From the Summer Editorial Board: A Momentous Decision
By The Summer Editorial Board
Published on Friday, June 29, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Thursday to uphold key provisions of the Affordable Care Act has sent shock waves through the public psyche. In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts surprisingly siding with the Court’s four liberal justices, the majority supported the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate, but limited the government’s ability to cut off Medicaid funding to states that do not comply with new eligibility requirements. Whatever the political implications, the Court has settled the ideological score by implicitly accepting the central premise of the Affordable Care Act — that all Americans are entitled to health care as a fundamental right. On that note, today we are proud to call ourselves Americans.
By choosing to uphold the individual mandate, the Court subscribed to the government’s secondary line of reasoning — that the penalty imposed for not adhering to the mandate is the sort of tax that Congress can legally implement. This decision carries great significance for our generation of Americans.
In the legal battle preceding the decision, the argument against the law’s legitimacy focused on the act as commercial regulation. It is this view of the mandate as a tax that makes the decision so noteworthy.
In his majority opinion, Roberts stated that the individual mandate receives no legal protection from the commerce clause because the mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity, but rather forces individuals to become active in commerce. Roberts’ choice to justify the law’s constitutionality in the context of a tax seems to have affirmed the government’s ability to control behavior through taxation, but has also curtailed the breadth of the commerce clause. Indeed, Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a dissent on behalf of the Court’s liberal faction decrying the perceived harm done to the commerce clause and the Court’s apparent loss of jurisprudence over commerce and spending.
Ginsberg’s protest speaks to a broader point: From a legal and social perspective, the nuances of this decision will be hugely important in contextualizing future battles over government intervention. Roberts’ majority opinion is somewhat paradoxical in that it simultaneously supports a historically unprecedented expansion of government power yet leaves the Commerce Clause, a mighty and traditionally flexible portion of the Constitution, rather toothless. As with any landmark case, the real question lies in the precedent that has been set by the majority opinion. The health care debate is only the tip of the iceberg in discussions of the government’s proper role in society.
With the mandate intact, we should be especially proud of our country’s achievement, given the immediate and tangible benefits to our society from the gradual implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Among its most notable accomplishments is curtailing insurance companies’ ability to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and expanding the security of coverage afforded to young adults, like the vast majority of Dartmouth students, until they reach age 26. For now, it seems that the Court has adequately balanced the proper use of government power with the understanding that health care will remain one of the nation’s leading public policy concerns as we move forward. For that, the justices must be commended.
However, as the weight of this case reverberates through American society, we must wonder how the nation will react. Will future politicians be more inclined to justify policy change in the context of socially conscious taxation? How might organized interest try to leverage the government’s ability to impose taxes for noncompliance? Particularly with respect to the Commerce Clause, we can envision a later instance in which the government’s ability to regulate commerce, perhaps regarding a macro-level issue like climate change, will be hindered by the Roberts Court’s specific interpretation of this statute. Only time will tell, but what we know today is that it would be difficult to understate the impact of this ruling on the country.
Could any column be as ignorant and wrong as this one? Yes, but it would also have to be written by the staff of an Ivy League student newspaper to have a shot. “…all Americans are entitled to healthcare as a fundamental right. On that note, today we are proud to call ourselves Americans.” #1 The “healthcare law” has nothing to do with healthcare….as in zero. #2 The “healthcare law” taxes people for not knuckling under to purchase a product (health insurance) that the federal government wants you (is forcing you) to purchase. #3 America was founded on liberty and the protection of the rights of the individual to that liberty. #4 This “right” to be forced to pay a tax to avoid buying health insurance or to avoid the tax and be forced to buy health insurance, is the right to have your rights stolen out from under you for any reason the government now sees fit. #5 Our Idiot President himself, told Hillary in a debate in 2008 that just as the homeless problem can’t be solved by forcing the homeless to buy houses, the healthcare problem can’t be solved by forcing people who can’t afford or don’t want to buy health insurance to buy it and tax them for not buying it. This staff column could not better demonstrate the depth of mindlessness of the American intellectual left. The Dartmouth staff proves that it has no concept of the meaning of rights, when bestowing a supposed right that they approve of is dependent upon taking liberty away from every American citizen. Liberty is our right. Being forced to buy health insurance is not.
By Anon on Jun 29 | 11:17 am
Does anyone at The D have the slightest clue what the supreme court does? Lets look at these two sentences.
“The Court has settled the ideological score by implicitly accepting the central premise of the Affordable Care Act — that all Americans are entitled to health care as a fundamental right. On that note, today we are proud to call ourselves Americans.”
The Summer Editorial Board“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
The Supreme CourtWhat is going on in Robinson Hall???
By What? on Jun 29 | 2:30 pm
An excellent Troll by the D’s editorial board. This piece is clearly written with the a clever wit Jonathan Swift would be proud of.
First the piece starts off by stating a point everyone knows to be false, claiming this decision is about the rights of Americans to healthcare. Then goes on to attack the limiting of the commerce clause, when the government has just been given the right to force anyone to by anything as long as the bring a few IRS agents along for the ride.
I am glad the D’s editors managed to pry themselves away from B@B long enough to unleash this troll.
I will cross your bridge any dayBy Well Done on Jun 29 | 2:35 pm
I am also troubled by the editorial board’s sweeping proclamation that this decision implicitly stands for some kind of fundamental right to health care. It does not. The Court is always very careful to spell out when something is a fundamental right (e.g. marriage). Here, the court is saying that on one limited construal of the mandate (as a tax) it can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
In fact, Chief Justice Roberts was very careful to say that this may be a fundamentally screwed up policy that could do great harm to Americans, but the job of the Court is only to say whether the law can pass constitutional muster, not whether it is a sound policy. Where the Court can construe a law as constitutional, it is compelled to. And here it did. That does not AT ALL mean that the court implicitly embraces some kind of health care policy.
Your editorial is correct to point out a potentially difficult issue for this kind of legislation going forward, which is that the Court now has 5 emphatic votes that this law is a no-go under the CC. If anything, conservatives everywhere can take solace in the fact that the CC isn’t going to do much work for these kinds of laws for the foreseeable future.
Overall not a terrible editorial, but be a little more careful!
‘10
By Anon ‘10 on Jun 29 | 2:48 pm
I am actually shocked that the editorial board thought it was a good idea to publish something like this. It looks like one of the editors took Gov 5 and now thinks that he’s John Marshall.
Stating opinions as absolute facts, such as “all Americans are entitled to healthcare as a fundamental right,” and saying that the ACA provides “immediate and tangible benefits to our society” is the best way to promote closed-minded thinking on campus. Let’s have a more objective piece that sticks to the (correct) facts please?
By Alum ‘03 on Jun 29 | 8:15 pm
I applaud the above commentators for their insight. This article’s opening premise that the court’s decision makes them “proud to be Americans” smacks entirely too much of Michelle Obama’s ill-advised statement about finally being proud of her country when her husband was nominated for President. The rest of the article demonstrates clearly that its authors have neither read the actual opinion nor understood what the ruling was. Despite the fact that Obamacare was ruled constitutional, it was a Pyrrhic victory at best for Obama. There is now a precedent for reining in the long, broad sweep of the Commerce Clause (which has been used since 1787 to justify almost anything). The liberal justices, after having been tricked into signing onto the majority opinion, are now in the ironic position of embracing an interpretation of the commerce clause that is anything but liberal. Once you have entered into an understanding that the commerce clause can be broadly interpreted to expand congressional authority, all your opponents have to do is demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that a certain shady company does not engage in interstate commerce, and thus is not subject to congressional oversight. This is what happened during the late 19th century and it will be fun to see how the liberal justices squirm to get away from the implications of their ruling. It would have been better for them to let Obamacare die, and preserve the larger point.
Still, much as I hate to squash anyone’s American pride, they really had no choice. In three-and-a-half years, Barack Obama has no other achievements to claim. The economy remains stagnant and unemployment, after adjustment for those who have stopped filing, is in the low double digits. The next president is going to have a tough job to rescue this sinking ship…and as hard a job as Barack Obama came into in 2009, he has done nothing to alleviate the situation. If record counts for anything, this President cannot, should not, be re-elected. Four more years of clueless bumbling could mean disaster for this nation.
And so we turn to the challenger. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is relatively new to the national stage, but we don’t have to take his word for it that he can handle the problems ahead. All he has done for his entire career is rescue sinking businesses, through Bain Capital, through his work at the 2002 Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts. So this year we have two choices for President: In a year when the next President absolutely must have the ability to cut costs, improve services, and right sinking economies, we have a guy who has done it his entire life and a guy who has never done it. The choice seems clear to me. If you don’t want to be mortgaged to your eyeballs for the rest of your life, vote Mitt Romney 2012. But that’s just my take. You students are the future of this country and you will have to make this decision. Make it wisely. We all have to live with the consequences.
By Prof. Adam Carman on Jun 29 | 10:28 pm
If we allow Mr Jefferson a word, we were founded on a belief that “ all men are created equal,and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What does the right to life mean if we cannot protect our health? What does liberty mean for the citizen whose equality is compromised by unequal justice under law? The logical end of unqualified liberty is the chaos of inequality. Joe Herring 55
By Joe Herring,’55 on Jun 30 | 11:28 am
“If we allow Mr. Jefferson a word” and what follows that is gobbledygook, double talk. What does the right to life mean if we are aborted? What does the right to liberty mean if we are taxed or penalized for not doing what the ruling party or class wants to force us to do? What does liberty mean to the citizen who if forced to pay for the non-citizen? What does legal mean when the government picks and chooses which laws to uphold and which to ignore? The logical end of liberty is the fact that liberty is an end in itself. The concept of an “Unqualified liberty” is a fraud, made up to disqualify liberty, when it is liberty from which all good is attained and flows. “Unequal justice under the law” is what we have when some benefit at the forced expense of others without due process and the government forced buying of health insurance is just another in a long line of redistributive programs and what is redistribution other than theft? The individual is not saved by wholesale destruction of the rights of the individual through government power. The Jefferson comment is not only false and senseless, but it is an assault on liberty itself, masqerading in the name of liberty.
By Anon on Jul 2 | 12:26 am
This is why the voting age should be 25, or at least until you are no longer dependent on mommy and daddy, where everything seems to be FREE!!
By The Future Bodes ill on Jul 2 | 12:38 pm
Interesting, Anon. So you are saying that it is fine for someone who is essentially naive because they are “dependent on mommy and daddy” to make the choice to fight in a war they may very well know nothing about, but on the countering side they are not yet ready to vote for the commander-in-chief who will be leading them into the war? Rather, they should follow him blindly. That’s great for someone who also supports underfunding education so we all become “yes men” and sheep who follow the herd. I would like to thank the writer of this article for taking a non-partisan, American approach to the momentous news that touched the lives of so many Americans this past week. Here at Dartmouth we value education and the social safety net that allows so many Americans to receive aid in order to achieve that education. Read the mission statement, and perhaps then you will see that yes, this institution does value equal opportunity, and therefore this article well represents Dartmouth College. If you’re not interested in reading such literature, find you niche in the Union Leader.
By Student on Jul 5 | 3:50 pm
Not too interesting Student. “Here at Dartmouth we value education and the social safety net that allows so many Americans to receive aid in order to achieve that education.” Education has nothing to do with where you go to school, or if you go to school at all. Education has to do with an inherent interest in learning, which happens as a natural course of living. Some are interested, others aren’t. A high percentage of the smartest among us didn’t go to school or didn’t go to college and if they did go they dropped out to get into the “real world” because college is full of re-education BS, left-wing trash. Einstein was a poor student, Steve Jobs thought it was a waste. Bill Gates dropped out, Michael Dell dropped out, Thomas Edison and a huge percentage of the inventive minds of all ages didn’t get past the 8th grade, if that. They didn’t have a “social safety net” either, they had work and many had nothing but hard work and they got so used to depending on themselves for their livings that they just kept right on working hard and not expecting others to pay their way, like you. The Democrats who passed this mandated health insurance monstrosity have now decided to call those who won’t follow orders or don’t want to and those who are using the “Social safety net” in actual healthcare…“freeloaders.” Well, are they freeloaders? And if they are free loaders for not buying what the Democrats think they should be forced to buy, then what does that make people who are using the “social safety net” of other people’s money for their food, housing, healthcare and education? I guess we would have to go at least another step or two to define them and that would be “criminals” along with the Democrats who passed the criminal laws to take other people’s money in order to construct a social safety net to satisfy their criminal supporters “needs.” Take that to the Union Leader.
By Anon on Jul 9 | 1:45 am