EDITORIAL

The pope as the head of the Roman catholic church makes international trips out of the Vatican and is recieved by the host presidents many of who make the invitations , especially if they are Roman Catholics .

The receptions take the nature of
state visits by visiting presidents because the pope is the head of a sovereingty , the Vatican, which has a seat at the united nations , though in an observatory capacity .

In a sense , the pope is considered a president like Christ who is also considered
a president of a kingdom whose government is on his shoulders . In thier presidential capacity , the popes have addressed the united nations like St John Paul II[Pope ] , and Benedict the 16th , retired .

Working with other presidents in
that capacity , popes have contributed in influencing international relations like the effects of John Paul II on communism, the work of Pope Francis in the normalisation of relationship between the USA and Cuba .

Pope Francis in that capacity will
be addressing the joint USA congress and the united nations during his first pontifical visit to the united states from Cuba , where he visited the president of that nation and other leaders . Social justice issues tend to feature as content of the speeches
popes make to politicians .

In the masses and sermons the pope makes to the church and or public , unbelievers are given an opportunity to confess Christ the king and commit to his lordship and leadership in the body of Christ or the church ,
[evangelism] while the faithful are encouged to continue in the faith in the face of satanic and other worldly challenges .

Families are strengthened and blessed through the congress of families , as the pope and associate leaders of the Roman Catholic
church commune and take confessions from the people .

In meeting with other non Roman catholic christain faith leaders, the pope engages in eccumenical discussions on common ground issues , besides the many meetings he holds with non Christian
religious leaders in an interfaith dialoque to promote world peace , freedom of religion and other freedoms .

Every visiting pope has the opportunity to use the evangelistic , eccumenical and socio-political components of his trip[s] to make good
of his lord and saviour the Chrsit .

The are many who are not still certain what the expected ruling from the supreme court of the USA will be in the case " King v Burwell " in which the plaintiff challenges the legal authority of the federal government to provide insurance subsidies in
states which have failed to set up thiers .

The case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the affordabel care act , popularly callled "OBAMA CARE". The constitionality had been resolved in a previous supreme court case with a
5-4 ruling in favor of the law .

The present King v Burwell is a statutory case in which the judges are called upon to interpret the law as to the question of the legality of the federal governemnt providing insurance subsidies in states
which have not set up insurance exchanges for their residents .

The affordable care act states that" subsidies are offered to those enrolled through an exchange established by the state".

A litteral interpretation
will therefore break down the defense of the federal governement as having authority to offer subsidies in those states which have not set up the state exhanges .

The goverenment claims are on the "INTENT of the law " which should not be found
in a single written statement but in the totality of the law which runs into hundreds and hundreds of pages of written materials .

The government was clear from the outset what it intended to do with the health reform.

Mainly to
increase coverage through mandates and subsidies to create an enviroment where economies of large scale would also benefit the insurance companies to accept broader coverage terms like increasing the age of the young people to 26years to be able
to be on the insurance benefits of their parents besides preexisting conditions and other requests .

The opponents of the government say , the is no language in the law that gives the federal goverment the authority to provide subsideis in states
which do not have the exchanges .

The judges may interpret the law one way or the other in their ruling expected in the coming weeks .

Should they rule in favour of plaintiff , then millions of Americans who got their insurance , partly
through the federal governement exchanges will loose it and it will create a problem to the market as premiums will also have to go up to take care of the losses .

The courts may trike down the IRS involvement as overeaching it,s autority
and the will be a constitutional affoardable care act in place without the subsidies for those in states which refused to established the exchanges .

The intent of the federal governement is clear though it may not have been clearly stated in
white and black .

The are ways to go about this should the judges rule in favour of plaintiff .

1 Ask the US congress to introduce such language where it may be neccesasry in order not to deprive certain people of the
subsidies while others keep theirs since the law will remain constitutional .

2 Negociate in congress, to have certain parts of the law changed so all can aggree to i nputs from the republican party .

While politics
and politicians are waiting for their opportunity , justice must be seen to have been done at the end of the day . For the Intent of the law was expressed in the manifestoes and public positions of the defenders , hopefully the supreme court will be on the
side of the law and the people by ruling for the" intent of the law "