Part Four Liberty and Equality June 26 2015

     Media and everyone else jumping on their band wagons need to stop painting SCOTUS as a friend of any political party! Congratulate the SCOTUS for doing their dang job and NOT JOINING the political fray! The SCOTUS’ opinion regarding the Affordable Health Care Act hinged on statutory construction. I.e., the “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme” is the linchpin of the decision. That interpretation in this opinion is primarily based on our right to EQUALITY and separation of powers in the application of the particular statutory scheme-the ACA. See KING ET AL. v. BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., No. 14–114. Argued March 4, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015.

      The Act requires all state and federal Exchanges to “create outreach programs to “distribute fair and impartial information concerning . . . the availability of premium tax credits” (EQUALITY). The Act grants for all individuals an EQUAL right to federal funds no matter in which state they live. In other words, the tax credit (NOT SUBSIDY) is a right for ALL, not just those living in states that have adopted/use the Healthcare Marketplace Exchange (EQUALITY) or those using the federal exchange. The right to a tax credit is based on income and can be doled out each month as partial payment of the health insurance premium amount. If insurance is cancelled or income increases, the right to the credit ends. Then, the Act ensures that pre-existing conditions and the community in which you live cannot be a basis for denial of health insurance (EQUALITY).
            As a user of the Marketplace Exchange who makes too much taxable income to receive a tax credit, I know first hand of the best way the ACH can be fixed. BETTER COMMUNICATION! The state and federal administrative agencies must improve their communication with the insurance companies. In your search for health insurance, the premiums and forms used by the Exchanges and insurance agents are the same. You are eligible for the tax credit no matter Exchange you use to find that policy. Again, equal application. However, neither Exchange has specific enough details about a health plan's coverage. They only have what the insurance companies provide. Insurance companies are changing the policies each year to get to whatever profit margin they need to make money on unsuspecting new insureds. The Exchange sends your name to a wide list of insurance agents in your state that represent the policy you chose, primarily based on the few sorts the online information provides. Insurance agents are not as familiar with all the plan details and provider directories as they should be. You could end up with a great rate on premiums for a health plan that doesn't cover your specific health issues. Agents do not have enough knowledge/experience to truly explain particular coverage for any benefit listed on the brief info you get during your search. Just beware of both types of Exchanges, do your own research, and CALL several insurance companies. Contact me if you want the IRS form regarding the TAX CREDIT to see how it operates.

Part Three Liberty and Equality, June 26, 2015

RAISINS

     Now this is a cute one. The Government can’t take your RAISINS and give them away for welfare! No matter the fact that this has been happening since 1937!! Is SCOTUS Democratic or Republican? NEITHER. Talk about TURKEYS in Congressional bills, what about RAISINS? The RAISIN case emanating from the California Courts presents “the issue of rights under the US Constitution’s 5th Amendment: governmental TAKING of PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. See HORNE ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 14–275. Argued April 22, 2015—Decided June 22, 2015

     “The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate ‘marketing orders’ to help maintain stable markets for particular agricultural products.” The marketing order for raisins established a RAISIN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION (how much does that cost us?) that imposes a reserve requirement—a requirement that growers set aside a certain percentage of their crop for the account of the Government, free of charge. The Government makes use of those raisins by selling them in noncompetitive markets, donating them, or disposing of them by any means consistent with the purposes of the program (i.e., welfare). If any profits are left over after subtracting the Government’s expenses from administering the program, the net proceeds are distributed back to the raisin growers. (What’s the likely hood of that?) In 2002–2003, raisin growers were required to set aside 47% of their raisin crop under the reserve requirement, in 2003–2004, 30 PERCENT. 
     Mr. and Mrs. Horne and their family are raisin growers who refused to set aside any raisins for the Government on the ground that the reserve requirement was an unconstitutional taking of their property for public use without just compensation. (Shame on the Hornes for not following the rules!)The Government fined the Hornes the fair market value of the raisins as well as additional civil penalties for their failure to obey the raisin marketing order. (RAISIN lovers should celebrate the law for enforcement penalties!) The lower CALIFORNIA court held that, “as in cases allowing the government to set conditions on land use and development, the Government imposed a condition (the reserve requirement) in exchange for a Government benefit (an orderly raisin market).” It held that the Hornes could avoid relinquishing large percentages of their crop by “planting different crops.” 
     SCOTUS determined that “the Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property. Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve RAISINS goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking—it does not mean the raisins have not been appropriated for Government use. Nor can the Government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce. (Shame on all Congress for passing such an UNEQUAL law.) The 5th Amendment applies to personal property (RAISINS) as well as real property (the land the RAISINS grow on). The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home. Therefore, the Government can’t take your RAISINS!
     How does a law have the political support of everyone for 78 years, continued theft from raisin growers of billions of dollars, and support the liberty of raisin growers or establish EQUALITY among taxpayers by making one portion pay more while others get free raisins? Why didn't raisin growers everywhere file a suit against the Agricultural Commission by 1940? Do soldiers get free raisins? Where's the line.....  Is it right to blame the President for the actions of the Congress and the complacency of society? Dumb growers.

Part Two, Liberty and Equality, June 27 2015

Death Penalty

     In this one, the SCOTUS spanked the hands of participants in the lower Louisiana courts. Those silly southerners thought that KEVAN, a guy who has an IQ of 75, a fourth-grade reading level, and a childhood history of prescribed numerous medications, being treated at psychiatric hospitals as a child and placed in special education classes, WAS NOT INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED. You see, we cannot execute a guy who is intellectually disabled no matter that he ambushed and murdered an off-duty Baton Rouge cop who was Warrick Dunn's mother. Dunn played football for a Catholic High School team, Florida State University, and selected as the first round of the 1997 NFL Draft for Atlanta and then as the 12th overall pick by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. His mother was killed two days after Dunn’s 18th birthday.
     Federal law requires that a death penalty may not be exercised or imposed upon an individual who has presented a “reasonable ground” to believe he/she has an intellectual disability. Louisiana defines an intellectual disability as “(1) subaverage intelligence,./..(2) significant impairment in several areas of adaptive skills, .... and (3) manifestations of this neuro-psychological disorder in the developmental stage.” (Hey, wait a minute! I might have ..... ) 
     SCOTUS said, "Louisiana Judges!! --you have to pay attention to Kevan because WE determine that he ain't right!!" No, what they said, I think, is, we think Kevan has proven his REASONABLE GROUNDS to find that he is intellectually disabled therefore, he is INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED. No, wait a minute.... does that mean the SCOTUS did the work for the Louisiana Courts? No, it just reprimanded the Courts and told the Louisiana local federal prosecutor that he/she did not do enough to protect the LIBERTY interests of WARREN'S mother!! 
     Is this a political twist of SCOTUS, media double-speak or something else manufactured by the SCOTUS or the media? Neither! It is simply SCOTUS telling the Louisiana Court to word their death sentence findings in orders to ensure that STATE and FEDERAL law is followed. Smacks of LIBERTY, the right to due process, and EQUALITY of the application of State laws that impinge (severely, in this case, by death) on those rights. Kevan gets to live at Louisiana taxpayer expense with occupational training to make light bulbs for government welfare programs and guaranteed health care, three hots and a cot. Warren gets to continue suffering for the loss of his mother and licking his wounds for a failed NFL career. Who wins?

Intro to Liberty and Equality Essays
     Be careful what you argue about the SCOTUS opinions the week ending June 26!! The media never explains Court opinions as they are written, only as that particular media group wants them to be interpreted. It’s half-assed reporting of extremely crucial and personal issues to all of us no matter what personal opinion you hold. BE CAREFUL!! These opinions lay the basis for similar arguments regarding other social issues and possible resolution of them! I will post 4 explanations, from MY interpretation as a lawyer and personally interested in issues waiting to be decided in the future. Read them and please leave me a comment, I love this stuff!

Part One, Liberty and Equality Essays, June 26, 2015

Marriage Equality                              

     The Supreme Court’s ruling this week regarding marriage equality was based on 4 precedential principles of 2 US Constitutional rights—LIBERTY, the right to make personal choice; EQUALITY, the right to not be treated differently when you do make that personal choice. No matter which side of this argument you hold, be sure you explain the Court’s opinion under those distinctions. The 4 precedential principles (abbreviated from the syllabus of the opinion of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL., Syllabus, No. 14–556, argued 4/28/2015, decided 6/26/2015), and without further legal citations are:
     “First, the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and LIBERTY is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.” 

     “Second, ‘the right is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, and was acknowledged in Turner. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association’ (meaning the LIBERTY to decide), ‘a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense.’”

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning (EQUALITY) from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.” 
     “Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage”(EQUALITY) “and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”