The actual text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

A little known fact about America’s laws is that the published form of an act of Congress is not the actual law passed by Congress. Despite all the months of debate over various clauses and kickbacks, the published text of the law is largely irrelevant to how the law is enacted. The unpublished text of the law, however, is strictly adhered to by all the authorities, including the President, the executive branch bureaucracies charged with enforcing the law, and the Supreme Court. Last week’s Supreme Court decision made this plain.

The published text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can be found online for all to see, but the text of the law doesn’t explain the Court’s decision, and it is apparent that the Court relied on the hitherto unpublished Actual Text of the PPACA.

Did I say hitherto? That’s right. Here is the actual text of the PPACA, that defines the United States Government’s regulations over all health care services in the United States:

[111th Congress Public Law 148]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 119]]

Public Law 111-148

111th Congress

An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 2010 – [H.R. 3590]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.>>

SECTION 1. THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE ACT

President Barack Obama is authorized to regulate the provision of health care for residents of the United States in any way he sees fit in accordance with the current consensus of the New York Times and Harvard University. Mr. Obama and his agents are authorized to increase taxes, enact new taxes, forbid certain acts of commerce, compel certain acts of commerce, and levy fines and other punishments in order to achieve the intentions of Congress when passing this ACT.

See, it all makes sense now.

Equal protection of the laws

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whenever I read an article decrying the unequal rates of imprisonment among the races (never among the sexes, for some reason), I perceive that the author is attempting to argue that the laws have an illegal and immoral disparate impact. Locking up more blacks than whites for criminal offenses, in this reading, is inherently racist.

What isn’t usually considered is the rate of victimhood among the races.

It is obvious that blacks are, by far, much more victimized by criminals* than whites are in the United States. It is also obvious that, by far, most criminal acts are perpetrated against the same race as the criminal.

A neutral reading of the constitution would imply that laws forbidding crime and punishing criminals are meant to protect the victims of crime and not the duly processed criminals.

Therefore, given the principle of disparate impact, it is unconstitutional for the United States federal government or the governments of the states, to direct the provision of justice so that one race is disproportionately represented among the victims of federal and state crimes.

The criminal justice system in the United States is insufficiently protecting black citizens’ rights by insufficiently punishing black criminals.

*(And no, it isn’t because of the drug war.)

Reforms and consequences

Progressives arguing for the institution of same-sex marriage claimed that their proposed reforms could not possibly tread on the religious freedom of those who wanted no part in the institution. The passage of laws recognizing* the institution was contingent on this understanding.

Consequently, it has been shown that the institution of same-sex marriage does tread on the religious freedom of those who chose not to observe the institution.

Therefore, the institution of same-sex marriage was created under false pretenses. It should be dissolved and reevaluated under our current better understanding of the institution’s consequences.

*I refuse to say permitting or legalizing in regard to same-sex marriage. The issue was never one of permission but one of institutionalization.