordinary system established by our Founders - 3 separate branches of government, each acting as a check on the exercise of unbridled power by the others.

As with any system, it depends upon the good will of those carrying out what they are entrusted to do. Today, we have an "ends justify the means" approach to governing, with the result being that, rather than act as a check upon one another, the 3 branches act in unison to enforce whatever they may deem appropriate - and the effect on individual liberty be damned.

What should have happened in King vs. Burwell was a decision allowing the subsidies to the States only, as the law was written. If it was written in haste or sloppily, it is the job of the Congress to fix it. Legislative bodies pass "clean-up legislation" all the time. The Court was not only concerned with the policy outcome should the subsidies be denied; but, in this writer's opinion, did not trust the Republican Congress to fix the law. So now, we have every branch of government engaging in the writing of laws, with the result being that that the Constitutional separation of powers is gone.

Just imagine what a President with even greater dictatorial inclinations than has Obama might do with this now unlimited power. Congress may pass a law that says everyone must vote. Then a President adds "and if you don't you pay a tax." And then the Supreme Court says "yes;" obviously Congress intended that enforcement mechanism or the entire premise of the law may fail. That is just what the IRS did in amending the law to grant subsidies to those in the federal exchange; and then the Court (which was worried that the insurance market would destabilize if they did not support the IRS in adding "or Federal Exchange"), went along with the entire scheme.

Now, the separation of powers is a myth. Compounding the problem with the Roberts' decision is the attack on "federalism" as well. We have not only a federal government, but 50 different state governments, with each also considered a sovereign entity with certain powers. Therefore, even if the Republican Congress failed to fix the perceived problem with the ACA, the states could have done so. With 34 states not having established an exchange, a decision disallowing a subsidy to those in the federal exchange might have prompted those states to reconsider their decision - and establish an exchange - in order to get the subsidy for their residents.

But, just as Roberts and those in the majority showed utter contempt for the separation of powers, the same contempt was shown for the idea of federalism; the idea that states as sovereign entities could decide on their own what would be best for their citizens.