Supreme Court Attacks State Rights and the Rule of Law

JEFFERSON CITY — Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two opinions that represent perhaps the greatest expansion of federal power in our lifetime. We are a country founded on two important principles; the rule of law and a system of checks and balances that ensures power and authority is shared and not concentrated in any one person or branch of government. Both of these principles were indefensibly attacked last week by a court that has taken judicial activism to a new and dangerous level.

First, on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled on King v. Burwell. At the heart of this case is whether Obamacare allows individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies or if only individuals who purchase insurance through state exchanges can receive subsidies. After Obamacare was passed, proponents assumed the states would set up their own exchanges, but 37 states — in one way or another — declined to do so and instead used the federal marketplace. It’s not difficult to understand why. Obamacare was passed by liberals in Congress who then lied about the fact it was a tax when it was being debated, and then the president issued unconstitutional executive orders to change and redefine it. The people of Missouri never bought into the lies and lofty promises and, in 2012, voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the creation of a state exchange unless it was approved by the Legislature or a ballot initiative.

Section 1401 of the ACA (better known as Obamacare) specifies that tax credits are provided to individuals who purchase qualifying health insurance in an “[e]xchange established by the State under Section 1311.” Section 1311 defines an exchange as a “governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.” It would seem obvious to any observer or anyone who can read that subsidies are available only through state-established exchanges. Not so, says the Supreme Court. The majority ignored what the law actually said and rewrote it to reflect what they think the Obama Administration meant to say when writing the law. Justice Scalia said it best in his dissent; “[w]ords no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State’” and “[w]e should start calling this law SCOTUScare (SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States)”. Scalia is right. These judges took it upon themselves to bailout the president and his friends in Congress for a law that was poorly written and shoved down Americans’ throats. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s words, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” In the process, the court violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and reduced Congress’s political accountability.

If possible, the other opinion handed down by the Supreme Court last week will have even more far-reaching and negative consequences. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court legalized gay marriage across the country. In the process, the court threw out marriage amendments in 31 states that were adopted by voters. Just 10 years ago, more than 70 percent of Missouri voters voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The Tenth Amendment, which the president, every member of Congress and the Supreme Court is sworn to uphold, reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states. The Constitution gives the federal government no authority in defining marriage so that responsibility belongs solely to the states. Essentially, the court says the states can’t make this decision for themselves and that we need a federal government so big and so powerful that it can define the very nature of an institution that existed long before the Supreme Court was even created.

The truth is the court rushed to appease public opinion in certain areas of the country and, in the process, trampled all over the First Amendment rights of Americans and Missourians who have deeply-held religious beliefs on this issue. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people…” Make no mistake about it. This decision had nothing to do with the law or with the Constitution. It had everything to do with judicial activism and reactionary politics. This decision opens up a legal can of worms that we will be forced to deal with for years to come. For example, will our ministers, pastors, and clergy be forced to perform gay weddings? Will the tax-exempt status of our churches be in jeopardy? Will private, religious colleges be forced to change curriculum, admissions or personal conduct standards? These are serious problems that the Missouri General Assembly will have to address.

For my part, I remain committed to the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and I will never deviate from it. It is a conviction deeply held and comes from an authority higher and more powerful than five members of the Supreme Court. I also remained committed to fighting Obamacare which, in my opinion, is still unconstitutional and is doing nothing to improve healthcare or bring down the skyrocketing costs of care and insurance. Instead of a federal answer to every problem, more issues should be left to the states to decide. That was the solution of the Founders of this country and if it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.