FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Trojan Horse and the Golden Calf

by ELLIOT SPERBER

The prevailing opinion concerning the release of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, was that the court’s upholding of the law would amount to a powerful victory for Obama. The reasoning was that the legislation is a centerpiece of Obama’s first term and striking it down would make him look ineffectual, while upholding it wouldl make him look like he’d accomplished something for his all-important legacy. This type of reasoning altogether neglects, of course, to consider whether the issues involved, in particular the issue of the individual mandate legalizing coercing people to buy private health insurance, are in anyone’s interest aside from big business.

Indeed, the case brings to mind that seminal case of United States constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison. The issue in Marbury v. Madison was a relatively minor one involving the executive’s appointment power. Thomas Jefferson, who was president at the time, had a strong interest in the court’s deciding for his position. And while the court did decide in Jefferson’s favor, pleasing Jefferson and leaving him unwilling to contest the decision, the court outmaneuvered Jefferson in a significant manner. In addition to ruling for Jefferson, the chief justice John Marshall managed to insert the court’s power of Judicial Review into their decision. This was a new power for the court. No such power to void legislation was given to the court in the constitution, it came out of chief justice John Marshall’s opinion. So, though Jefferson appeared to win the case, the result was a monumental aggrandizement of power which completely changed the balance of powers in the new republic. A similar maneuver appears to have played out in the instant case. Obama’s Affordable Care Act is a peculiar type of Trojan Horse, allowing the court to create new powers Unlike in Marbury, though, the powers aren’t for the court; but  aggrandize the powers of the business class to an unprecedented degree. And unlike Marshall, Chief Justice John Roberts won’t just make up these powers; they are already present in Obama’s law as the ‘individual mandate.’

By passing Obama’s health care law the court wins on all counts. Seen as so partisan as to be virtually illegitimate since Bush v. Gore, a decision for Obama may lead some to think that the court is actually a fair judge. While the liberals on the bench voted for the law in support of Obama, Roberts let them have their victory in order to use the powerful precedent in support of further legislation down the line – imagine a law forcing people to buy a new cell phone every year, or something of the sort. To be sure, Roberts, Alito and the other so-called conservatives hold to an extremist ideology that sees the New Deal and all ensuing legislation regulating business as unconstitutional. Passing Obama’s law will allow them to pursue their privatizing agenda with greater effectiveness. Such a thought could not have been too far from Roberts’ mind.

Before the Enclosure Acts, the market was peripheral, not central, to economic life. Basic necessities like food staples were outside of the market in a subsistence economy, and land and labor were not commodities to be bought and sold. The markets meanwhile handled mostly surpluses and luxury goods. But after the Enclosure Acts and the privatization of the commons, along with the rise of capitalism, what was formerly property held in common became privatized/commodified, and a compulsion to go to the market came into being. Alienated from their ancestral lands and their traditional means of subsistence, people had no choice but to go to and get those things required for their subsistence from the market. If they had nothing to sell, they sold their labor.

Privatization, of course, continues. And these days public education, publicly owned water supplies, and anything else one can think of is being privatized and sold. This is what Roberts, Alito, et al want – including Obama himself. The individual mandate in Obama’s health care reform law will intensify this privatization and compulsion to deal in the market as never before. So, while it might appear at first to be a big win for Obama, the real winner here is big business – and Roberts is very warm to that notion. Indeed, rather than any meaningful extension of peoples’ rights, this legislation will usher in unprecedented economic tyranny. So why wouldn’t Roberts and his ilk vote in favor of it without reservation? The only surprise here is that he was alone in his foresight.

Though it may not seem to be the case, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act and Obama’s “victory” demonstrate something all too clearly. Rather than being some sort of Moses leading anyone out of bondage and introducing a new law to the people, Obama , with his drone strikes, kill lists, and now this health care law to add to his other disappointments, more than ever resembles the golden calf.

Elliot Sperber is a writer, attorney, and contributor to hygiecracy.blogspot.com. He can be reached at elliot.sperber@gmail.com

 

Elliot Sperber is a writer, attorney, and adjunct professor. He lives in New York City and can be reached at elliot.sperber@gmail.com and on twitter @elliot_sperber

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail