Laws in these United States need to be unambiguous. But in one of the most problematic pieces of legislation ever foisted on the American people, the issue may well be whether Congress can be unambiguous for even five words. In the recent ObamaCare case of Halbig v. Burwell, ambiguity was front and center. The PDF of the ruling shows 28 uses of “ambiguous” and its various forms, including negative forms, such as “unambiguously.” There were 9 uses in the majority opinion, and 19 uses in the dissent. The majority opinion held that ObamaCare is unambiguous in restricting federal subsidies to those policies purchased through exchanges established by the state. The dissent held that: “The majority opinion ignores the obvious ambiguity in the statute and claims to rest on plain meaning where there is none to be found.” Nonetheless, on page 50 of the PDF the dissent admitted: In the end, the question for this court is whether § 36B...(Read Full Article)