Despite having been an American for only two months, University of Louisiana at Lafayette student Duane Waihi channeled the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and Supreme Court justices to win the school’s first Constitution Day essay competition.
Waihi, 40, is a full-time IT consultant at American Data in Lafayette who has returned to the University to earn a health care administration certificate. The New Zealand native holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from UL Lafayette.
Although he became eligible for citizenship in 2006, his busy schedule and the extensive naturalization process kept him from becoming a United States citizen until Aug. 2, 2012.
“I decided recently to go through the process mainly because I wanted to vote. Not for any particular candidate or party, but because I wanted to be a part of the democratic process,” Waihi said.
He recalled the swearing-in ceremony was quick and formal. Nevertheless, the event affected him.
“I felt a little different. I felt like I belonged. It was more than just a change in immigration status.”
The University’s essay contest asked participants to answer this question: “Does the mandate requiring individuals to purchase health care contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) fundamentally alter the balance of power between federal and state governments created by the Constitution?”
In his response, Waihi summoned his knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the Federalist Papers, a series of pro-Constitution essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay from 1787 to 1788.
He first addressed the constitutionality of the mandate, which the Affordable Care Act refers to as a penalty. In a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax because it is paid directly to the IRS and carries no criminal charges. So, it’s covered under Congress’ power to tax, which is found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Waihi argued the mandate would not alter the balance between federal and state powers, based on two discrete precedents. He noted that the mandate was not intended to enforce behavior, but to influence it, and such influence is already prevalent throughout U.S. tax codes.
He also cited the Federalist Papers, which he had read to prepare for the naturalization civics test. Federalist 31 described growing fears that federal taxes would lead to a “federal monopoly” on taxation, making states dependent on the federal government for tax revenue. Those fears, Waihi said, parallel public concern about the Affordable Care Act’s health care mandate.
Citing Federalist 44, Waihi concluded that these fears are ungrounded because the Constitution ensures the balance of power remains on “the side of the people.”
“The Supreme Court majority ruled that the mandate penalty is a tax and the federal government has been granted those powers. Since those powers came from the states themselves and the states still retain the authority to raise revenues separate from the federal government, then the mandate penalty has negligible effect, if any, on the balance of power between the state and federal governments,” Waihi wrote.
A panel of three political science professors, Drs. Pearson Cross, Bryan Paul Frost and Rick Swanson, chose Waihi’s essay as the winner. Cross said it stood out because it was historically informed, carefully written and tightly argued.
On Nov. 6, a little more than three months after becoming an American, Waihi voted in the U.S. presidential election.
“It was great to be a part of that process because democracy always wins,” he said.