Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?

Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases related to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the stakes are high for both sides. In fact, the interpretation of a semi-colon in the context of the First Amendment could play a critical role.

The semi-colon’s use was argued in the appeals court decision that led one of the two cases to the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

“Appellants also argue that Citizens United is applicable to the Free Exercise [of religion] Clause because ―the authors of the First Amendment only separated the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause by a semi-colon, thus showing the continuation of intent between the two,” said circuit judge Robert Cowen in the Conestoga Wood appeals court decision. “We are not persuaded that the use of a semi-colon means that each clause of the First Amendment must be interpreted jointly.”

In other words, the semi-colon argument holds that the free exercise of religion and free exercise of speech are linked. Since the Citizens United case gave corporations the same free speech rights as people, the argument states that corporations should have the same free religious exercise rights as people, too, and they should be able to opt out of Obamacare.

Judge Cowen didn’t agree with the logic, but now the issue is one of several that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In late November 2013, the Justices accepted the two cases, to be argued at the same time, which question the government’s ability to compel for-profit companies with religious convictions to pay for birth-control coverage.

No, I’m not saying I weigh in on consensus alone, in fact I am not a proponent of it necessarily. What I did say is that the rest of the statement in the clause does not track with what you are asserting and that there are a number of people here that would tend to disagree with you. I also conceded that I am not A-one with grammar, but I did think that the evidence and the majority opinion tended to lean in the direction I was asserting - that the clause applies to only those who issue insurance, not those that purchase a policy (the individual non issuing entity).

Why would the clause elucidate what it does directly afterward if it weren’t intended specifically for that which is stated (issuers of a policy)?

Why would the clause elucidate what it does directly afterward if it weren’t intended specifically for that which is stated (issuers of a policy)?

Because each clause is distinct, providing specifics for each category spelled out. And on that note, please provide for me one, just one example of an individual that offers group or individual health insurance coverage? For your logic to be sound, legislators would have to be providing for them and write a law that provides for them on the same level as corporations and collectives. Who are these philanthropists? I know of none.

In rare cases people who are entrepreneurs owning their own businesses do self insure one or two employees.

This whole argument is based on a subsection of a clause in a US Code. I really think you’re taking it out of context. The comma usage in the section of the code you refer to is simply using commas to separate the elements in a series.

I believe the legislature was simply ensuring all possible/potential entity types are covered regardless of whether they currently exist or not.

To argue that simply because I can’t (based on your assumption) point out a single individual that offers/issues health insurance that somehow wins the debate for you is a pretty thin logic. It doesn’t matter if I can point one out or not. Based on your past responses that still wouldn’t settle it for you and you’d find another angle to attack from.

You’re quite obviously too invested in your opinion here, and no amount of debate will apparently change your mind. As stated by another poster: believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you happy.

I’ll just agree to disagree.

“The “state” (meant generically) “creates” a corporation. Whatever you propose as a corporation to the state is not a corporation until the state says so and the state might attach some hooks and strings before saying so.”

Thank you for the “You didn’t build that” summary.

I create a Corporation. The Secretary of State will review and then agree that my Articles of Incorporation are lawful and in order and will then publish my corporation as a recognized organization. The State does not “create” a corporation.

Once a Corporation is in effect, other State Departments then apply certain operating rules to it depending on the industry that it falls in, it’s profit, and it’s operating size. The Secretary of State has nothing to do with any of that.

The State creates nothing. The State only recognizes what has been created by the citizen.

At its root, your argument is that the Citizen exists because of the State. You are in error.

Thank you for the “You didn’t build that” summary.

There's no need to think me for something I didn't do.

I create a Corporation. The Secretary of State will review and then agree that my Articles of Incorporation are lawful and in order and will then publish my corporation as a recognized organization.

If the Secretary of State does not do all that, is whatever you created a corporation or is it something else?

If the Secretary of State does not do all that, can whatever you created be a corporation?

The State does not “create” a corporation.

In your example, the Secretary of State and the other State Departments act for the State, and as far as I can tell, breaking the State out into separate parts doesn't change much, if anything.

The State creates nothing. The State only recognizes what has been created by the citizen.

If the State does not recognize what has been created by the citizen, is whatever the citizen created a corporation or is it something else?

If the State does not recognize what has been created by the citizen, can whatever the citizen created be a corporation?

At its root, your argument is that the Citizen exists because of the State. You are in error.

That's an argument you falsely attributed to me so you could disagree with it and me. I might say that people establish a state (meant generically, not just as one of the fifty States you apparently refer to) after which they might exist as Citizens of the state due to their establishment of it, and that subsequently other people can become Citizens of the state if they meet the particular requirements of the state.

Note that in my original post I used scare quotes or apologetic quotes around the word creates because I didn't have a better word to use at the time and it was close. I know that among the fifty States, the State doesn't make a corporation from nothing any more than you do (You don't "...create a Corporation." You compose Articles of Incorporation; you propose the formation and establishment of a corporation in accordance with State law). What other states (meaning more than the fifty composing the USA) may do, or what they may have done or will do in other times may be different.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.