You are on page 1of 3

Obamacare case shows Congress often misses mark when

writing legislation
Obamacare case shows Congress often misses mark when creating legislation - The Washington Post
The outcome of the Supreme Court arguments about the new health-care law could turn on how to
interpret a single hotly contested phrase in the enormous bill. But the situation has presently
highlighted this truism: Congress can at times be sloppy.
The justices on Wednesday hear arguments about federal subsidies that assistance millions of
Americans afford insurance coverage, with challengers arguing the Affordable Care Act, as written,
only enables these payments for coverage purchased via marketplaces set up by state governments.
After all, the plaintiffs say, the bill says subsidies only apply in situations of "an Exchange
established by the state."
But two-thirds of the states, typically Republican led, have balked at setting up their personal
insurance coverage marketplaces. So in these areas, people get coverage by an exchange set up by
the federal government. The Obama administration and its allies say Congress plainly meant to
incorporate all Americans who qualified, regardless of no matter if they bought the insurance
coverage by a state exchange.
If that's the situation, how did Congress finish up creating such an ambiguous provision? And why
hasn't any one on Capitol Hill fixed it?
It turns out, Congress often can make problems when writing laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's health and fitness-care
overhaul. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
In other circumstances, at times a few years later, Congress comes back with a "corrections bill" to
resolve mistakes that have come to be apparent. From time to time lawmakers wait for the courts to
inform them what they got wrong and then make amends immediately after the fact.
"This comes about all the time," explained Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the No. two Republican leader.
"Just in terms of statutory development, trying to figure out: What in the globe did Congress imply?"
But partisan distinctions above Obamacare run so deep that there is been no probability of finetuning the law or winning agreement between lawmakers more than what it in fact usually means.
Cornyn and other Republicans who oppose the wellness-care law are hoping that a majority of the
five justices consider the "stringent building" view. "You cannot infer something, but from the
phrases on the paper. That is the only thing Congress votes on," he mentioned.
Democrats reject that strategy. "Our intent was clear," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained.
"This appeared like a non-significant court situation," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) stated, rejecting
the idea that Democrats had erred in writing the bill. "There is no cause to come back and amend
this."
If the Supreme Court invalidates the subsidies paid for insurance purchased on the federal
exchange, millions of Americans could see their expenditures soar and cancel their coverage,
sparking more value hikes and cancellations. This dynamic could in the end undermine the economic
viability of the whole overall health-care system. In accordance to administration officials and their
allies, this is certainly not what the ACA's backers in Congress needed -- even if they didn't say so
explicitly.
When legislative drafts can normally incorporate muddied language, the battle over Obamacare may
represent the most important legal challenge to a law based mostly on what some could possibly
consider careless wording.
The difficulty of imprecise lawmaking came up not too long ago in the context of the District of
Columbia's strategy to legalize possession of marijuana. Congressional Republicans sought to
impose restrictions on the plan by making use of a significant December bill to fund almost all of the
federal government. They included a line forbidding the new marijuana measure from taking effect
by together with a line in legislation offering federal funds to the District.
Following the truth, GOP lawmakers discovered that District officials had observed a loophole to
exploit. District officials declared that the restriction was null and void mainly because the
marijuana law had currently been enacted when the voters accredited it, and last week the law took
effect, producing it legal to smoke marijuana.
The issue would seem destined for the federal courts -- and also for a prospective do-over by
Republicans when they write funding legislation later this 12 months.
Back in 1987, Congress had to rewrite a landmark budget-cutting bill, recognized as GrammRudman-Hollings, that termed for automatic investing cuts. A congressional Democrat sued, arguing
that this kind of necessary cuts were unconstitutional because only Congress could dictate paying,

and the Supreme Court invalidated the law.
The up coming 12 months Congress passed what numerous dubbed "Gramm-Rudman-Hollings two,"
clarifying how the spending cuts would function.
Congress also had to rework its prolonged-phrase highway bill drafted ten years in the past. The
$300 billion bill also contained a litany of mistakes or concerns that became out of date over time,
major to a "technical corrections" bill in 2008. Some funding ranges for projects essential to be
revised by smaller amounts -- a transportation center went from obtaining $2.225 million to $two.25
million -- and others had been diminished or nixed.
This kind of technical corrections have hardly ever been probable for the wellbeing-care law.
"Below distinctive circumstances," Cornyn explained, "there could possibly be some collective work
to present a correction or a adjust to sustain it. But in this instance, simply because the events are
so polarized, since this was carried out as a purely partisan piece of legislation, it's going to be up to
the courts to make a decision."
Although the law had won a vast majority of votes in both the Senate and Residence, they have been
all Democratic votes. Cornyn argued that this closed the door to repairing its flaws.
"It is a error to do anything on a purely partisan basis, because it really is not, eventually,
sustainable," he mentioned.