Catholics may have hoped that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare" would have curtailed the threat to our religious freedom posed by the HHS contraception mandate. This, of course, didn’t happen, so the lawsuits from Catholics and other religious groups continue.
But while the Supreme Court’s decision may be deeply disappointing, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation argues
that there is a silver lining. His argument is based on constitutional law, which is not within The Cardinal Newman Society's expertise or mission, but we Catholics could use some cheering up. Todd Gaziano, director of Heritage’s Center, wrote yesterday after the ruling:
Today’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare—though it is tragic with regard to statutory interpretation and health care policy—has two significant constitutional silver linings. At the constitutional level, the stakes are much more significant and resistant to political influence. In short, the American people may elect new representatives to repeal Obamacare, but today’s constitutional rulings are far more enduring. And they are, on balance, wonderful.
Although Gaziano thinks that the Court was incorrect in reading the individual mandate, which requires citizens to purchase health insurance, as a tax, he also argues that the ruling struck a blow for limited government:
Despite the Court’s error in reading the individual mandate penalty as a tax, five justices opined that the mandate, standing alone, cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. This is not remarkable to anyone who knows the original meaning of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper powers, but it is a serious blow to 90 percent of the legal academics and about 90 percent of Congress, since these have been the clauses used to justify so much of the modern administrative state.
On the pro-government side of the ledger, Chief Justice Roberts goes too far to expand the reach of Congress’s taxing power. That is not a good development by any means, but the Framers understood that there are at least some political checks on the use of the taxing power. This is one reason why President Obama and the liberal sponsors of Obamacare tried so hard to deny that it was a tax. One political reality of today’s decision is that the Court essentially reads Obamacare as a massive tax increase, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Didn’t someone promise not to do that? …
The majority’s ruling on the onerous conditions attached to the Medicaid expansion is also helpful in limiting Congress’s power to bribe states into submission or to threaten them with the loss of federal revenue in a long-run federal-state program. In a fractured set of opinions that will take some additional time to untangle, a majority of justices imposed limits on Congress’s ability to threaten the denial of previous funding streams based on states’ agreeing to new funding conditions in those programs. Indeed, seven justices seemed to agree that some constitutional limitations were breached in the Medicaid expansion. This itself is a landmark ruling.
...[W]e still have an uphill battle to restore W]e still have an uphill battle to restore and preserve the written Constitution we have been bequeathed, but the Court today put some temporary brakes on our republic’s descent down an extra-constitutional slippery slope in which the federal government can control any aspect of our lives that has any imaginable impact on commerce—meaning everything.
Catholic Education Daily is an online publication of The Cardinal Newman Society. Click here for email updates and free online membership with The Cardinal Newman Society.