In order to fully understand the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act, one has to understand what the Supreme Court actually is authorized to do under the Constitution. It is only authorized to rule on the “constitutionality” of anything brought before it.

Part of the way the Affordable Health Care Act was passed was by telling the people that it was absolutely not a tax, but a “mandate.” What the Supreme Court has said in its ruling and written opinion is that it is not a “mandate,” thus not falling under the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution, but it is  a tax. Many of us were lied to about what it is!  Congress has the right via the Constitution to tax, and it can basically tax anything it wants to.  It is a tax in the same way that FICA is a tax withheld from a paycheck to pay that person’s portion of the Social Security tax.

What Chief Justice Roberts preserved in the long run, frankly, is the position of the Court to not become an “activist court” by usurping its authority into “law making,” and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Law making is rightly reserved to Congress or the state’s legislature.

What the Court and Justice Roberts did not do is tell Americans whether the Affordable Health Care Act is a good law or a poor law or how your politician (pick your side) told you what it might do in the future. Just because something is Constitutional does not inherently make it “good” or “bad” law — it can be either. The Court simply sent it back to Congress who is the law making arm of the federal government. Is it good law or bad law? Do some research and find out for yourself. Courts cannot be used endlessly to right the bad choices the “people” make and/or continue to make. At some point, the “people” must take the responsibility of learning and knowing enough to make wise decisions for themselves in electing the “law makers,” legislators or congresspeople who will make wise and “good” laws.

Catherine Paxton

Arlington