Obamacare vindicated: The right result for the wrong reason

In the recent case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius (2012) the US Supreme Court vindicated the Constitutionality of “Obamacare.” The Court reached the right result, but for the wrong reason.The swing vote in this case was Justice John Roberts who joined the “liberal” minority to make the winning majority coalition vote of 5 to 4. One suspects that, since the disastrous case of Citizens United (2010) Roberts didn’t want the “Roberts Court” to go down in history with another horrific mistake — two in a row. In other words, public pressure, opinion and scorn can make a difference.The last time this happened was during FDR’s New Deal, in the case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), when by a 5 to 4 decision the Court upheld, against all odds, the government’s power to establish a minimum wage. The critical swing vote was by a conservative justice, coincidentally named Owen Roberts (no relation), in a move famously known ever since as “the switch on time that saved nine.”Once again, Justice John Roberts has “saved nine” by holding that the Obama “penalty” for non-compliance with the individual “mandate” to obtain insurance is really a “tax,” and consequently is authorized by the “enumerated” power of Congress to tax, even if the underlying intent, to require insurance, is by itself unconstitutional.The Roberts rationale is not only not substantiated by the plain language of the U.S. Constitution (see “Obamacare is Constitutional,” The Lakeville Journal, May 24) but it leads to obviously absurd results. Imagine an Act of Congress requiring all Americans to root for the New York Yankees — thus regulating “inactivity” particularly if you happen to be a Boston Red Sox fan. This would clearly be unconstitutional, unless of course you were already a Yankees fan. But suppose the Act goes on to say that anyone failing to root for the Yankees must pay a “penalty” in the form a “tax” payable to the IRS. According to the Roberts Court, that would make the Yankee mandate constitutional. With all due respect to Yankees fans, isn’t there something wrong with this line of reasoning?Clearly, there’s something that doesn’t make sense about an otherwise unconstitutional act that somehow becomes constitutional so long as non-compliance with the act is punishable by a “tax” payable to the IRS. If Obamacare is to survive the test of law and history, we have to do better than that.So we can: Obamacare is constitutional because it stands at the confluence of two types of undeniable federal power: (1) the power “to regulate commerce” and (2) the power “to provide for the general welfare.” The meeting of these two powers is the real, honest explanation of most U.S. initiatives serving the “common good,” from the New Deal and Social Security to Medicare and the protection of endangered species.. It’s what Madison and Jefferson had in mind when they and other framers drafted the U.S. Constitution the way it is actually written, finding a rational compromise between limited and plenary powers of government.If we are honest about this, it’s not rocket science. It requires the political will and integrity to read the clear language of the U.S. Constitution the way it is actually written, grasp the framers’ original intent, and with an eye to the development of our democratic society, the ever-perfecting union, to serve the rights and well-being of all Americans.Still, let’s face it. We must take advantage of the current Roberts Court’s extraordinary decision, with its understandable desire to save itself in the eyes of the law and history. Why must we do this? Because it is the salvation of America. In short, the reason we support “Obamacare” is because “Obama Cares.”Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.