The Difference Between "Law" and Whatever It Is that Obama Does

These announcements keep coming down clarifying the meaning of Obamacare and the administration’s position on exemptions and requirements. And every time, religious organizations wait with bated breath, hoping that this time the administration will finally show some regard for the religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. (The Anchoress has a rundown of the latest one here.)

Maybe those with religious objections like what they hear, maybe not. But here’s the problem with all these “clarifications”: the fact that they’re needed at all just demonstrates that Obamacare isn’t a “law” in the traditional sense that they taught us in civics class.

Back then, the textbook said that laws were like the rules of the game, explained in writing as clearly as possible. Obamacare is less like a rulebook and more like a blank check. It’s a huge, incomprehensible document that basically says the Department of HHS can do whatever it wants. That’s why you need the endless clarifications–they’re the only way to know what the administration has decided the law means today.

When you live under the rule of law, you don’t need all the clarifications, because it’s all written down in the law. But that’s not what we have here. Here we have the rule of men, using the concept of law to give them legitimacy while they do as they please.