Late for bed, but did take a little time to try to wade through the texts of the opinions offered by the Supreme Court on Obamacare.
Of what I did read, it does seem yesterday's post was correct. But, bed is catching me too quick and perhaps I will update this later today when I am more sure.
It seems Chief Justice John Roberts does join not those who joined him in the basic premise of the ruling, but rather with those who dissented, in holding the Commerce Clause does not license the federal government to involve itself in such matters as the individual mandate.
It seems those who joined Roberts in the basic ruling opted out of agreeing with him on the Commerce Clause. I choose to call it a line-item veto. So, do we say the joining of the dissenting opinion to Roberts's view constitute a overriding of the "veto"?
Does it have the weight of being law, then? From what I am seeing, I do not think so. Roberts's opinion comes divided in part, and the four justices who join him sign on as to which of the parts they agree with, but none of the dissenting justices sign on as agreeing with any of the parts.
Still, this from Judge Thomas's opinion is of note. Thomas joined in the dissent with three judges, then added a dissenting note separately and of his own. "I write separately to say a word about the Coommerce Clause," he said. "The joint dissent and the Chief Justice correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Thomas lamented that a "substantial effects" test (whatever that is) "has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits."
The Commerce Clause says simply that Congress has power, "To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."
No comments:
Post a Comment