If you commit any minor driving infraction in Tennessee, you can be pulled over. Also, you’re a criminal.

Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog, By Daniel Horwitz - Tennessee drivers beware: stray outside your lane – even an inch, and even for just a moment – and you’re subject to being seized and arrested by law enforcement. Also, you’ve just committed a crime that can land you in jail for up to a month.

In a pair of companion cases handed down by the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon, the Court observes that “[o]ur legislature has chosen to criminalize the common driving infraction” of crossing lane lines. Moreover, the Court explains, the fact that “drivers in Tennessee [] cross lane lines ‘all the time’” makes no difference. No matter how minor the offense, if you’re suspected of having committed any driving infraction of any kind anywhere in the state, then neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Tennessee Constitution will protect you.

...it is now a fact of life that virtually any driver in Tennessee can be stopped and jailed anywhere and at any time simply on an officer’s whim for no reason other than that it is impossible to drive perfectly within one’s lane at all times.(link)

Top Stories

TNJA EXPOSES PARTISAN DEMOCRAT STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

NASHVILLE, TN, June 16, 2014 – Following the revelations that operatives of Barack Obama are

Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Gary Wade, seated,
and, standing from left to right, Justices Janice Holder,
Sharon Lee, William Koch Jr. and Cornelia Clark.
Gary Wade, Cornelia Clark, and Sharon Lee face
retention "elections" in August.

working for the re-election of Tennessee’s Supreme Court Justices, and that liberal financier George Soros and trial lawyers are directing resources toward the same campaign, Tennesseans for Judicial Accountability (TNJA) strongly questioned the judges’ nonexistent nonpartisanship.

“Our justices are already favorites of trial lawyers – have they now added Barack Obama and billionaire George Soros to their fan club?” asked TNJA president Grant Everett Starrett. “What’s it going to take to pierce the smokescreen the Democrats have put up for 40 years to maintain their control over the judiciary? If the judges quack like Democrats, waddle like Democrats, and rule like Democrats, they’re Democrats.”

J. Ammon Smartt, co-founder of TNJA, observed, “The judges may claim a fig leaf of Republican support, but even the Soviet Union found well-compensated unelected local lackeys throughout the captive nations of Eastern Europe to toe the line of Moscow. But where are the Republicans who support the judges who do not have a stake in the outcome? Is something ‘bipartisan’ merely because you can exploit a handful of people of the opposite party to support you?”

If so, in the spirit of bipartisanship, TNJA is happy to direct attention to the statements of two-time Democrat gubernatorial nominee John Jay Hooker, who has received over a million votes from Tennesseans, and has gone on the record saying: “Hopefully, in the two months between now and election day in August, THE PEOPLE will be made aware of their opportunity to defeat ALL Retention-Election Judges.” [John Jay Hooker, 5/29/14]

TNJA listed seven deadly Democrat sins of the judicial candidates:

• Their spokesman appears to be an Obama operative joining a cabal of Democrat personnel on their campaign. The Tennessee Watchdog is reporting that Victoria McCullough, identified as a spokesperson for the three justices up for re-election in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, may have previously served as development chief of staff for Obama’s political organization and worked for the Obama White House. The Tennessee Watchdog also calls out other partisan Democrat members of the judges’ campaign staff. (Tennessee Watchdog, 6/11/14)

• The judges’ handpicked Attorney General refused to join 26 states in challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. (Tennessee Report, 3/2/12)

• The D.C.-based political media firm that designed the Keep Tennessee Courts Fair website specializes in “progressive causes” and works exclusively for Democrats, including Barack Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the national trial lawyers group, the national teachers union, and the SEIU. (MVAR Media Clients)

• George Soros’ Justice at Stake organization is getting involved on the behalf of the three incumbent judges. (Tennessee Watchdog, 6/12/14)

• All three judges were appointed by a Democrat, and screened by a Democrat-dominated committee stacked with trial lawyers.

• Trial lawyers recently lauded Supreme Court Chief Justice Gary Wade as the “2014 Appellate Judge of the Year.” (TN Courts, 5/6/14)

• “[Wade is] a Democrat, a proud Democrat, in the reddest county in Tennessee.” – The Mountain Press, in 2005, also reporting that Wade had raised money for Democrat Ned McWherter. (The Mountain Press, 8/08/05)

“These points constitute demonstrative evidence that the judicial candidates up for reelection are partisan Democrat politicians,” said Starrett. “And yet this is just the tip of the iceberg for why Tennesseans should vote to replace them in August.”

About Tennesseans for Judicial Accountability: TNJA was formed in 2013 to formalize the efforts of conservative attorneys who for years have fought to ensure that our courts actually follow the Constitutions of Tennessee and the United States. A primary goal of TNJA is to promote needed improvements in the judicial system to achieve the fair and impartial administration of justice within an independent judiciary. To that end, we supported the presence of Amendment 2 on the ballot this November and continue to set the record straight with respect to the judiciary. TNJA is a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization. Our President is Grant Everett Starrett, an alumnus of Stanford and Vanderbilt Law School. Our Chairman of the Board is J. Ammon Smartt, a corporate attorney and an alumnus of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Memphis Law School.

Top Stories

Marriage is too fundamental to let it be rotted away

by Gene Wisdom

The assault on marriage continues unabated and now reinvigorated with the Supreme Court officially taking the position of the homosexual lobby’s shock troops: “If you oppose us it is because you hate us.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was an attempt to preserve and protect not simply the Constitution but an institution—the institution—central to not just Western civilization but to civilization itself. Marriage between a man and a woman (which I will refer to as traditional marriage) is not just defined in that way, it is what marriage is. It is true across the world, across cultures, and throughout history. Even in classical Greece, where homosexuality was widely accepted, marriage was then what it is now. Until the last ten years. But what are centuries against right now? Until zealots, both feminists and homosexual activists began pursuing a drive to bring down the institution of marriage. The institution was attacked as patriarchal by militant feminists and then became a vehicle for the promotion and acceptance of a lifestyle that is completely contrary to marriage’s purpose. It became one more target of modern liberalism in its project to re-make society and human nature.

When a man and a woman get together, children are often the natural outcome. No debate on that, right? This natural product of that union has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with government and neither can do anything about it (though the militants are happy to do so through legalized abortion). Human babies are helpless. They require parents to live, to thrive, and to become independent, law-abiding adults who contribute to the stability of society. Again, nothing to do with government. Where government has a role is to recognize these facts and to do what it can to promote that framework. It does this through laws that preserve marriage and ensure that these responsibilities to children are carried out. Marriage is a pre-political institution. And by the work it completes in the upbringing of children ensures the success of a democratic form of government and a free market. I would say that that makes it vital and to be very careful of any attempts to change it or modernize it.

Its importance, however, is what paints a target on marriage for the modern liberal who seeks to re-make society. The family is the anchor of virtue and freedom? Then it gets in the way of the modern welfare state and an atomistic society dependent on government. The modern liberal, back to Rousseau and Hobbes, looks to destroy those intermediate associations, such as the family, that stand between the individual and the State. Karl Marx argued for abolition of the family in The Communist Manifesto, that it would fade away come the Revolution. Modern liberalism, of which Marxism is but an offshoot, is a corrosive influence on society.

Modern liberalism, in all its variants from the welfare state to Communism, whether of the Soviet, the Cuban, the Korean, or even the Chinese model, also seeks to re-make man, to change his nature. We see this in modern education, in the envisioned New Soviet man, and in feminist gender deconstruction. And we see it in same-sex marriage. To say that marriage could as easily involve two men or two women is to argue that marriage or being a man or woman is fundamentally irrelevant to who one is. As both Robespierre and Lenin said, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Marriage, the family, and free society are but broken shells to Rousseau’s children, whether they man the guillotine, the concentration camp, school classrooms, or Hollywood.

Oh, but it’s nothing as drastic as a plot, as a conscious effort, surely, some would say. Many of those in favor of overturning marriage through bringing in homosexuals argue that marriage is already weak, that divorce and the welfare state have made protecting marriage less relevant somehow. This is an argument? You don’t judge whether traffic laws make sense by the fact that there are bad drivers. You don’t make a weakened institution stronger by making it weaker. Or by “re-defining” it.

And yes, that is what is happening. It is being “re-defined” out of existence. Section 2 of DOMA, which was challenged in this case, simply sought to preserve, to defend, the fundamental pillar of our free society by making traditional marriage the accepted definition in federal law. As the Court’s majority complained, the House Report on that legislation concluded “it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage.” Well, we can’t have that, can we?

This is a very bad decision and more for what they based it on than the outcome, though the outcome is bad enough. They argued, based on Romer v. Evans, that DOMA was based on an animus against homosexuals and that such hostility is unconstitutional, arguing that “the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.”

Leaving aside the question whether they could possibly read the minds of the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress and a President who made it law, Justice Scalia will be proven correct in arguing that this finding of an unconstitutional animus, will lead to the striking down of state one man-one woman marriage laws. “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.” Chief Justice Roberts will be proven a fool in taking the majority at their word in denying this intent or outcome (and perhaps I was a fool in coming to his defense, as still “one of us” despite his opinion finding in favor of Obamacare.)

And Scalia has a pretty good track record of foresight on this issue. In Lawrence v. Texas (the Texas sodomy case that struck down laws against homosexual sodomy) the majority said that decision would not lead to same-sex marriage. “Don’t believe it”, he said. And sure enough, the first case that legalized same-sex marriage, in Massachusetts, cited Lawrence.

Bottom line: last week's decisions, especially the DOMA case, will prove to be a disaster. Marriage is too fundamental to let it be rotted away like this. It is time for a U.S. Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It is sad too that it is necessary now to change the Constitution so drastically because the Supreme Court so botched their job, or rather continued their position in the culture wars.

Omelettes anyone?

Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native but has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.  Gene is a conservative activist and leads the Conservative Fusion Book Club. 

Top Stories

The Supreme Court’s Marriage Decisions by the Numbers

From the Heritage Foundation:

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50        The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.
38        The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.
12        The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.
1          The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.
0          The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.
The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

Still, the Court should have respected the authority of California citizens and Congress. On DOMA, the Court did not respect Congress’s authority to define marriage for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. The Court got federalism wrong.

On Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass Prop 8 should have been able to count on their Governor and Attorney General to defend the state’s constitution. That’s what democratic self-government is all about.

Now more than ever, we need to make it clear why marriage as the union of a man and a woman matters—for children, for civil society, and for limited government. As citizens, we all need to be prepared to make the case for marriage. That’s why we at Heritage have worked with allies to produce a booklet called “What You Need to Know about Marriage.” Download your free copy at TheMarriageFacts.com.

Top Stories

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage

I am disappointed and appalled at the Supreme Courts rulings on gay marriage. If twenty years ago someone would have said that one day two men could marry I would have thought they were nuts. I would have thought that had as about as much chance of happening as polygamy being legal, or incest, or a person marrying their dog. As Merle Haggard sang, "We are going downhill like a snowball headed for hell."  Below are the opinions of some of my friends and local prominent people. Rod

Ken Jakes, citizen activist: The Supreme Court has once again slapped the face of every Christian Citizen of the Land that I love, the United States of America. Our Founding Fathers Created each document with Judo-Christian Faith and heritage that separates Our Country from the rest of the world. Our Forefathers would have been appalled to even imagine that the Supreme Court could take Our Cherished Documents to arrive at the conclusion that a marriage between two women or two men would be acceptable and defined within the word marriage.

Lets just be clear as it gets. The Holy Bible is very clear that a marriage is a sacred union between a man and a women and homosexuality is a sin. The Supreme Court has once again made an attempt to shred the very fabric of my Christian Faith and those who uphold the Christian Faith in this Nation. In my Faith, my heart and soul, and my morality as a Christian American the Supreme Court has disgraced the Majority of the Nation and the Supreme Court should be disgraced. Regardless what the Supreme Court states a marriage to be, I hold the sacred meaning of the Lord my God to be the only acceptable way of life and I refuse to let the ridiculous decision of the Supreme Court to change my views.

Dear God Please Help Our Nation.

Daniel Horwitz, recent graduate of Vanderbilt Law School where he served as the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice, and a contributor to this blog: I’m thrilled that the Supreme Court has now come one step closer to acknowledging what the overwhelming majority of young Americans know already: that any law that draws a distinction between citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation should be considered presumptively invalid. I’m similarly pleased to see the Supreme Court recognize that Federal laws which delve into regulatory arenas that are traditionally reserved to the states ought to be met with a greater degree of skepticism. At the same time, however, I’m saddened that so many members of faith organizations that preach loving-kindness and tolerance continue to adhere to the erroneous belief that extending civil marriage equality to same-sex couples will somehow undermine the sanctity of traditional or religious marriages in any way.

Tim Skow, Host of First Tuesday: Throughout the long Judo-Christian history our country was founded upon, faith teaches that marriage is the blessed union of a man, a woman and our Lord. During that same time, Government(s) typically administered contractual relationships between consenting parties. I am sorry to see the verbiage and meaning being erased between what our Lord considers marriage and what various levels of Government consider as a contract or "union" between consenting adults. I submit, call such contracts, agreements or "unions" what they are..."Civil unions"....and leave the intent and understanding of "marriage" to mean what it means. Sadly, in this case we let the Liberals define the verbiage war on their terms... and in this case, the Liberals won.

Representative Sherry Jones, Nashville Democrat: Today was a victory for the dignity of men and women across the country who wish to enjoy equal protection under the law. Most Tennesseans agree that couples in a loving and committed relationship deserve to be treated equally.  

Beth Campbell,  member of the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Republican Party: I was disappointed that the US Supreme Court sent the Gay marriage issue back to the lower court in California thereby nullifying the will of the voters who passed Prop 8. So much for the "will of the people"!

Robert Duvall, Metro Councilmember; Chair of Davidson County Republican Party: Appalled!

Pat Carl, First Vice Chair, Davidson County Republican Party: I don't know if you heard Governor Huckabee's radio show Wednesday.  His response to the Court ruling on gay marriage was  "Jesus Wept".   I thought those 2 words really summed it up.

Kathleen Starnes, former Chair, Davidson County Republican Party: I am speechless, but so sorry that such a small portion of society has such a large voice. I am very sad that the government ignores the vote of the people instead supports the vote of the government.



Dr. Sam Boyd, Pastor, Forest Hills Baptist Church: Remember 6/26/2013......America already under God's discipline for abortion and its support of anti-Israel entities (among other things) .....now has redefined marriage and unleashed an invitation for increasing divine judgement....... If Jesus and His affirmation of Biblical truth is for real, He as God, cannot and will not sit back and allow an arrogant, immoral America to prosper as they mock eternal truth.......

Rep. Marsha Blackburn says she is disappointed. "We're still looking at the opinions and the dissents and the positioning on [the ruling]," the Tennessee Republican said on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "You can say on one hand, yes, they struck down DOMA, and on another, it looks as if they're coming out big-time for state's rights. So of course I'm disappointed in it. I support DOMA and would like to have seen that stand. I fully believe in marriage as being between one man and one woman."

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann: "While the Supreme Court's ruling was disappointing to me personally, I will continue to believe in the importance of traditional marriage. The marriage debate will continue at the state level, and it has been my experience that the vast majority of Tennesseans believe, as I do, that marriage is between a man and a woman. (link)

Sen. Lamar Alexander said the opinions were correct in that they left the decision on whether to recognize same-sex marriage to individual states. "The Supreme Court's decision preserves the right of states to define marriage and for that definition to be respected by other states, and that's the way it should be."(link)

 Senator Jack Johnson post on Facebook: "I cannot understand how any American can be happy about the fact that five individuals just overturned the will of the American people as reflected by their duly and constitutionally elected representatives. I'm sad that the majesty of our republic has been degraded, but my proud support for the sanctity of marriage will not waiver." 



Richard Upchurch, scholar and  blog contributor, writes: It seems to me, the

court is confirming that marriage is entirely in the jurisdiction, thus in the  domain and discretion of the states, thus the decision not too surprising. However Kennedy's phrase about "the dignity of same-sex marriage" suggests the court has bought into a kind of pop social radicalism that undermines what is most basic in the pre-political constitution of society and will follow such pop social radicalism wherever it may lead. So I agree, it doesn't look like good news---either for us conservatives or for the country.

US Congressman Jim Cooper is pleased: WASHINGTON – Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-5) praised today’s Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 and issued the following statement: "I'm pleased with today's Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Prop 8. Equality under the law should apply to all Americans, and now we're one step closer towards fulfilling this promise."

Russell Moore, president of the Nashville-based Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said he was not surprised by the court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, per se, but he was surprised by the "sweeping language" used by the majority.
"It grounds the decision in equal protection and uses language of human dignity that has far-reaching implications," he said. "...Ultimately it's headed toward challenging the way states define marriage." (link) “This decision demolishes the myth that orthodox Christianity represents some kind of moral majority in this country." (link)

State Sen. Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville) ... was troubled by the ruling, saying the nation was built on what he called the traditional family. "There are detrimental forces in our culture that reject or do not recognize the importance of the traditional family unit in our society and those forces won today," Tracy said. (link)



David Fowler, former State Senator and President of Family Action Council of Tennessee wrote in a statement. "In Tennessee, marriage will remain the unique, timeless, and universally defined relationship involving a man and a woman that provides the optimal environment for the well being of children.

Top Stories

What the Supreme Court did today

By Nathan Mehrens — Today the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts held that the individual mandate provision in Obamacare, i.e., the requirement for most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay money to the IRS, is a tax that was properly applied by Congress.

The Court held that this payment for not having health insurance was not a "penalty" because it does not punish the individual for an unlawful act, but is instead a use of the tax code to encourage behavior, much like other aspects of the tax code such as tax deductions and credits for certain behaviors and circumstances.

The Court did hold that the imposition of the individual mandate could not be sustained as part of Congress' Commerce Clause powers, but at the end of the day the result is the same:  those who choose to not purchase health insurance must pay a "tax" to the federal government for exercising that right.

In a surprising move, the Court ruled 7-2 against Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid to 133% of the Federal poverty line.  The court took issue with the way Obamacare coerces states to accept the new funding levels by threatening to cut all current Medicaid funding for states that do not comply.

Prior to this ruling, the constitutional limit on Congressional spending was only theoretical.  In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S 203 (1987), the Court said that Congressional spending would be unconstitutional if it effectively coerced states into agreeing to a federal program.  In that case they ruled that Congress had not gone that far.

But this is the first case where the Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand and told Congress that their actions constitute unconstitutional coercion of the states.  Says Chief Justice Roberts,

In this case, the financial "inducement" Congress has chosen is much more than "relatively mild encouragement"—it is a gun to the head.

The conservative justices on the bench (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) would have thrown out Obamacare in its entirety solely on this issue.  But the Chief Justice, along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, merely severed the part of Obamacare that threatens withholding current funds to states that do not agree to expansion.

Nathan Paul Mehrens is counsel for Americans for Limited Government and previously served in the U.S. Department of Labor under President George W. Bush.

Top Stories

The text of the Spreme Court's Obamacare ruling.

Here's the full text (pdf) of the 193-page Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act.
Below are some excerpts: 

The Court rejects the Commerce Clause argument:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

The Court upholds Obamacare on the Tax argument:

 The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

 The Court rules the Feds cannot not punish states by withholding existing Medicaid funding:

Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate inthe Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification impermissible because Congress reserved the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of Medicaid. §1304. But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 51–55.

The Tax argument, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting: The mandate is not a "tax."

 That §5000A imposes not a simple tax but a mandate to which a penalty is attached is demonstrated by the fact that some are exempt from the tax who are not exempt from the mandate—a distinction that would make no sense if the mandate were not a mandate. Section 5000A(d) exempts three classes of people from the definition of “applicable individual” subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those with religious objections or who participate in a “health care sharing ministry,”§5000A(d)(2); those who are “not lawfully present” in the United States, §5000A(d)(3); and those who are incarcerated, §5000A(d)(4). Section 5000A(e) then creates a separate set of exemptions, excusing from liability for the penalty certain individuals who are subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those who cannot afford coverage, §5000A(e)(1); who earn too little income to require filing a tax return, §5000A(e)(2); who are members of an Indian tribe, §5000A(e)(3); who experience only short gaps in coverage, §5000A(e)(4); and who, in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage,” §5000A(e)(5). If §5000A were a tax, these two classes of exemption would make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone.

Top Stories

The Obama Supreme Court intimidation tactic

by Roger Bissell

Roger Bissell

Commenting on the President's insinuation that overturning Obamacare would be an illegitimate use of the Supreme Court's authority, Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said: "Nothing could be more appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide than whether a bill is constitutional or not. It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional; they do that on a regular basis, so it's not unprecedented at all. What is unprecedented is the president of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court."

 I agree with everything except Rep. Smith's last sentence. Actually, it is NOT unprecedented for a U.S. President to try to intimidate the Supreme Court. FDR did it in the 1930s when the Court overturned his attempt to convert the US to a Mussolini style fascist economy VIA the NIRA. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Court by nominating enough extra puppet Justices that the Court could no longer defy his and Congress's wishes. The Court got the message, even though packing didn't happen. They caved on many significant economic freedom cases after that. A truly chilling effect, where even the threat was enough to destroy the Court's role as a check and balance.

And now, when at long last the Court seems about to reassert itself in the face of a grotesquely unconstitutional healthcare law, another overreaching, statist POTUS tries to intimidate them. Unprecedented? Unfortunately not. Just more of the same power-grabbing, threat-waving tactics of a Chief Executive who defies the Constitution and defiles his oath of office.

Roger Bissell is professional musician and writer living in Antioch, Tennessee. He was founder and chairman of the Nashville Tax Alternatives Committee and a founding member and former chairman of the Tennessee Libertarian Party.

Top Stories