The Supreme Court’s landmark–and controversial–ruling on President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation last week has expectedly stirred passions and inspired widely varying opinions concerning the court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s core mandates.
Heritage’s Robert Alt and Nina Owcharenko offered their take on the Foundry last Thursday, arguing for a full repeal:
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare reflects a tragic misreading of the law, one which could cost us not just economically but also in terms of liberty. On the bright side, the Court recognized that there are limits to what Congress may do under the Commerce Clause. But this was the silver-lining of a dark cloud. The Court then fundamentally misreads ObamaCare, contorting to find another authority–the power to tax–for Congress to enact the law.
The effects of the decision will be felt far beyond ObamaCare. By allowing government to require Americans to buy a product or service at the federal government’s direction, the Court has seriously damaged the principle of limited government. The decision announced today could open the door to even more dictates from Washington for generations to come. Indeed, anyone who has any doubts about this need only read the Court’s suggestion that Congress could force Americans to buy energy efficient windows or pay a tax.
Alt, along with Owcharenko, will expand on their call for repeal of the ACA decision at The Blogger’s Briefing on Tuesday at noon ET. Breitbart TV will carry it live.
Alt is a Director of the Rule of Law Programs and a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. Owcharenko is the Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and is an expert in health care policy.
The Bloggers Briefing will also be joined by former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins and Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, to discuss the threats to public companies’ involvement in public policy formation and the future of political speech after Citizens United.
Atkins details the efforts of the left to silence public companies through pressure campaigns like those observed in the attacks against the American Legislative Exchange Council this year.
Using the channel of annual shareholder meetings and proxy voting, social activists, unions, and other powerful groups have sought to force “increased disclosure” or otherwise prohibit any corporate involvement in public policy initiatives.
According to Atkins, at least 100 corporations have found themselves a target of such proposals, driven in large part by groups like Common Cause, AFL-CIO, SEIU, and others. Some have labeled the tactic “name and shame.”
Levey points to outright intimidation and the use of government force by groups interested only in shutting down their opposition. Levey cites three of the most prominent methods used recently against conservative and free market organizations–“lawfare,” bureaucratic harassment through repeated complaint filings with government agencies, and the criminal and potentially deadly practice of “SWAT-ting.”