Our ancient pledge to live in a nation of laws means nothing if one party aids the executive in undermining those laws on a whim.
— (((≠))) (@ThomasHCrown) July 9, 2014
As I had put up here, yesterday was a significant day where two high Federal Courts came down in two diametrically opposite results :
- The DC Circuit Court of Appeals (acknowledged to be the #2 Court in the land) – upheld the Rule of Law as written; the IRS cannot give subsidies to those that enroll in an Obamacare policy while logged into a Federal site; ONLY in an Exchange that was set up by an individual State.
- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals – upheld the Rule of Intent and not as the black and white words actually used in the statute. Instead of sticking to the wording, those judges decided that they could go by the intent of the Democrat Party in writing of the Law.
Sure, as a Federal taxpayer and a Conservative, when I add up the billions upon billions of tax dollars that are now being redistributed not for cause but for an ideology that says that “I didn’t earn it – we all did” and that I have less claim on it than those believing they know better who should have the benefit of my labor, I become more than a little disturbed. I understand that taxes are the price we pay for an ordered society, but when that tab rises far above what is actually needed, the draping feeling of being abused and dishonored is cloying. To take away that which my family should have is, let’s be plain, theft. I do believe in charity, but charity is a voluntary act – through heightened taxes that rise close to half (or more) of income , Progressive Government is taking that ability away from me. Progressives may believe that taxes are charitable donations but when one has no actual control over how and which the “charity works” are done in my name, that is not charity at all.
But that is not the primary reason for which I am growing scared. Are we moving from the Rule of Law to a Rule of Intent, a Rule of “Feelings”, or worse, a Will-of-The-Political-Mobocracy? I don’t know. Certainly it is clear that this must be one of the top three Administrations for showing contempt for the Constitution – the only “Social Contract” that I can actually see (
Sidenote: the Left keeps talking about “our Social Contract” that is supposed to be forefront and known by everyone – problem is, none of them can actually show it to me in black and white and it just keeps changing every time I try to argue some point or other. The impression I get is that their version(s) is more important than the Constitution – and that I have not “evolved” with them on this. But that’s typical – they just keep changing the ground rules.
The Rule of Law – we ALL can see what the Law is. IF the lawmakers have done their jobs well, the words should be knowable and understandable by the ordinary schlub (er, that would be me). They would have made the decisions and not left that to the bureaucracy for that is why we elect them. It is supposed to be the game plan for us all and not exceptioned to death for this identity group or that protected class of victims (though it seems that most laws lately are built with the carve-outs FIRST and the majority of us are afterthoughts (and maybe that is the message that is being sent on purpose – they matter, but we do not anymore). In engineering terms, it is deterministic – when applied, the outcome is the same over a range of input behavior. In the best of cases, it is binary – either you have fulfilled the law or you have broken it. It should work for us ALL and not a privileged few.
Most of all, we can depend upon it. Here, the definitions of State and Federal were laid out. Here, the actions of the IRS were proscribed – here you can, there you cannot. The DC Court said that where you cannot, you were. Thus, stop. The judges read the same law that we could. They accepted the definitions in the law. They looked at the relevant section of the Obamacare Law where tax credits / subsidies were discussed and what action were permissible by the IRS.
They found that the IRS disregarded the definitions in the law. They found that the IRS disregarded what was permissible. They ruled against the IRS for its actions.
They ruled, regardless of the outcome, “No mas!”. They ruled that “The Law is to be followed, the IRS is wrong” regardless of the outcome. Which in this case, may well render not just the subsidy mechanism is now inoperable in 34 States that do not have their own Exchanges but that both the Individual and Corporate mandates are no longer viable. But that was NOT their concern – nor should it be. Their’s is only to see that the Law is followed, however it is written. They saw the Separation of Powers and did not cross over to monkey with the Branch that is responsible for this fiasco – the Congress. It is not up to the Judiciary to write legislation and if Congress writes bad law, that is the table that has been prepared for the Judiciary to use.
The Rule of Intent – no one can see what is in the mind of he that judges. Our lawmakers (solely the Democrat Party) created this law and the responsibility for the words being knowable and understandable by we ordinary schlubs was their responsibility. They made lots of decisions that the bureaucracy would make the final decisions – devolving and giving their Power away. Thus, we, the citizenry, could not (and cannot, giving that the process is STILL ongoing) know what our Law is and all of the carve-outs that have been made for “the special people”. In engineering terms, it is not deterministic; we cannot know an outcome given some set of inputs as much of that “processing” depends on subjective intent instead of objective rules. There is no binary mechanism – it, from the beginning, is an analog world of broad spectrum and seemingly no result is like another. Also, a given circumstance now may yield a given result now but that is not given a month from now, a year from now, or a decade from now as the law is still not settled.
The judges read the same law that we could. However, they did not accept the definitions in the law. They looked at the relevant section of the Obamacare Law where tax credits / subsidies were discussed and what action were permissible by the IRS and which were not. It didn’t matter.
We cannot depend upon the words, they decided. Though the definitions were cast, the actions proscribed, the Fourth Circuit Court decided that The Rule of Law, that of the singular written word, was insufficient. They said that while the Law said no, they decided that in THEIR judgment of the INTENT of those writing the Law was more important than the Law itself.
They disregarded the definitions in the Law. They disregarded what was permissible and when. They ruled FOR the IRS in its regulation that said “we know what the lawmakers wanted even though the Law does not explicitly say that”.
They ruled emphasizing the “intended” outcome had to be followed. They ruled that “The Law is to be followed – except when we rule otherwise”. They ruled “The wording of the Law is wrong, the unstated intent should hold sway”. They said that the subsidy mechanism should be upheld in all cases, even in the case where it is proscribed by the words of the Law. It makes no difference if an Exchange is a State one or a Federal one. They decided that their concern IS to rewrite the Law (as opposed to ensuring that others follow it) for an intended outcome. They saw the Separation of Powers and plowed right over the dividing line. They have become complicit with the Legislative Branch in writing legislation. They decided that if they don’t like the table, they can refashion it to their pleasure (or ideology).
This is the most egregious thing about this – sure, money is money but there are more important things at stake – the underpinnings of our society. There are two Pillars to our Free Society – The Rule of Law and the Right of Private Property. In Obamacare, both are now at risk (indeed, have already been breached).
How can we trust our Judiciary when the Rule of Intent takes precedence over the Rule of Law? Words are supposed to have specific meanings and used in specific ways. When they cease to mean those things and stand for those actions, what good is the Law when it can mean almost anything at any given time?
A Constitutional crisis is when one branch arrogates power to itself and the others are powerless or unwilling to stop it.
— (((≠))) (@ThomasHCrown) July 9, 2014
