[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: The 1934 Dinner Party That May Have Helped Save Obamacare Jul 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT Could a 1934 Washington dinner party hold the key to Chief Justice John Roberts landmark decision on the Affordable Care Act In late 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been in office more than a year and decided to move forward on what would become his greatest domestic achievement: Social Security. He assigned his secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, the first woman ever to serve in the Cabinet, to lead the way on designing the program. But Perkins was worried. The Supreme Court was moving toward a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would invalidate many of the great achievements of the New Deal. Soon that would include the National Recovery Act, the capstone of FDRs famous First Hundred Days in 1933. (It would be another four years before Justice Owen Robertsno relationwould famously switch sides and the Court would begin reversing itself, partly in response to FDRs 1937 court packing scheme.) Perkins went to dinner at the home of someone lost to history and recalls in her memoirs that she bumped into Justice Harlan Fiske Stone there. When Perkins expressed worry about whether an old-age and survivors insurance program would pass constitutional muster, Stone, a Republican appointee to the court and future chief justice, replied: The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need. Stones point was that if Social Security or anything else Perkins might cook up was financed by a tax, it was permissible under the Constitution, especially since the original taxing power had been bolstered by the 1913 adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, which legalized a federal income tax. The other laws being invalidated in that eraindustrial codes, minimum wage, safe working conditionswere entirely unrelated to taxation and thus not constitutional for the Courts conservatives. So even if Perkins plan werent an income tax as specified in the Sixteenth Amendment, it was fine and no different than, say, pre-Prohibition federal liquor taxes. This was a no-brainer for the right-wingers of the era. Not only was the Social Security Act of 1935 not overturned, but the very conservative court of that period wouldnt even accept it for review. The taxing power was so clear in the case of this social insurance legislation that it wasnt even worth arguing about. The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need. Then, as now, there was some sales deception involved. Social Security was sold by FDR as a social insurance program where each employee paid premiums into a personal retirement fund; in truth, its financed by a payroll tax and the money collected goes to todays retirees, not the workers who paid in. Obamacare was sold as being funded by a mandate; in truth, its like a cigarette tax, as the chief justice wrote, designed not so much to raise revenue as to change behavior. In this landmark case, National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, a majority of the court rejected the argument that the individual mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and four of the conservative justices went to great pains in their dissent to argue that the mandate wasnt a tax. The fallout is rich with irony. The Wall Street Journal editorial pageon the same page it excerpted the dissent saying that the mandate wasnt a taxdepicted Obama as a liar for saying exactly that throughout his presidency. Without knowing it, the Journal had Obama on the same team as Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. Even though they hate Roberts decision, Republicans on the campaign trail have immediately embraced the legal reasoning they despisedthat the mandate is a taxto fashion a political attack. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Abcdefg (#0)
I love this....;} Note that before the Winter of 1932-33 there is absolutely No mention of either SS OR Food Stamps. That's what 7.5 million deaths from starvation will do to the Imperial City. Same with the Obamcare ruling. People are dying in Flyover Country at the same time we're losing our Wars overseas....;}
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|