The Court’s Dictatorial War on Language

0
983

judge

By Stephen Z. Nemo:

Round and round, here we go again. Two appellate courts have issued contradictory rulings on the legality of ObamaCare subsidies for those unable to afford “Affordable Care Act” premiums in health care exchanges “established by the State under section 1311” of ObamaCare. In other words, the law clearly states that the 14 states with their own exchanges are the only states qualified to get federal subsidies under the ObamaCare statute.

Fearing an early ObamaCare collapse, the IRS  took time aside from targeting Tea Party groups and destroying computer hard drives with email evidence proving White House guidance, and issued a rule allowing “tax credits” for individuals purchasing health care plans through federally established exchanges; a blatant violation of the law.

In its decision declaring the IRS rule unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said, “Within constitutional limits, Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted through the formal legislative process. This limited role serves democratic interests by ensuring that policy is made by elected, politically accountable representatives, not by appointed, life-tenured judges.”

“… The meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted…”

The Obama administration announced it would ask the D.C. Circuit for an en banc hearing, which would allow all eleven justices (mostly Democratic appointees) to decide whether to uphold or reject their three-judge panel ruling of Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that ObamaCare revisions by the IRS is “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.” That means in matters of law, the IRS, not the Congress nor the courts, have the final word. And the IRS has the power to determine the meaning of that final word – and the penalties leveled against those who don’t subscribe to their “discretion” in matters of language.

If a federal agency, which targets citizens opposed to Obama’s revolutionary transformation of America, has “discretion” to interpret laws, Congress and the courts are superfluous – and the Constitution’s separation of powers is no more.

The contradictory appellate court rulings will require the US Supreme Court to decide if unelected executive branch agencies are the undisputed rulers of America. And if recent, narrow high court rulings are an indication of what’s to come, the vote of one justice will decide the fate of 311 million Americans.

We began racing down the slippy slope to dictatorship when “We the People” allowed our government to break free from the chains of the Constitution.

———————————————————————————————————————-

You can follow Stephen Z. Nemo’s More Than Right Podcast at this link (http://morethanright.podomatic.com/), or click the iTunes link below. You can download the podcast to your digital device by visiting:  https://player.fm/series/more-than-right-podcast

Basic CMYK

LEAVE A REPLY