SHARE

BATTLE MUCH BIGGER THAN SOCIALIZED MEDICINE … 

wilsonBy Bill Wilson  ||  Do we live in a nation of laws enacted by our duly elected representatives?  Or do we live in a country in which a handful of elites can do as they please with no regard to those laws — or due process for those affected by them?  This is the central question the U.S. Supreme Court must answer in the wake of Halbig v. Burrell — the court case that could derail Barack Obama’s socialized medicine monstrosity once and for all.

Forget repealing, defunding or nullifying Obamacare: This is the silver bullet the law’s opponents have been looking for all along.  But Halbig is much bigger than that — it’s a fight over the validity of every law passed by the U.S. Congress.  Ever.

On July 22, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had exceeded its authority in extending Obamacare subsidies to the thirty-six states that rejected the law’s state-run exchanges.   They ruled this way because the president’s law expressly limited the availability of subsidies (and the taxes necessary to fund them) to exchanges “established by the State.”

It’s right there, in black and white.

Obamacare supporters (and many of the administration’s mainstream media advocates) claim Congress intended to make these subsidies available to all states regardless of whether they created exchanges.  According to them, a handful of Republican judges are nit-picking the law — trying to sink it on a “technicality.”

Congressional intent is obvious, they add, because Obamacare simply cannot survive without the revenue derived from a nationwide implementation of its insidious “individual mandate.”

Is the “intent” argument valid?  Of course not …

(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).

Bill Wilson is a board member of Americans for Limited Government. This column – which originally appeared on NetRightDaily – is reprinted with permission.