John Roberts and the Cloward-Piven Strategy
Which leaves only the question: what are you going to do about it? When I was in college during the 1960s, “civil disobedience” was all the rage, especially regarding the Vietnam War. Those draft protesters would have had a much harder time sticking to their principles had the IRS been the draft-board enforcers. It’s good to see GOP governors like Florida’s Rick Scott telling the feds to shove their Medicare edict, which is just another Obama administration tool to beggar the states and to force them to dance to D.C.’s tune. But it’s not nearly enough.
Let’s not kid ourselves: the economic destruction and remaking of America is the goal here, implemented by a Cloward-Piven strategy to so over-stress existing institutions that the public will be clamoring for direct rule from the District of Columbia, and the permanent political class’s century-long “progressive” dream will finally be a reality. That’s one of the things “fundamental transformation” has always been about. And John Roberts just gave them carte blanche to proceed apace.
I agree with VDH: there’s no good news here, just an enormous — uphill — challenge. For most Americans, the worth of Obamacare has just been endorsed by no less than the chief justice, largely taking it off the table in November unless Mitt Romney — the worst possible candidate to argue this — can somehow make a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-did case as part of his larger economic message.
This is what happens when the debate centers on programs instead of principles, and why it’s so critical for the Right to move the discussion to the larger issues. Yes, it’s tough to compete with the Democrats’ sob stories, and to make the abstract concrete. It’s tough to accept that perhaps a majority of our fellow Americans would cheerfully trade liberty for a false sense of security. It’s a tough job — but somebody’s got to do it.
When I lived in Germany, some Germans would wag their fingers at me, the “Ami,” and opine: “Yes, it’s true that in America you can become a millionaire. But it’s also true you can wind up sleeping under a bridge.” To which I would answer the obverse, that while you might wind up sleeping under a bridge (though very few do), you can also become a millionaire.
In the aftermath of World War II, terrified of the bridge option, the Europeans made their choice, and nothing but doom now awaits the enervated old Continent, which is too lazy even to reproduce, much less work. That’s what “European-style socialism” is all about and that’s the fate Obama and his team so devoutly wish for us.
Is that a fate we’re now willing to accept?
Thumbnail image and illustration courtesy shutterstock / andrea crisante
If Roberts resigns, Obama gets another Supreme Court appointment.
Now that’ll work out!
Not if Republicans Fillibuster until after the next electio….
I see your point.
“Of course, it’s a betrayal on the part of the chief justice.”
What? Are you serious? Supreme Court justices are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. No where in that oath does it say that they have to carry water for any faction of an American Political party. Nor does it say that you will always like the decisions they make. Do you people understand how that works? If not I would start with Marbury v. Madison.
He betrayed the Constitution by declaring that an unconstitutional demand by the government can be made OK by the simple expedient of imposing a monetary penalty (a.k.a. tax) on noncompliance.
He invented a new and sweeping form of tax, one whose purpose is to regulate citizens’ behavior.
He rephrased a law in order to find a tenuous ground for upholding it once he decided that was the outcome he desired.
He ruled that the authors of a law may prevaricate about whether or not they are imposing a tax, depending on the political needs of the moment. Roberts himself switched from “not a tax” to “it’s a tax” at different points in his argument, in order to achieve his chosen outcome.
According to his own words, he places a high priority on preserving the “integrity of the Court” as an institution — higher, evidently, than preserving the constitutional liberties of the citizenry. And “integrity” in his view evidently means “acceptable to Democrats and their media shills.”
That’s plenty of betrayal of principle.
What gets me is that nobody has challenged ACA via Griswald. IF after all you have to sign up, this means you must turn over your personal (medical) info by Gov’t Fiat (possibly to a gov’t insurance). This directly contradicts the privacy established in Griswald v CT. So either we gut Griswald and it’s daughters (Roe v Wade) or ACA can’t force us to get insurance.
Griswald was known to be dead from the moment it was written because of the national movement to force practices to computerize to save money (won’t happen) and to track “outcomes” ( because every good outcome is obvious in black and white terms and measurable).
I think someone has to be hurt by it to have standing. Since it hasn’t happened yet, no one has standing.
That’s it! Norma McCorvey can challenge this on the grounds that it violates Roe v. Wade, and Obama and the court will be forked: either get rid of Obamacare or overturn Roe v. Wade, because the two are in conflict and cannot both stand.
AC,thank you for the prompting! Your comment about Griswold got me thinking about ‘privacy’, which led me to HIPPA. Our medical information will be turned over to IRS agents. Will we have to sign a HIPPA waiver for every single medical transaction we engage in?
Indeed there is a major privacy problem. Between this and all of the financial disclosure obligations purportedly for security, what privacy have we, really?
Agreed. One does not “uphold the integrity of the court”, by doing the politically right thing; what he did was undermine the people’s confidence in the integrity of the Court.
Exactly, the best way to “uphold the integrity of the court” is to make an impecably correct decision, based on the law as written, and sound constitutional principles, not on which group brings the most pressure. The only thing Roberts did, with his completely incomprehensible decision, it to betray conservatives, totally confuse any moderates, and tell the leftists he is a coward that can be rolled with enough pressure.
In other words, Roberts just gave the federal government a blank check to create any kind of horrendous legislation it desires, as long as it labels it a “tax”. Weclome to the Kleptocracy.
Fail troll is fail.
Roberts gave into political pressure. So he just did what you said he should not. But since it went your way you’ll act like it didn’t happen.
But Roberts did not protect the constitution, he betrayed it. By roberts own reading of the constitution the mandate in obamacare is unconstitutional, and is only constitutional as a tax. But in response to the totalitarian type court intimidatin campaign from leftists, to “protect the integrity of the court”, by doing what the leftists wanted, not what his own logical reading of the law implied. (note, if 5-4 decisions are that bad, one of the 4 leftist judges could have defected, and made it 6-3, but I didn’t hear anybody leftie in the 5-4 is terrible and partisan campaign suggesting that, instead Roberts turned one partisan but solid 5-4 decision, shooting down the law, into a completely incomprehensible and equally partisan 5-4 decision, where the only one on the court that said the law is now a constitutional tax was roberts). Instead Roberts, supposedly trying not to be activist, did the most activist thing he could, he rewrote the law, turning the unconstitutional mandate into a legal tax, even as the writers of the law, and the law itself, continued to say it was a mandate.
Cynical wonder,you need to start not with Marbury vs Madison,but with the simpler read,’We,the people.’
If he resigns Obama may get another appointment. So. First, better someone with principles than a gutless coward. Second Roberts is concerned with his legacy now. He does not want to be trashed by liberals. So he will never vote conservative on a tough issue again.
CJ Roberts’ “legacy” will be determined by historians. At present, they tend predominantly to be liberal. So, if he agrees to jump through their hoops, we’re screwed.
Liberals in liberal institutions (e.g. academics, the old media, federal bureaucracy, entertainment industry, novelists) aren’t going to be replaced by a conservative “fifth column”. But NEW conservative institutions need to be founded and nurtured to effect a change and allow the liberal establishment to wither. This “hope & change” will take generations. “Keep hope alive”—and vote on Nov 6!
It’s already started: Roberts’ opinion in the Arizona immigration case just a few days before ACA showed Roberts is no longer leaning conservative or respecting the constitution.
.
But Roberts has already classified himself as a “gutless coward”. This is not just “pressure from the left”; this is extortion, bribery, Mafia-style at its worst. Obama knows where Roberts has buried his bodies, and Roberts knows where the obamathugs can bury his body. And then, there’s the money…
We have to vote out obama et al, and undo all he has done. Every single bit of it! And then fix it all like it should be. Or else.
It appears that Obama has already gained a supreme court justice. Roberts saved us the agony of listening to more senate confirmation hearings.
http://farrowfiles.com/putting-on-ayers/
Wow – powerful stuff on your site!! Thx!
Chief Justice Roberts is not building is legacy; he is building his infamy.
In the War of the Revolution during one of the earliest battles an American General fought Valiently in the Battle and Seige of Quebec. Though wounded greviously he continued to command his army and show great courage.
When the counterattack was mounted this General displayed Courage and Cunning once again in thwarting the British from assaulting Fort Ticonderoga.
He continued to show valor and lead his men as the war progressed.
And yet, a very select few remember this American General’s contributions to the efforts of the Colonists.
What they do remember is one incident during the war at West Point.
The General’s name?
Benedict Arnold.
John Roberts should have read his biography and ignored the Newspapers.
The comparison is unfair to Benedict Arnold, who had the admittedly feeble excuse of having been cheated out of a well-deserved promotion for political reasons. Explain to me what anyone did to John Roberts that would justify HIS betrayal.
Back in the day of our Founders, officials took the laws, and their oaths to uphold those laws, seriously. People respected the Articles of Confederation, and later, the US Constitution. Benedict Arnold was considered an anomaly.
Nowadays, not so much.
The example of Europe is what really flabbers my gasters. We’re not dealing with some fussy theoretical problem. Only a fool (Corizone) would be long any Euro debt right now. Gee, that looks like fun; let’s dig our very own debt hole!
At what point can assign actual malignant intent to our current crop of politicians?
About1913, with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, thus appointing international bankers as a kleptocracy enabled to steal from Americans without limitation. Again, about 1935, with the creation of the Welfare State in the form of the Social Security Act.And certainly, in the election of a sociopath as POTUS in 2008.Can 69.5 million Americans be wrong? Oh, my, yes, yes, yes!
If Obama is re-elected my prediction is that the 2nd Amendment becomes the next target. The Left is rabidly hostile to it already and it is the last impediment to implementing their totalitarian agenda. Mark my words. Once Obama gains the ‘flexibility’ he desires by not having to stand for election again, he will go after it. I dread the day.
Molon labe!
Much as I agree in sentiment, I fear “Molon Labe” is mostly bravado. I suspect the majority of Americans, gun owners included, are unwilling to risk life and limb for much of anything. When push comes to shove, they will submit. It’s not like they will assault the 2nd Amendment by sending goon squads house to house, for something like that would be blatant enough to provoke resistance. They’ll do it in some stealthier manner that incentivizes craven cooperation.
the guns will be returned but the bullets will be returned first, get it lib?
You mean like taxing you for owning a gun? Using the logic here of Roberts’ decision could the Feds not compel you to give up your gun by making a substantial tax for owning one, kind of like the ACA in reverse? “You don’t have health insurance? Pay a tax. You own a gun? Pay a tax.”
Try: You want an abortion? Pay a tax. You are pregnant? Pay a tax.
There lies madness.
You may well be right. But if only ten percent stand up, that’s still millions of people. No, it’ll be sneakier than that. Say, through the IRS? Maybe the denial of access to healthcare? A rather closer look at your daily activities? Every single one of us violates laws and/or regulations every single day, knowingly or unknowingly. “Nice life ya got there, sure would be a shame if something happened to it. Give up your guns, and we can look the other way.”
My thoughts exactly. They will come full force to confiscate or tax weapons and ammunition out of existence. That will probably lead to civil war.
Confiscate guns? Put gun owners on blacklists? No, they won’t do any of that. What they will do is go after companies that manufacture and sell ammunition, and probably the weapons themselves, until no one is making them anymore. They’ll pass laws to make it a felony to fire a gun anywhere. We’ll still have our guns, it will just be illegal to use them.
So do whatever you can to help make sure that he doesn’t get to do that. Money, time, soapbox, armtwist, whatever it takes. To jack a Hewittism: ‘If it isn’t close, they can’t cheat.’
Maybe, maybe not, Michael.
I just wrote what I believe Roberts has done over at Bryan Preston’s essay, so I won’t repeat it here.
The “Catholic Court” may be making Obama say his Confession and then recite an Act of Contrition.
IT’S A TAX AND ONLY A TAX. It does not survive and cannot be resurrected as something else. So….let’s discuss
a)the parliamentary niceties of how we pass a tax in this representative self-governing land of ours
b)Whether we followed the proper procedures for such a thing
c)Whether EACH AND EVERY representative told his/her constituency that he/she was voting to impose a tax on them….remember the “taxation without representation” thing?
d)Whether they would have voted TODAY if they were told it was a tax all along
e)And if ANY of those things are not true or proper…what is the Congressional remedy and how do the people obtain relief?
Any….ANY…other discussion…is off topic.
Taxation without representation. Isn’t this where the Tea Party steps in?
Riddle me this batman:
How did the Supreme court ever uphold the Governments ability to evict someone from thier home (without paying Just Compensation) because an endangered eagle built a nest in a tree on thier property?
How did the Supreme court ever come up with the Kilo decision as well?
Answer; Roe v. Wade.
It’s not just about abortion.
Harry Blackmun (another traitor) somehow discovered that a subset of Property Rights called Privacy Rights were acendant and therefor Property Rights became Privacy Rights and that was the foundation for the two atrocities above.
The Derivitave Atrocities that the Court will unleash upon this country by Granting Congress unfettered unlimited ability to tax not just property or commerce but inactivity as well, cannot even be imagined.
Huh? Roe v. Wade *limited* government power. Kelo *enhanced* it (as did the Obamacare decision).
Which government, DH? Seems as I recall the federal courts have been having a field day since Roe, declaring almost any state law which touches on the subject of abortion unconstitutional. I certainly regard the courts as part of the “government”.
You do know that Kelo was not upheld.
When was Kelo overturned? IIRC, the only response has been some state restrictions on eminent domain.
I think Roberts has given the election to Obama. Most who supported him saw him as ineffective and had been losing enthusiasm. Now he has the biggest victory he could get. Those who wanted him out we’re already motivated and don’t think this adds anything but instead highlights Romney is the wrong candidate for the moment and someone equally soft and likely to appoint people like Roberts instead of someone with convictions.
So upholding a law the majority of voters loath HELPS Obama? How? A key rationalization many middle of the road voters used to justify a vote for Obama in 2008- that the Supreme Court would keep him in line- just got shot to hell. The economy is tanking again
Pathetic whiners the lot of you! You guess wrong on a prediction and you all run around like Chicken Little instead of trying to figure out what move is next. What makes it even funnier is how many of those who now think Roberts is such an idiot are precisely the people who forced Bush to nominate a DC insider him in the first place. Harriet Meirs just didn’t have that all important ivy in her resume and hadn’t paid her dues schmoozing the DC based right leaning punditry.
I think you spend too much time listening to the MSM.
During the Battle of the Bulge, in a French town called Malmady, SS Troops could not be bothered with Prisoners.
So they just shot all of the captured soldiers they had in their charge.
The Field Marshal in charge of Operation Watch on the Rhine, when he heard of this action looked at his aides and said, “In thier arrogance they have just made our victory impossible, the allied soldiers will now have a resolve that cannot be broken.”
His prediction came true in another French Town called Bastogn.
Great analogy. But Malmedy and Bastogne are in Belgium, not France.
From your lips to God’s ears, jd.
Thanks for reminding us of the kind of people to whom we owe every Mother-loving breath of the free air we are still privileged to breathe.
Would that the memory of their example be enough to rouse us from the hedonism-induced torpor of our postmodern “sophistication.”
The actual story has been garbled by historians.
The SS formation had been shot up — badly — by these very same American ARTILLERY MEN — which their distinctive uniforms made evident.
They were stationed near St. Vith — THE critical crossroads — more important than Bastogne — and their weapons were but only TWO very long range 155mm GUNS — not howitzers.
Their location and range was intended to support V Corps and its attack scheduled for that very same morning, 12-16-44. ( 2 & 99 infantry divisions, et. al. )
Instead, they were ordered to fire by the map all over the position of the 102 Armored Calvary Regiment — astride the path of the SS Panzer’s attack — until the ammo gave out.
In the compressed space, the Germans lost thousands of men. To get out of the bombardment the panzers even ran over their own infantry. (!)
When captured, the artillery company was only a few miles down the road from their guns — now ruined — making it obvious that they were the boys who’d shot the Germans up.
So, it was a pure revenge killing.
The particular SS outfit had a nasty reputation for burning down entire villages in Russia. This wasn’t their first sin.
As usual, the goals of socialists like Obama is NOT to enable poor people to get better jobs to raise their standard of living, it is to take all the money away from everybody else and make them poor as well. Now we will no longer have the greatest medical care in the world, we will only have miserable health care for everybody. Now THAT is “social justice,” isn’t it? Like the crack dealer stringing along an addict with promises of more drugs, Obama is trying to entice people with the notion that the government can take care of you from cradle to grave. Of course we know that is not true, but a lot of people actually believe that nonsense. And when they become disappointed when they have the social-welfare rug pulled out from under them, like the people in Greece have, who do they go to get their rights, their lives, and their futures back? Oh, that’s right, they can’t, because if it gets to that point you’ve already lost the war.
Don’t let this happen to us. We have one chance left and that comes in November. Take it, grab it, hold on dearly to it, because it WILL be the last chance you’ll ever have to stop from having to go begging to the government for your very right to exist.
You’re singing to the choir here, mostly. The question in my mind is, how do we get all those “youths”, the single females, the upper middle-class social climbers, the “minorities”, to get over their intoxication with the first black President and look at his policies, not his high-fives.
We are already on such an unsustainable path with out-of-control govt and entitlements. The idea that our leaders are trying to implode the USA is far from loony; it is totally obvious. This obamacare obamination just puts it into overdrive. We can follow them off the cliff or do everything we can to stop it. There is so much more work to do than to simply remove o-bumma from office. It will take years to fix the damage, that is if it’s not already too late. People are waking up; I hope and pray it’s not too late.
How many of you reading this thread actually believe we still have a Constitutional Republic? I think, for 70 years, the progs have been working to destroy it and with Dear Leader’s election and re-election, the Republic is lost.
They will now control every power in government. (Even without DLs re-election they will have consolidated their power to regulate and tax and given that soon more than 50% of the public will be on the government dole, the CP strategy will be complete.) I think putting our hopes in Mitt and taking the Senate is like believing CJ Roberts was a conervative justice. LGoPs brought up the 2nd Amendment and he is right, they will go after it because it IS the only thing remaining to confront the progs from a total takeover.
Taking back America can no longer be done politically. So how will we take back America? I see two possibilities: there will have to be a civil war and short of that, there must be some sort of secession of several states. I am open to other ideas.
I don’t think you will accomplish anything with the blue states in the North and North East, they are lost. The south and west at least out to AZ border, their is still hope.
Ole Sarge.
Roberts is hoping for a good place in the new leftist order?
So someone(bureaucrat) obama types set to rule us.
Heh, good luck with that.
I see local’s poisoning in their lunch basket like happened to other progressive NAZI’s.
Son’s of Liberty will ride.
I agree with folks saying this pumps up the Obamabots for they WERE losing that kool-aid taste until the SC’s decision.
Yes, I understand Justice Roberts’ decision. The concept of taxing someone for the mere fact of breathing/ existing is deplorable. Though it is what it is.
The other factoid is the overwhelming # of older/ senior citizen’s who lean Conservative are NOT WILLING to lessen or eventually siphon/give up their entitlements. Even those who don’t need them, necessarily.
Thus if Romney is squishy, weak in the Fall Presidential debate – that’s it. people will cave-in to our grifter CiC.
The American bourgeoisie, those who exist on entitlements/ sweat & tears of others who adore our empty vessel-idelogue CiC and their/ his sycophants are a large voting bloc.
Romney NEEDS to bring his A-game and a worthwhile, intelligent VP candidate.
The attack on Robert hinges on two arguments. He’s an idiot and he’s a liberal sychophant who was pretending to be conservative for years and sold out to get praised in the NY Slimes.
I don’t know what was in John Robert’s mind, but I know those two arguments are the arguments of angry children.
Your ability to comprehend the arguments that others are actually making is pathetically limited. Grow up a bit before you try taking them on.
America: Give us a king!
Democrats: N’ kay.
We’re screwed. A LOT of people are doing ex-pat searches now, planning to leave, who WOULD have stayed in the US.
The Roberts ruling was so strange, so self contradictory, so sophistic that I believe, or rather I suspect, that the Chief Justice woke up one morning with a horses head in his bed. That is the best explanation I can come up with, although from my distant perch as just a lowly citizen in a remote province I could easily be wrong. This Roberts decision however, does not seem to be just one more bit of bad news, rather it feels as if now the last straw has fallen upon the camels back, the election is almost too far away, an old forgotten moon is rising, and there is a sound of pipes from far back in the glens. There is a feeling of movement – that is what I sense when I now read the blogs and the comments. I pray, and I believe, that we will still make it to election day, and then we will see what the decision is. But we are not living in old times – we are a long way beyond even 1984. What was fought for at Trenton and Gettysburg and Iwo Jima has all been given away. My ancestors were there – the future they dreaded is here. Whatever happens, it will not take us back. The America of 1776 has not been seen for a long time, and it will never be seen again. The America that our children and grandchilren see will be made now.
For my adult life (45 y.o.)I have watched radical judges legislate from the bench. An activist judge is the most dangerous enemy of our freedom. There is nothing constitutional about a judge doing anything other than interpreting the law before him/her. Could it be that we have grown so use to our judges and justices imposing their will upon us that we just expected our current Supreme Court to carry on the practice. I have read and and watched conservatives rail against the Chief justice for not imposing their (and they believed his) will on the rest of the country. He would have satisfied a bunch of conservative minded people, but it would have been an activist judge legislating from the bench, overturning a law simply because he didn’t agree with it. I believe that the Chief Justice gave a fair ruling based on the law as he interpreted it. It was a law duly passed by an elected Congress and signed by a duly elected President and as such, under our constitution, represented the will of the people. I also believe the other eight justices were going through the motions we have come to expect and accept from our judges, they voted on party and ideological lines.
Of course the rub is that the law was NOT voted on by a representation of the country, but on a strict party line and forced down more than half the country’s throat. But, that is not the problem of the Supreme Court and it does not make it unconstitutional, it is the problem of the citizen and I believe that is the point the Chief Justice was trying to make to us. He ruled that the mandate was a tax, and in so doing dismantled the Interstate Commerce Clause being a catch all for public control of civil liberties. Conservatives are beating their heads against the wall claiming the congress will use the ruling to tax us for everything we do or don’t do.
Really, think about that. If a tax is so easy to pass, then why did obama lie to us, why didn’t he and his congressional lap dogs just call it a tax and pass the law? Because Reid and Pelosi wouldn’t have gotten ten votes for it if they had told the truth and called it a tax. If a tax is so easy to pass then why are they running from the notion of calling it a tax? Because the very word TAX is unspeakable for most members of our congress, even the liberal ones.
The Chief Justice basically gave us all a lesson in civics. If you don’t like the government you currently have, change it. GO VOTE! We have term limits for all of these clowns serving. GO VOTE! If you don’t like ObamaCare and want it repealed, GO VOTE! If you don’t want a socialist America, GO VOTE!
But don’t sit around and ask the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench when it might benefit you and then scream activist judge when it doesn’t. Use your natural rights as protected under the constitution and select a new group of politicians that will help us bail the water out of this sinking ship! GO VOTE, and then demand the first act of the new Congress and President be full repeal of ObamaCare. The enemy of freedom is not Chief Justice Roberts, but Obama and his Leftist Minions, GO Vote!
Among others, there’s one major contradiction in what you say and what Roberts said — re our responsibility to Vote!
The fact is, the law wasn’t presented as a Tax. It was presented as Not In Any Way a Tax!
If it IS a Tax, then it isn’t what was voted on!
If it had been presented as a Tax, it would have been voted down.
So that was a lie — plain as day.
That’s why Roberts should have sent it back to Congress and said that if they wanted to pass it as a Tax, then it had to be voted on again.
Roberts did exactly what he supposed he wasn’t doing — he legislated from the bench.
Aqua, It was never presented to the public nor to the congress, who never read the thing, as a tax. But once the governments lawyers got it into court, they did present it as a tax, both in the lower courts and in the Supreme Court’s arguments. But it was most definitely written as a tax, written by tax lawyers and written to be enforced by the IRS. It may be the biggest lie and sham ever pulled on the citizens. Regardless if you agree with my take of the ruling, we are headed in the wrong direction and only we, the citizens, can fix that.
“Of course the rub is that the law was NOT voted on by a representation of the country …” — At least one of the senators (Franken) in that supermajority got his Senate seat by obvious fraud. Someone pointed out that several senators had not been elected but were appointed.
Sorry Radical, it’s the JOB of the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not constitutional. This is not called ‘legislating from the bench’ – it’s called doing what your branch of government is charged by the constitution with doing.
The logical fallacy you’ve made is to assume that there’s no inherent truth of the matter apart from the decisions made by the supreme court. Most of us think that constitutionality of a law is not merely a function of the government’s decisions. In fact, crucially, the founders believed the same – and were quite explicit about the need to overthrow governments that strayed.
“We have term limits for all of these clowns serving.”
I know we do for the Presidency (look for Obama to target that if he steals the election), but Congress? There aren’t any effective term limits for House or Senate (at least not nationally).
BeackingChasm, The term limits I am referring to is the upcoming presidential and congressional election and the mid-term election of 2014. That is always our opportunity to effect term limits on politicians. After the ObamaCare vote, there was a huge groundswell of opposition to it and we witnessed the removal of many left wing democrats in 2010. Let’s do it again and again until the message is loud and clear that a representative must represent and they do not have any authority unless we give it to them.
I don’t like the outcome, but I agree that Roberts is right.
Once we agree (as everyone seems to) that the federal government has the power to regulate our health insurance system on a national basis, it follows that it also has the power to tax everyone to support that system. The Congress can call a tax whatever it wants to call it, but if what they enact fits the definition of a tax, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overrule the law unless the tax itself is unconsitutional.
The problem with Obamacare is not that it is unconstitutional. The problem is that despite being Constitutional, it is illegitimate. That is, a large portion of the electorate seems to believe that there was – and is – no genuine democratic agreement that it should be the law.
So it’s up to us whether we want to repeal Obamacare. The first step is to Repeal Obama.
GO VOTE! is completely and utterly irrelevant when the elected, once elected, ignore the will of the people and just do as they will . Remember NAFTA? Nearly 80% of the American people were against it. Illegal immigration: 70-80% of the people (I am remembering various polls) want the borders shut and protected, and illegals sent back. A majority of Hispanic Americans are anti illegal immigration, generally polling at 60something percent opposed. Voting has become and has been pointless for quite some time now, but *something* has changed, since maybe the second WJC administration: They now believe it’s safe to show their contempt for us and our beliefs and values.
Angry Chihuahua, Our vote is only irrelevant because we allow it to be irrelevant when only 30 to 40% of us vote. You are absolutely correct in the fact that polling organizations and media polls will point out that the public may be for or against a particular idea and then we see politicians vote in the opposite. But why should a politician care about a poll when he or she knows that a very small percentage of the citizenry will show to vote. Add to that the fact the politician will have weeks or months or years to spin and lie about their voting record and a willing media allows them to get away with the deceit. I believe voting matters, it is our chance to overthrow a government without ever firing a shot and our chance to correct errors of past politicians. A few hundred votes in either direction and we would never have had Gore v. Bush to argue about. If a few more people had gotten off there couch and countered the culinary union here in my home state, Harry would be back here and a new Senate Majority leader would be balancing a budget right now in the Senate. Yes, Go Vote, it matters!
Was it not Kagan that was deeply involved in drafting the legislation? Did her consenting opinion not register in the minds of those calling for Roberts’ demise? Roberts simply refused to either rewrite the law or accept the responsibility thereof reserved for the congress and subject to individual state rejection and will of the electorate by exposing the long abused commerce clause and all legislation considered constitutional through its root. In short he exposed Biden’s BFD for what it is, the biggest contribution ever submitted for DNC digestion and death.
What better alternative was available to him than the Trojan horse he delivered to all designers of subjugation of citizens’ sovereignty to government over reach and international control? Was his action not well a deserved retaliatory offense to the presidential reprimand delivered at the state of the union address address? The opportunity to cook both the goose and his golden egg in the same pot is a rarity.
The full responsibility for all legislation has been dumped into the deserving lap of the states and the people for retribution and in November. and repeal in 2013. Their response alone will determine the future of the republic by whatever means necessary except blaming others for their inadequate analysis and lack of eternal vigilance. Twenty-six states have joined the move to reject the mandate and a long time coming even while most obviously necessary as revealed by documented unedited history of the last century.
This day is the first day in the rest of your life. Use it wisely to determine the best for the rest. Wrongful blame, other than being a waste of time, merely provides for another BFD. The indoctrinated minds of their type are a breeding ground for more.
The atrocity now at hand bears the genes of second generation proof. Don’t expect any miracles until the echo of the “Silent Screams” of 50 million assassinated seeds of humanity have been redeemed. Rand Paul offers the legislative solution.
Was it not Kagan that was deeply involved in drafting the legislation? Did her consenting opinion not register in the minds of those calling for Roberts’ demise? Roberts simply refused to either rewrite the law or accept the responsibility thereof reserved for the congress and subject to individual state rejection and will of the electorate by exposing the long abused commerce clause and all legislation considered constitutional through its root. In short he exposed Biden’s BFD for what it is, the biggest contribution ever submitted for DNC digestion and death.
What better alternative was available to him than the Trojan horse he delivered to all designers of subjugation of citizens’ sovereignty to government over reach and international control? Was his action not well a deserved retaliatory offense to the presidential reprimand delivered at the state of the union address address? The opportunity to cook both the goose and his golden egg in the same pot is a rarity.
The full responsibility for all legislation has been dumped into the deserving lap of the states and the people for retribution and in November. and repeal in 2013. Their response alone will determine the future of the republic by whatever means necessary except blaming others for their inadequate analysis and lack of eternal vigilance. Twenty-six states have joined the move to reject the mandate and a long time coming even while most obviously necessary as revealed by documented unedited history of the last century.
This day is the first day in the rest of your life. Use it wisely to determine the best for the rest. Wrongful blame, other than being a waste of time, merely provides for another BFD. The indoctrinated minds of their type are a breeding ground for more.
The atrocity now at hand bears the genes of second generation proof. Don’t expect any miracles until the echo of the “Silent Screams” of 50 million assassinated seeds of humanity have been redeemed. Rand Paul offers the legislative solution.
CJ Roberts, in this decision, was the most activist judge in US history.
.
I agree with you and VDH. There’s nothing good in Roberts decision — nothing. It’s a horrendous loss — which is sinking in after the shock and desperate desire to grab at straws and keep looking at “the bright side.”
I guess in some ways it’s important to keep chins up … giving up and expressing downtrodden forebodings will wind up suppressing votes too.
It’s so clear that Obamacare is meant to destroy the private insurance system altogether (just for starters) — there’s no way it could survive in a future where — just as a for instance — premiums will have to go sky high for them to make a profit at all. The public will not be able to bear that — and so all will come crashing down — and all will go to Single Payer. Not many make much of that — but it’s what it IS … and precisely how it’s designed.
That’s just one.
If … if … Romney wins — and they are really determined … there may be some ways to repeal it — even without a majority Senate … very difficult, but not impossible.
But we shouldn’t lose sight of how hard the fight will have to be for a Romney victory –
and hope and pray (and make suggestions?) that his campaign is bracing for what will surely be a very nasty “October Surprise” … with some October surprises of their own.
It’s going to get very, very, very ugly — and frightening.
One thing I would expect from leftist websites is for them to delete or ban anti-leftist posters. They do it quickly and regularly. I find it weird that rightist websites do exactly the same thing…they delete or ban anti-leftist commenters. Perhaps these Republicans think that the comments are too too controversial. No wonder we are losing this war.
“I find it weird that rightist websites do exactly the same thing…they delete or ban anti-leftist commenters.”
Did you say what you meant to say? Because if PJM counts as a rightist website – and I certainly think it does – and if it actually banned anti-leftist commenters then why am I – or any of the others – here? After all, we are nearly ALL anti-leftists with only the occasional independent or troll to break the pattern.
This bill is crying for civil disobedience. Not paying the Obamatx won’t even get you in legal trouble. So don’t pay it!
Not paying the tax will get you in trouble for tax evasion, just like not paying any other tax.
When the tax is first assessed, the IRS cannot yet use punative measures to collect it, just as they cannot do so prior to April 15 for taxes owed for the previous tax year. But once the tax is assessed, it is collected by the IRS using the same means as other taxes, so once you are delinquent, you will be prosecuted.
Agreed. But how long do you think tax collection would continue if some substantial number, say several hundred thousand, taxpayers stubbornly refused to pay the taxes associated with Obamacare?
Pay or don’t pay your Obamatax. Whatever. What concerns me is that in a poor Democrat state like mine (Kentucky), the state pols under pressure from the electorate who wants their free check, will take the bait of the expanded Medicaid program. Then in a few short years, when the federal subsidy falls to 50%, Kentucky will be faced with paying 50% of the medical costs of 86% of the population. Our taxes will go through the roof! Because only the feds can print money–states can’t.
I’m an older Gen X, right behind the Baby Boomers…I am among those who is going to pay for everyone ahead of me, and everyone behind me, and get utterly screwed myself. Sigh.
Ok. Here we go again. I’ve already made this argument at length on a couple of other PJ Media comment threads, so I may as well spread a little sunshine here as well.
Presuming Michael Walsh responds, I’d like to know exactly in what way was the Roberts opinion in error with respect to the law. To save time, if you haven’t yet read the opinion, do so now. In the other threads, people have raised objections that can be trivially refuted by refering to the precedents and principles cited in the opinion itself. Unless you can explain why the precedents Roberts cites are do not apply, or why his analysis based on legal principles is in error, don’t waste everyones time.
I understand that people dislike the outcome of this ruling. I don’t care for it myself. But regardless of the dire nasty consequences Walsh warns of, if the case was decided in accordance with the law, those consequences are of the same political nature as all the other dire nasty politcal consequences to which we are subject, and they are corrected using political means.
I think the problem most of us conservatives have with the opinion is that we got complacent, thinking that with just a simple press of the “I WIN” button, the court would find the thing unconstitutional, and we wouldn’t have to do anything hard.
Surprise.
Now that reality has done it’s legendary thing and chastised us for our lazy foolishness, it’s time to get back to work. Elect Romney, elect majorities in the House and the Senate, and repeal the damn thing. That is Plan A. That has ALWAYS been Plan A.
Here here!
Right. To fix the Obamacare mess, elect the guy who invented it so he can appoint more judges like the guy who rewrote the law to uphold it.
Even more discouraging than the decision itself, is the reaction of many Republicans. We need a real small government party.
Reality. I think I mentioned that, Richard.
Realistically, given the near certainty that our choices of candidates for President that have a prayer of winning will be Romney and Obama, under which candidate to you think repeal is more likely, Romney or Obama?
There are no guarantees. But if Republicans regain majorities in both the House and the Senate, and repeal legislation is passed, do you think Romney would be foolish enough to veto?
Perhaps. Anything is possible. If so, he would hopefully join Obama in what I hope is a single term Presidency.
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.
I’m not sure if Rumsfeld invented that, but he surely ably applied it. Did you read his autobio? Was very good. Also cures you instantly of any interest in Condi Rice.
A voice of reason amid the din of hysteria.
Have any of you given any thought about the likely outcome if Roberts had sided with the dissenters who wanted to throw out the whole bill? That would very likely have been a display of judicial overreach. The mandate was clearly unconstitutional but what about the rest of it? Roberts addressed the unconstitutionality of the mandate by applying the correct definition of it as a tax, because that is exactly what it is. Obama administration lawyers actually referred to it as a tax during the oral arguments of the case.
The court was between a rock & a hard place. A bill such as this one should have never been passed. Never before seen such a bitter lesson that elections really do matter.
Another thing, where on earth are people getting this idea that the Roberts decision gives Congress more power to tax that has not already been given by the Constitution itself? It states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I don’t see where the Roberts decision either adds to or takes away from what is already there regarding congressional power to tax.
Due to the fact that there is no severability clause in the bill; the whole thing would have rightfully been thrown out. The unconstitutional mandate is its fatal flaw.
“Due to the fact that there is no severability clause in the bill; the whole thing would have rightfully been thrown out. The unconstitutional mandate is its fatal flaw.”
You didn’t read the decision, did you? Are you aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that the mandate IS constitutional, in spite of your unfounded opinions to the contrary?
If you want to argue that the opinion is invalid, and can refute the precedents, legal principles, and Constitutional interpretations that went into the formulation of the opinion, that is one thing. “Because I said so”, is not a valid argument.
If you have a valid argument, I’d like to hear it. No one else has yet offered one either.
Brent:
I have one for you. Define a “direct tax”. Now compare that to the mandate’s tax. Is the ACA’s mandate tax a direct tax, or is it not? How did Justice Roberts dispose of that question? Did he offer any legal reasoning for his position? Is a direct tax constitutional or is it not?
Once you do all that analysis, can you still defend Justice Roberts’ indefensible opinion?
Perhaps you are a little too dismissive of the radical expansion of the Federal power to tax?
Another question – Roberts apparently split the baby to maintain the Court’s standing in society. That didn’t work out so well.
Will he try this sleight of hand again? He’s done is twice now – third time not so lucky?
I don’t see necessarily see it as a radical expansion. The Congress already has to power to tax us into oblivion, no expansion necessary.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the top tax bracket in the 1950′s was something like 90%. If they wanted to, Congress could raise ALL brackets to 90% today, even on the 47% of Americans who currently pay no taxes. That would be permitted under the Constitution today.
They don’t do that because they know they’d never surive their next election. Tax legislation has never been popular, and if anything, and this decision won’t make it any more popular. If anything, trying to pass legislation now along these lines will probably be the fasted way for a politician to be given a chance to investigate opportunities in the private sector once they are voted out of office.
Radical expansion of the power to tax? I’m not seeing it. If anything, I’m seeing a vast expansion on the part of taxpayers to resist taxation, which I think is a good thing.
Brent Glines: “Presuming Michael Walsh responds, I’d like to know exactly in what way was the Roberts opinion in error with respect to the law. To save time, if you haven’t yet read the opinion, do so now.”
To save time, if you haven’t read the dissenting opinon by Scalia et al, do so now.
[To save time, if you haven’t read the dissenting opinon by Scalia et al, do so now.]
Sure Aaron, ignore the actual ruling and read the dissent: THAT makes a ton of sense. Newsflash: dissents are commentary not law.
Roberts and dissenters Scalio, Kennedy, Thomas and Alitto agree that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause can be used to constitutionally permit the Government to regulate commercial inactivity or to create commercial activity to regulate. To do so would allow an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause which does not provide the Government with plenary power in its applications. This majority consensus, that the ACA is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause allows us to proceed to an examination of Roberts’s, holding that the ACA is consitutional under Congress’s authority to levy taxes.
First, Roberts, in a tortured attempt to uphold the ACA mandate under the Congress’s taxing authority, finds that the Mandate’s “penalty” of $695 for not purchasing medical insurance is simultaneously a penalty and a tax, an absurd proposition briefly offered by the Government’s attorneys during oral argument. The Goverment uses the term “penalty” 18 times in the ACA, and only resorts to claiming it is a tax when it wants to avoid the Anti-Injunction law. Moreover, while Roberts’s finds that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to constitutionally regulate commercial inactivity to create comercially activity to regulate, he makes no such finding under the Congress’s taxing authority, allows the Congress to impose a penalty (which Roberts calls a “tax”)upon an entire class of citizens who have neither the need nor the desire to purchase medical insurance. Roberts does not engage the issue as to whether the Congress is using its taxing authority to regulate inactivity, or to create activity to regulate, which would an unconstutional us of the taxing authority. Nor do any of Roberts’s case law citations provide precedent for the Congress’s attempt to use the Taxing Authority to regulate inactvity. None of the cases Roberts cites are relevant to the issue at hand.
Roberts’ opinion is so flimsy, so self contradictory, poorly drafted, is is reminiscent of an Opinion issued by the Court of some Banana Republic.
None of you said a word or enough words when LBJ set medicare/medicaid in stone in 65 and now somehow your shocked this piece of crap got through the spigot too? Try paying attention for the next 30 years and get all this crap reversed instead of wondering where you set down your latte .
Coerrect! Most of us didn’t object to LBJs’ Medicare/Medicade gambit. Too bad you are ignorant of the fact that most of us at that time were teens or younger (if around at all) and had no voice in the matter. Put the blame where it belongs; on the Gimme (Greatest) Generation, the ones that sold their children into slavery for some porridge.
Sorry, I, and many of my friends objected strongly in 1965, but we had no internet to help organize, and the media weren’t any friendlier then either. Had I been able to vote in 1938, I’d have voted against Social Security too.
You are right. In the sixties, and for a long time later, there was only Cronkite and Huntly-Brinkley, and the ability to write your Representative – in pen and ink. How many of the high horses here have ever written a letter with pen and ink, assuming they have a news source that reports the truth? The Tea Party, God bless them, like the Arab Spring, is only possible thru the internet. All the Britebart stuff could not have happened, because filming was done with cameras and tape, not hidden micro-optics and digital cell phones. They had us trapped for decades, but now, because of a revolution in mass communication we are strong. They will be coming after that very soon. But if we can put a million peaceful demonstrators in Washington now, then we can also put a million mad as hell hornets there too.
Congress already has such wide ranging tax powers that calling the mandate a tax does little to expand Congresses powers. Allowing the mandate to go through as Necesary & Proper + Comerce Clause would have given Congress permission to rule all our lives.
Rumor has it that as a tax a simple majoiry of Congress can undo the mandate using reconciliation.
A lot of us knew from the beginning how bad this ruling was and what will happen. The problem is the too clever by half punditry class who insists this is a grand bit of judicial political judo.
Of course the bright spot in all of this is that the country can’t afford it and it will hammer the economy down like stubborn nail, so the joke’s on them.
Dave, I understand you don’t care for the ruling. But as I asked above, in what legal sense is the ruling invalid?
Hmmm. Could it be that nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to take from one person to give to another?
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” Article 1, Section 8, United States Constitution.
This authorizes Congress to take from one person and give to another, under the General Welfare provision. If not, explain why not.
Mr. Brent Glines: None of the case law precedents cited by Roberts in defense of his assertion that Congress’s Taxing Authority constitionally permits Congress to use its Taxing Authority to regulate commerce or to create commerce to regulate inactivity. None is on point. None. And I challenge you to find even one of Roberts’s citations that permits this unconstitutional expansion whereby Congress seeks to tax inactivity. The dissenters deal with and demonstrate the irrelevance of each of Roberts’ citations, showing them to be either mischaracterizations of the holding , or inapplicable to the issue at hand. The shallowness of Roberts’ dicta is such as to permit the dissenters to occasionally express some wit at Roberts’ expense as they dismantle and expose absurdities in Roberts’ clearly desperate Opinion. The Constitution no more permits the Congress to use its Taxing Power to compel citizens to engage in commerce than it permits the use of taxing power to compel citizens to eat
brocolli.
You apparently accept Roberts’ dicta as corrrect and Roberts’ citations as on point. I think you and your readers would be better served if you carefully examined Roberts’ Opinion through the lense of the dissenters’ Opinion.
Roberts is no dummy. He full well knows Romney can’t make a credible argument against Obamacare. This all but guarantees Obama’s reelection.
How does this decision bolster Obama’s reelection chances? I am inclined to think it will have the opposite effect. Now fully couched as a tax, people are going to take a closer look at Obamacare & all its ramifications. Also, it’s not easy to ignore the deleterious effects this bill has had on businesses which are just sitting on their money until hopefully, we can all get past this nightmare called the Obama administration & sorry Democrats in the Senate.
Yes, in Germany everyone ownes everyone else. The world has had some trouble with that.
As bad as Obamacare is, and as a former GC of a healthcare company I know it will destroy everything that works well, please do not fail to notice that an essential part of getting European-style socialism involves fundamentally transforming the nature of American education at all levels. In fact, one of the radical architects, John Goodlad, declared openly in a forum last fall that the American people would be more upset about the education initiatives than healthcare if they really understood them. And this from a man who thought Bill Ayers made a fine speaker for his National Network for Educational Renewal back in 2010.
I wrote yesterday about how the definition of Career Ready actually mandates Communitarianism to push a new type of “cooperative” economics.http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/does-common-core-target-hearts-and-minds-to-sway-future-voters/
The previous 2 posts were in the same vein on using education to decimate the concept of individuality as legitimate now in America. What an unappreciated fundamental shift to be occurring in the shadows while we are rightfully upset about healthcare.
Ludwig Von Mises finished his classic book Human Action by reminding us that economic principles exist and control outcomes whether we understand them or even know they exist. The outcomes being sought by Obama and UNESCO through education, like so many other of these initiatives, won’t work as desired.
But they will destroy everything that does work. Unless we understand in time.
Your blog is very interesting, worthy of the bookmark. Glad you posted here.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be Fighting for Individual and States Rights from a power hungry Federal Government. They have failed miserably for over a century.
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
No where in the Constitution is Healthcare mentioned, let alone Enumerated, and if it isn’t Enumerated, the 9th and 10th Amendments mean it is a power denied to the Federal Government. This means the Federal Government can’t make any laws governing Healthcare.
Despite the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare IS constitutional. We have to assume they are familiar with the Constitution and its Amendments. So what do you want to do about their little “oversight”?
What scares me most now about the decision, is knowing how Congress has and can be bought all the time, what is to keep future Presidents and Congressmen from deciding other things can be done with a “penalty”? Some seem to think it would be very hard for the Obamacare passage-type scenario (introduced in House as some easily passed tax bill, then rewrite the thing in the Senate with all sorts of amendments & passes via reconciliation, etc.) to happen again now that it is a tax, but that precedent has been set too. Get a majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency and you’ve got a way to tax people for just about anything.
What better way to raise revenues–don’t own an automobile, pay a penalty (helps with road maintenance), no gun, pay a penalty (helps with crime prevention), and who knows what else.
These examples may seem extreme, but I thought back in 2008 there was no way the whole US population through Congress would pass, what will eventually become, Universal Healthcare either. It may not be Universal yet, but even Michael Moore thinks this is the beginning. I don’t know about everyone else, but if Ezra Klein is writing about how “genius” Roberts is and this was a good decision, then this is a big problem. Who will care about the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clause anymore, they seem almost worthless now.
“I don’t think it’s quite sunk in yet on the Right just how awful the John Roberts Obamacare decision really is, or what nasty consequences will now flow from it.”
Well, Walsh is right, though Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy got it right from the moment the ruling was announced.
But I just don’t think, I know, that it hasn’t quite sunk in yet on the country what a catastrophe putting Obama and the Democrats in power, and thus in the courts, really is, or what nasty consequences have flowed and will continue to flow from it.
“I agree with VDH: there’s no good news here, just an enormous — uphill — challenge. For most Americans, the worth of Obamacare has just been endorsed by no less than the chief justice, largely taking it off the table in November unless Mitt Romney — the worst possible candidate to argue this — can somehow make a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-did case as part of his larger economic message.”
I agree with the first part of this, the decision is awful and there are no positives to take from it. In particular it says that the government can force behavior or even non-behavior by imposing taxes. By imposing a large enough tax you can force people to do anything – buy this type of car, eat this type of food, etc. or be taxed $100,000 or any large amount.
The Constitution only allows income to be taxed through the 16th amendment plus
the following in the main body
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
These are taxes on economic activity or ownership of property. There is nothing in there regarding a tax for just being born.
So CJ Roberts interpretation is awful and seems “unconstitutional” to me. It creates a host of new tax opportunities for Congress which they may not have even thought of before.
However I do not agree with the 2nd part that this takes Obamacare off the table. If anything it does the opposite and makes it a focal point for the election. Romney just needs to keep talking economy, which is probably going to get worse and repeal of the healthcare law and Obama will be lucky to get more than 45% of the vote. I don’t care what Romney did as Governor of Mass, doing something at the state level is very different from doing it federal level. I also don’t agree with Mitch the Moron McConnell that it is going to be hard to repeal. A waiver to all 50 states on day 1 plus 50 votes in the Senate(plus the VP) is all it takes.
“These are taxes on economic activity or ownership of property. There is nothing in there regarding a tax for just being born.”
I think that is an opinion unsupported by facts. That limitation certainly isn’t in the Constitution. If you want to consider the provision to be unconstitutional, then you’ll need something that is actually in the Constitution to dispute it.
We can cry into our beers from now until forever, that will only bring smiles to Obama and his ilk. The Constitution only provides protection so long as their are people willing to enforce it. If we’re not willing to do that, if the only thing conservatives and libertarians will do is cry about the myriad of violations of that document, nothing will change.
Don’t Tread On Me, or else I’ll whine about it! Yeah, that’ll stop the tyrants.
There, not their. Anger ruins spelling.
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide whether laws are Constitutional. Period. When the Supreme Court makes rulings to satisfy a political agenda, or to stretch the bounds of the Constitution, then they have exceeded their charter. That’s called an “Activist Court” and that type of jurisprudence is responsible for much of what ails this country. I don’t like Robert’s decision but I support it. Although Obamacare is Constitutional, it’s still a terrible law.
Bob, I’m a bit confused by your post. If the Roberts opinion is legally valid, how can it be an ‘activist’ ruling to satisfy a political agenda. If it is not legally valid, why would you support it?
As I’ve mentioned above, I don’t like the outcome of the ruling, but I can’t argue with its legal validity, which is why I support the ruling in spite of my personal misgivings. Time to work on repealing the law now, through normal political means.
What I meant is that for the Supreme Court to use any criteria other than the Constitution to judge the legality of Obamacare would have made it an activist court. Although I don’t know what motivated the other judges I think Roberts acted as he should have and I have no issues with his conduct. I do have an issue with Kagan not recusing herself, but that’s another issue.
I see people hinting around the subject but the TRUTH is the time for the 2nd American Revolution is NOW… Our Govt no longer has the “Consent” of the Governed. It was already laid out clearly and concisely by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.
If we DONT fight this America is officially dead. Do you want to be remembered throughout history as the generation that let America get destroyed from the inside? I dont.
Check with Egypt on how much fun they’re having as a result of their ‘Arab Spring’. Not exactly a fountainhead of democratic freedom taking root over there.
It’s a simple political issue resolved through existing simple political means. No revolution required.
Can anyone name a good revolution? Okay, the American Revolution was good one. It gave us George Washington and freedom. Now can you name another? The French Revolution gave France “The Terror” The Chinese revoltion resulted in Mao Tse Tung and millions murdered. The Russian revolution resulted in Lenin and Stalin. The Cuban revolution produced Castro and countless misery. Do I need to go on?
The Velvet Revolution of 1989 is generally accepted as having been a peaceful and positive “revolution” as the Communists in Czechoslovakia were consigned to the dushbin of history. Similar results occurred in several other formerly-Communist countries, both those in the Warsaw Pact, like Czechoslovakia, and those that were actually constituent members of the Soviet Union, like Georgia and Lithuania.
Solidarity in Poland. It struck a devastating blow against Communism. While Solidarity wasn’t the AK, they liked to think they were, and resisted the puppet government in Warsaw to force liberalization.
What it is a Mandate. Well its not a mandate its a tax. Well its not really a tax its a penality, but its not a penality its reall a tax. Well its sort of a mandate but its kind of tax thats a penality. Well its sort of a penality a tax and a mandate. But its not a mandate its a tax.
Okay, now I hope I have cleared everything up!
“When the Supreme Court makes rulings to satisfy a political agenda, or to stretch the bounds of the Constitution, then they have exceeded their charter.”
But that is exactly what SCOTUS just did.
As Mark Levin has capably and repeatedly pointed out, the Constitution allows for three and only three types of federal taxes: (1) a capitation tax, imposed upon the states in proportion to their population, which has never been imposed, (2) an excise tax, which by definition requires some kind of purchase, and (3) an income tax, courtesy of amendment. This is the law.
Not one of the above remotely corresponds to the penalty, not tax, that Roberts rationalized his irrational opinion under.
The ruling has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with politics.
Frank, Levin not withstanding, the I think the Roverts decision makes clear that this is a tax based on income that is imposed if you don’t buy health insurance, and thus is authorized by the 16th Amendment.
“The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as thestatute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assessand collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government.”
An income tax, by any definition prior to Roberts’, is one levied directly on income. A penalty that is proportionate to income is not, by any definition prior to Roberts’, an income tax.
How about moving violations in Finland, and a number of other countries? You get caught speeding, the cop has instant access to your last year’s income tax return, and decides whether your fine is $10, $100 or $10 to the Nth power. By your reasoning, that would be an income tax.
Not by mine.
From the opinion:
“The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.”
Do you disagree that “fairly possible” is the proper level of review for this question, as indicated by precedent? If so, what legal principle would you invoke to argue otherwise?
Which of the reasons set forth in the opinion do you consider invalid? If so, what legal principle would you invoke to argue otherwise?
It is not enough to say you disagree with the opinion. You have to demonstrate that the opinion is invalid on legal grounds.
Here is a link to the text of the opinion. Let me know what you come up with.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
“The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution”
The public debate in Congress considered making the mandate a tax and categorically rejected that mechanism, choosing instead to explicitly call it a penalty. There can be no argument in that regard. The process of enactment rejected a tax, and thus Roberts cannot “interpret” the statute to be a tax. Had Congress in the text of the act described the cost of failing to obtain medical insurance as a “tax”, Roberts would have been justified in ruling on those grounds. Had Congress in the text of the act described the cost of failing to obtain medical insurance as a “tax”, it is quite plausible, given its one vote margin of passing, that it would not have passed. Congress intentionally did not, and Roberts ruled on a law that was not in fact before the court, but instead only in his imagination.
Furthermore, SCOTUS accepted a review of the act for a number of explicit reasons, one of them being the constitutionality of the mandate/penalty, another being the Medicaid imposition on the states, and I forget the third. But none of the reviews, and none of the oral arguments, in any way addressed whether or not it was a tax or a penalty, because, see above, the Congressional debate and the language of the act was absolutely unambiguous in that regard.
It is for the opinion to address the specific text of the act, and to be consistent with the arguments requested by the court and duly presented to the court, which it did not do.
“…none of the oral arguments, in any way addressed whether or not it was a tax or a penalty…”
Here is Solicitor General Verilli explaining to Justice Alito how the penalty can be considered a tax, and Justice Alito mentions that the next day, Verilli will be formally arguing before the court that indeed, the penalty is a tax.
So, yes indeed, the government did present oral arguments that the penalty was a tax, and CJ Roberts sustained that argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON5qTTRzAuQ
So they did; I stand corrected. Nevertheless, regardless of Verilli’s arguments, that is not what the act calls the collection, nor what the debates in Congress clearly said it was. Neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch have the constitutional authority to rewrite the act after its enactment, which is what Verilli [executive] and Roberts [judiciary] did. If the Legislative Branch wanted a tax, it should have called it a tax, voted on it as a tax, and send that to the President for signature. It didn’t, because it didn’t have the votes, at least not until Roberts provided his vote.
The law wasn’t rewritten. It has the exact same text that it had before. In accordance with precedent, and as required by accepted legal principles, the law has been interpreted in such a way that it is “fairly possible” to consider the payment a tax authorized under the enumerated power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
That is how this works. The courts, in this case the Supreme Court, interprets the laws according the Constitution, precedent, and accepted legal principles that guide the judicial review process. Thus, the Court has acted EXACTLY as authorized by the Constitution, in spite of your mistaken opinion on the matter.
“Thus, the Court has acted EXACTLY as authorized by the Constitution, in spite of your mistaken opinion on the matter.”
In fact, the Constitution is regrettably silent on the matter of judicial review, a concept invented by John Marshall, which John Roberts apparently considers himself to be a latter day incarnation of.
The system of checks and balances, which works relatively well between the Executive and the Legislative, is totally impotent with regard to the Judiciary. The Judicary says “X” and that’s that, no appeal, no recourse, no checks, no balances.
This is a fatal evolutionary flaw in our system of governance. It began with the court the FDR stacked to approve his “New Deal” usurpation of the role of the states, reached its zenith with the Warren and Burger Courts, and now presents us with the consummate attack on individual liberty which is Obamacare.
Thanks to individuals who think like you, there is no alternative than a number of constitutional amendments whose objective is to bring the authority of the judiciary in the same plane as that of the two other ostensibly co-equal branches of government. To wit, with due respect to Mark Levin’s recommendations last evening, there is no alternative than to amend the Constitution to (1) give the Congress the power, with a 2/3 super-majority, to override a Supreme Court decision, and (2) end lifetime appointment of all federal judges.
Frank said, “In fact, the Constitution is regrettably silent on the matter of judicial review, a concept invented by John Marshall, which John Roberts apparently considers himself to be a latter day incarnation of.”
Really? Whenever I read nonsense like this, I turn to the Constitution itself. Let’s see what it says.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” Article III Section 2
So here we have a case involving a contoversy to which the United States is a party, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
So what do you suppose the judicial power cited in the Constitution is composed of? Could it be to the power perform a judicial review of the controversy, and supply a controlling legal opinion based upon valid applicable precedent, legal principles, and interpretation of the Constitution? What ELSE could it be?
Frank also said, “The system of checks and balances, which works relatively well between the Executive and the Legislative, is totally impotent with regard to the Judiciary. The Judicary says “X” and that’s that, no appeal, no recourse, no checks, no balances.”
Bullshit. The legislative branch has the controlling check/balance. If the Court makes a ruling the people of the United States dislike, they can rewrite the law through their representatives in Congress. If the law cannot be rewritten so that it will pass Constitutional muster, then the Constitution can be amended. That has happened 27 times so far, so don’t tell me there is no appeal, no recourse, no check, nor no balance, because that is a stupid argument, negated with trivial ease.
Brent opines “bullshit”. Not very nuanced. Or even civilized.
In addition to constitutional amendments to (1) empower Congress to override Supreme Court arrogance with a 2/3 vote, and (2) end lifetime appointment of federal judges, Levin [and Frank] suggest (3) repealing the constitutional amendment that provided for popular election of senators and returning that power to the state legislature, the states needing the voice, and (4) term limiting both senators and representatives.
Your move, Brent. Here, I’ll save you some keystrokes.
“Bullshit”.
The worse part of this, and what too many people are ignoring, is how Roberts changed taxation itself. He expanded the governments ability to tax in a horribly grotesque way. There are only two ways out: either the court overturn this decision (which will, ironically, be attacked by the left as judicial activism) or to get rid of the 16th amendment.
Unfortunately, this decision happened after the primary season, which reduces the chances of throwing out as many incumbents as possible.
Joe, if you read the opinion, I don’t think Roberts did anything of the kind. The Constitution empowers Congress to collect taxes, but with a few exceptions that do not apply to this instance, the Constitution in now way limits the Congress from imposing this tax. In that way, the power to impose this tax has always been present but never exercised.
Regardless, I’m not sure this changes the nature of current politics. Democrats want to raise taxes, and and least at the current time, Republicans want to reduce them. So the obvious course of action is to elect those politicians who will vote to reduce taxes. Right now, that means we need to elect more Republicans, and repeal the damn thing.
But this is not a tax. It is a fine for failing to purchae health insurance as mandated by Government. Nowhere does our Constitution say that Congress may fine us for refusing to buy health insurance. And the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that Congress has only those powers specifically enumerated. This is confirmed by the subsequent specific enumeration of powers. Perverting “promote the general welfare” into a carte blanche for whatever weird notion possesses Congress at a given point in time is suicidal and absurd. The point is that Congress may not act without specific authority. Discard that point and Congress then become free to anything it wishes, under a generic application of each of several clauses. That was not the intent of the Founders and it cannot be the intent of sane and moral legislators.
Should the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, there is a remedy to those like Roberts that doesn’t require a Republican President. Send a message to those who feeling his path; Impeach him. Any Federal Judge can be impeached and removed from the Bench. That should make the point.
Unfortunately, if you impeach a Supreme Court justice while Obama is in office, HE gets to pick the replacments. The odds that he will choose a conservative are exactly zero. Then we’ve replaced a moderate who MIGHT go our way sometimes with another hardcore Leftist who will NEVER go our way. How is that an improvement on the current situation?
NFIB v. Sebelius could turn out like Kelo v. New London, where by refusing to protect people against bad laws, the Supreme Court created a nationwide movement to change those laws.
Assuming that the Court would strike down Obamacare, I remarked that if Congress had instead removed the age restriction on Medicare and paid for it with a huge tax increase, it would be a legitimate exercise of Congress’ power to tax and spend.
We lost that argument in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified. Before that, Congress could tax goods (e.g. the infamous Whiskey Tax), but it couldn’t tax people except in proportion to the total headcount of each state. So Congress couldn’t tax the rich to buy off poor voters, or make the states do its bidding by threatening to withhold funds.
And upon what will he be charged? Rendering a decision you don’t like?
According to Article II of the Constitution, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Do you see “Rendering a decision you don’t like” in there anywhere?
[I understand that people dislike the outcome of this ruling. I don’t care for it myself. But regardless of the dire nasty consequences Walsh warns of, if the case was decided in accordance with the law, those consequences are of the same political nature as all the other dire nasty politcal consequences to which we are subject, and they are corrected using political means.]
Precisely, Brent.
When asked what form of govt the American people would have, Ben Franklin famously said “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The warning inherent in that simple proclamation should be ringing in the ears of anyone who cherishes individual rights, self-governance and freedom.
Republicans/conservatives/libertarians/whatever like to howl a lot about “judicial activism” from the Left, but are completely fine when the Right engages in it. The Constitution is very simple: the Legislative Branch WRITES the laws, the Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws, and the Judicial Branch APPLIES the laws. The notion of an interpretive function for the Judiciary arises from Marbury v. Madison (1803), a case that usually raises the hackles on conservatives’ necks.
But whether you adhere to a view of the Judiciary’s authority as either applicative or interpretive, then end result is inescapable. If you believe that the judiciary should APPLY the law, then Roberts did what he was supposed to do. And if you believe that the judiciary should INTERPRET the law, then at a minimum, Roberts did what he was empowered to do.
The first question to answer is this: does the Constitution provide the US govt with the power to tax as a means of regulating behavior?
Unfortunately, yes, it does.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”
Article I, Section VIII
Now, I know the standard conservative arguments against the General Welfare language, but if you think about it, those arguments don’t really hold water because they rely on exactly the same type of interpretive action that we decry on the Left. I don’t care about what the Federalists Papers say…I don’t care about what the Founders meant…all I care about is what the Constitution says. And if your argument is that the General Welfare language needs to be interpreted, then you can’t complain when the other side does the same thing but comes to a different conclusion.
IOW: as much as we tend to revere the Founding Fathers, they royally screwed up when they included that vague and ambiguous language. And the proper way for the American public to address the problem of this language – if enough citizens see it as a problem – is to elect enough federal and state politicians who agree in order to amend the Constitution.
Second question: is there precedent for the US govt to use taxation as a means of regulating behavior?
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. An excellent article at The Freeman spells it out clearly. From the article:
There you have it: the US govt has the power to use taxation to regulate behavior.
Third question: Did SG Verrilli argue that the penalty was a tax? Yes, he did.
The end. Sorry, people, but as the saying goes, “them’s the facts”.
Now, I’m going to say something that’s going to piss a lot of you off but so be it. Having had a week to digest what happened, I truly believe that Roberts did what he did – in part – in order to send a warning to the American public. And I think that message – if he were free to speak it plainly – could be summed up with the following quote:
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” – Voltaire, 1764
There are three lessons that we need to learn from these events, and we need to learn them fast.
1) We need to stop looking backwards to what the Founding Fathers wanted for the nation and begin looking forward to what we want.
There’s a great scene in the 1st season of the show Game of Thrones that perfectly illustrates the naive trust conservatives tend place in the Constitution to protect our nation from tyranny.
King Robert dies, but before he does, he writes a royal decree that names his trusted friend Lord Ned Stark to rule in his stead until such time as Robert’s son (or so he thinks is his son), Joffrey, is old enough to assume the throne. But when Lord Stark walks into the throne room, he finds Joffrey sitting on the Iron Throne, crown on his head. Next to Joffrey sit his mother, Queen Cersai. Lord Stark hands over King Robert’s decree, which is read aloud by the master of the Kingsguard. Queen Cersai asks to see the letter. She reads it silently, then looks Lord Stark in the eye and says “Do you really think that this piece of paper will protect you?” She then tears it in half and drops the pieces to the floor. I won’t ruin the rest for those who haven’t seen it but let’s just say that things don’t go well for Lord Stark.
It strikes me that conservatives are a lot like Lord Stark: desparately clinging to a document that’s power is wholly dependent upon the fealty which others pay to it, which I’m sad to say – in the case of the US Constitution – is not much of the US population. And if we don’t wake up soon, we will suffer the same fate as that of Lord Stark.
The Founding Fathers were flawed and fallible human beings. And as such, they created a flawed and fallible document in the US Constitution. The document is a blueprint for us to follow as we fight the neverending fight for our freedom and for that of future generations…it’s not a magical shield that will protect us from the tyranny of evil men. The Left is fully aware of these facts, and they use that awareness to relentlessly attack the Constitution at it’s weakest points. And what do we do? We point our fingers and scream “No fair! No fair!”
That’s not enough, people.
2) There are dangers in the Constitution that we need to start focusing on – i.e., the taxing powers of the Legislature.
I think that Robert’s was sending us a clear warning about this fact when he wrote “…the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.” IOW: these powers are there for Congress to take advantage of…if the American people allow them to take advantage of them.
Which leads us to what we should really be focusing on right now.
3) The presence of these dangers – especially the taxation danger – can be used as a bludgeon against the Left.
With this ruling, Robert’s has in effect yelled the following to the American people:
“Wake up! If you don’t like ObamaCare, then you don’t know the half of it! Congress has the power to tax you into oblivion and the only thing that will ensure that they don’t is if you refuse to vote those who would do so into office!”
Democrats have spent decades demonizing Republicans on a litany of social issues. I think it’s about time we return the favor…relentlessly.
Imagine the following ad:
“The General Welfare clause of the US Constitution gives the Democrat party the power to tax the American public at will, with no restraints or limits. And when the issue is taxation, they only need 1 vote majorities in both houses and a sympathetic President to sign the law. It happened in 2008 and the result was ObamaCare. Do you ever want to take a risk on that happening again?”
That ad – or something very similar – should be seen every day, in every household in America, for months before November…every year.
Democrats appeal to people’s selfishness, telling them that they are entitled to a share of what other’s have earned because those “others” have too much. It time that we appealed to their self-interests.
“Every dollar taken from you is a dollar taken from your life’s savings…from your home’s upkeep…from your car’s maintenance…from your wife…ffrom your children. When all’s said and done, govt takes about 40% of the earnings of the average working American. How many of your dreams do you have to put aside because of it?”
It’s time we stop letting the Left define what is “moral” and “just” in the public sphere. It’s time to fight back. And to anyone throwing their hands up in the air, I simply say that that is precisely what they want you to do.
“Our power does not know liberty or justice. It is established on the destruction of the individual will.” – Vladimir Lenin
We on the Right only began really fighting back against the Left’s onslaught 3 short years ago. They have been at this for over 100 years. Did you think it was going to be easy?
Pick yourself up…
Dust yourself off…
Fight.
“Now, I know the standard conservative arguments against the General Welfare language, but if you think about it, those arguments don’t really hold water because they rely on exactly the same type of interpretive action that we decry on the Left. I don’t care about what the Federalists Papers say…I don’t care about what the Founders meant…all I care about is what the Constitution says. And if your argument is that the General Welfare language needs to be interpreted, then you can’t complain when the other side does the same thing but comes to a different conclusion.”
You obviously don’t understand a fracking thing here.
Levying a tax roviding for the “General Welfare of the United States” is NOT the same as taxing the behavior of the People. The people of the United States are NOT “The United States”, which are ….the states. This tax is a personal tax, so your interpretation fails.
If the authors of the Constitution have said in their other writings what they meant by what they said in it, and if other extrinsic contemporary sources agree with that interpretation, who the hell are you to impose YOUR interpretation on what YOU think the Constitution says?
An analogy applies here: Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church in part because he wanted to break the ecclesiastics’ stranglehold on interpreting the Bible’s teachings. Yet late in his life he was heard to mutter, “Every milkmaid now thinks she can interpret Scripture”.
You, sir, are the modern equivalent of that milkmaid.
“If the authors of the Constitution have said in their other writings what they meant by what they said in it, and if other extrinsic contemporary sources agree with that interpretation, who the hell are you to impose YOUR interpretation on what YOU think the Constitution says?”
I’m the one who can read what the Constitution says…unlike you, obviously.
“Levying a tax roviding for the “General Welfare of the United States” is NOT the same as taxing the behavior of the People.”
Really? According to who…you?
Care to point out in the Constitution where your contention is backed up?
“The people of the United States are NOT “The United States”, which are ….the states.”
Really? So the states – the actual states need to have their “welfare” provided for, huh? What did you have in mind…rain for the grass? Maybe sunshine for the flowers? Is that the “welfare” that needs to be provided by Congress?
“This tax is a personal tax, so your interpretation fails.”
Again, according to you. And you are…?
“You, sir, are the modern equivalent of that milkmaid.”
I’m so hurt. Really, I am. Your brilliance at saying nothing is actually painful. I think it may have sprained my ankle…or busted my lip or something.
RVASTAR: No. Every tax enacted by the Congress where the collection of revenue is incidental to the attempt to regulate behavior taxes a commercial activity. No tax levied by the Congress has sought to regulate INACTIVITY or to CREATE ACTIVITY TO REGULATE. The same may be said of Congress’s use of the Commerce Clause, which both Roberts and the dissidents found to be a constitutionally impermissable use of the regulatory power. The use of either to regulate a citizen’s INACTVITY or to create an INVOLUNTARY COMMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TO REGULATE, would be unprecedented, impermissable, and would grant to the Congress a new and plenary power. Taxes and tax credits levied and enacted to regulate behavior rather than raise revenue are meant to regulate EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. I don’t think you grasp how the Framers sought to constrain Congress and protect the sovereignty of the States and the freedom of their citizens by limting the power of the Congress to those rights enumerated in the Constitution. Compelling citizens to unwillingly engage in a commercial activity is not one of those enumerated rights. Nor do I think you understand how destructive and dangerous the Roberts’ ruling is to our freedoms.
The Left has complained about overpopulation for decades. It had nothing to do with preserving the planet. The common man walks free and cannot be fully managed. Our cars, technology and liberty allows the American Dream to flourish and this enrages the Marxist Ivy League. Obamacare will cull the herd some, but ultimately it will turn ugly. Some Americans will fight back but many will roll over in submission. It’s troubling that Piven lives to see her work paying off. At 79, she’s been immersed in the university set for decades and enjoys a charmed life. She’ll never be called to answer for her crimes against humanity. Her dying wish is to see insurance companies collapse and single payer instituted. At the rate things are moving, this may very well happen.
Re: “Yes, it’s tough to compete with the Democrats’ sob stories, and to make the abstract concrete. It’s tough to accept that perhaps a majority of our fellow Americans would cheerfully trade liberty for a false sense of security.”
Might as well just call them as we see them: “EMOCRATS.”
Other than that, I disagree with the article’s premise that “it’s a tax!” NO. Roberts is an insane, evil LIAR, because it’s clearly a case of forced sales, (commerce clause) not a tax: since the public is forced to buy private for-profit insurance, or else go to jail as a penalty, and as the revenue does NOT go to the government, NO, it’s not a ‘tax!’
It is time for the states to call for a constitutional convention. A good place to start would be at the National Governor’s Convention, next time its held. Get a few states to get the ball rolling. Keep the congressmen and senators from Washington, D.C. out of it. For one thing, doing that will scare the beejeebers out of them. They’re the problem and letting the problem near the solution will just spoil it.
A convention is fraught with dangers. The route we are on is a pact with suicide. I’ll take danger, every time.
Romney makes a good strong case for federalism when confronted with Romneycare/Obamacare comparisons and attacks. It is up to us and the conservative media to help him make the point. One by the way we are only too glad to embrace any other time. It is a solid defense. Not everyone is going to get it. Not everyone is going to agree. But it will work for the majority of voters if we do it right and forcefully.
Roberts? I give up on him already. He needs to be impeached.
Roberts reasoned that the Wan could/ would run against the USSC this November if 0bamaCare were nixxed.
Such a campaign would — almost certainly — give him another four years.
By upholding the Wan’s pet — the USSC is Out of the Picture — and the Tea Party is stoked up.
By inverting the statute into a TAX BILL he’s destroyed the filibuster.
Further, this also forces further modifications into the HOUSE… for the only serious remaining issues turn on FUNDING.
Of which, there is none.
Roberts has also given Mitt a clue bat: THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY — ON ITS FACE.
There is enough time for the economic impact — dead ahead — to trigger fulsome hiring freezes nationally.
Certainly, ANYONE with 40+ employees is at a crossroads. ( 50 = magic )
What is going to happen is that mid-sized companies break up/ spin off until there are no firms employing 50 to 250 employees in the manner now.
Further, company sponsored health plans will be terminated — and the nation will hurtle towards ‘single-payer.’
Left off the table is the cross subsidy towards illegal aliens — by FAR the class that benefits from this hair ball.
Stepwise 0bamaCare will flat line big pharma and HMOs.
It already removes any need for marketing expenses. So, expect astounding labor trimmings from current norms.
For example: TV adverts for drugs will collapse. Big Nanny State will decide what’s good enough for you.
( Wherever the state pays for healthcare they shut off / scale back marketing expenses — and the roll out of new anythings. )
Our only hope is the election. Unless the voters are educated concerning socialized medicine, there is no hope there. Perhaps we could start out in a small way with ads about how it is in Europe. Those over 55 in some cases and 65 in general are refused treatment
No dialysis after age 55.
No heart surgery after 65
No treatment for macular degeneration until one has gone blind in one eye.
The list goes on.
Perhaps trying to make people aware that if they accept this, they are personably responsible for the deaths and blindness that will occur. Pile on the guilt, which is real. They will be responsible.
Truly, we Americans are now people of the Government, by the Government, and for the Government.
Dont worry, most of us conservatives and libertarians caught on fairly early that this roberts master plan stuff was BS. I came close to buying it for only one day, but then as soon as I saw leftist collumnists endorsing that view, I realized it was time to smell a rat. Roberts is the rat. His decision is atrocious. The only good thing is we now know we cant depend on the curt to protect our liberties (we rarely ever could), and We The Peole will have to do it ourselves, by winning big in nov, and repealing this monstrous law ourselves.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: No discussion of Roberts’ (Rules of Order?) Ruling can be complete without recognizing the presence of the Elephant In The Room. So let’s admit that we see the Elephant, as does every member of Congress and every Federal Judge, and get this over with as quickly as possible.
The Elephant In The Room is the ever present, impossible to completely ignore,
whispered question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the Office of the President. If the Certificate of Live Birth that Obama made public is genuine,
then the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth precludes Obama from being a “Natural Born Citizen”, as the Constitution
requires, and causes Obama to be ineligible for the Office he occupies.( I will
not rehearse the attempts to redefine the term; I will only note that the Supreme Court has accepted the Framer’s definition which requires that a “Natural Born Citizen” be the child of two American citizens.) If the Certificate of Live Birth is not genuine, the country is left with other questions about Obama’s eligibility. Every Judge on the Supreme Court is aware
of the issue and its profound implications.
This unresolved issue should have had some weight in the Court’s deliberations as it contemplated granting a new, unenumerated plenary power to the Congress.
In the exercise of “judicial modesty” this unresolved issue should have weighed
against finding for the party who nominated him and the possibly ineligible candidate who was elected.
Justice Robert’s decision on the Affordable Care Act was pure genius as far as I’m concerned. Why?
While the rest of us have been playing checkers, the man has been boning up on his chess game.
Let us not forget that the true/original impetus of the law was to impose a tax on us for not going along with something that the government wanted us to do. The authors of the bill knew that it would be a tough sell to the electorate if it wasn’t cloaked in something other than its original garb, especially during an economic downturn of such epic proportions.
The Commerce Clause was supposed to be a catch all for what government said it could do to us (in this case, for our own good). Justice Roberts nullified that particular view and in my opinion put real restraints on any future use of such a mechanism. As the Solicitor who argued for the government inadvertently kept saying, the mandate was really a penalty/tax. By kicking this back into the realm of the political and not the judicial, the country has been given notice that bad laws are just that, constitutional or otherwise.
Bad laws are a legislative issue. That means that the folks who sit in that big white building with the dome on top of it are wholly responsible for what they produce (or fail to produce). Because they are responsible for what’s been going on, they can and should be held accountable for their malfeasance and/or negligence. Changing the composition of the courts or replacing the occupant in the White House won’t fix this. Neither Mitt Romney, nor any other president for that matter, can repeal a law with the stroke of a pen all by themselves. Americans need to understand that one undeniable truth.
Rasley, you are absolutely right. And let me take your argument one step further: Justice Robert’s decision has given the go-ahead on a tax and called a spade a spade in the process. The law of unintended consequences will probably kick in well before ObamaCare goes into full swing. A few predictions: growing civil disobedience to the new taxes, doctors (faced with lower payments and far more patients) changing professions, worsened access to healthcare (despite universal coverage – coverage and access not being the same thing)… the list goes on and on. If you want to defeat creeping socialism, your best bet is to give it enough rope to hang itself, which it inevitably will. Chief Roberts just gave the socialists several miles of rope. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens next. Just as “Clinton and wife” put the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress during their first midterm elections (after decades of failure to do so without Clinton’s help), I suspect this will be the beginning of the end of Obama, the Democratic Party and all things socialist in America. The greater the collapse, the greater the backlash. Stay tuned…
So the precedent has now been set. Gov’t can now penalize/tax us if we don’t purchase health insurance. What’s next? When will I be penalized/taxed if I don’t purchase a ‘green’ car, which I can’t afford.?