Thursday, March 29, 2012

Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare (Affordable Care Act of 2010)

I have long believed a lawyer need not be a Supreme Court Justice.  I think that anyone that can think logically and limit their attention to the constitution alone could successfully serve on the court.  I am a software engineer.  My entire day is spent evaluating variables within the logical constraints of the programming language.  Programming languages can span volumes and volumes of documents and nobody can be expected to fully understand everything about the language (just like obamacare).  However, if the constitution were a programming language, the entirety of his manual would only constitute a pamphlet.   Additionally, unlike a programming language, the constitution is rarely ever changed, and when it is changed, the totality of the change is a mere few paragraphs.  It would be very easy to apply an legislation (variables) through the very few filters of “if” statements and properly interpret whether or not the if is true or not.  Let me now use my engineering skills to interpret the constitutionality of Obamacare:
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 contains within a compulsory mandate requiring one to enter into commerce.  It is believed by this legislation that the power of government to regulate interstate commerce can be extended to anticipated commerce.  The foundation of commerce, whether interstate or otherwise, requires the voluntary engagement of both parties.  If one party is denied the opportunity to enter into that contract through act of government, regardless of the societal impact, the very nature of contracts, in fact the very nature of the power of government, is so substantially altered that Affordable Care Act of 2010 cannot be found to be constitutional.  If this court decides that the barrier to voluntary engagement in commerce is insubstantial enough to disallow government action, than there is no longer any boundary between the federal government and its ability to force compulsory action in voluntary commerce.
In regards to the severability of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, if the judicial is to determine that the individual mandate is severable from the act as a whole despite the lack of written intent of severability by the legislature, the judicial must then apply unwritten legislative intent to re-write the act in a way that would anticipate the legislative intent for the act without the mandate language; therefore, if portions of the act are stricken, the entirety of the act must be stricken as well.

2 comments:

Kansas Bob said...

Seems like the Obamacare mandate was once a "conservative" plank in the healthcare platform aimed at the folks who use the ER as their doctor office. Maybe the SCOTUS should strike down the mandate that ERs have to accept uninsured folks that come to them for (sometimes life-saving) help? If they strike down one mandate then it makes sense to strike down the other. Makes sense unless you are uninsured and get hit by a bullet.

Kansas Bob said...

In case you are wondering about that initial mandate I suggest that you google the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed by congress in 1986.