A Republic if You Can Keep It
The Supreme Court has upheld the healthcare individual mandate as a tax. “Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by the court’s four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.”
The chief justice wrote that the penalty’s “practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.” He said a person who does not wish to carry health insurance is left with a “lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.”
Mitt Romney reacted by saying “What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy.” The Supreme Court also said something else in upholding the expansion of central government power. It affirmed what Leo Linbeck III observed: the “centrocracy” rules. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution is not going to stop if from getting ever larger. As the chart below shows a bigger and bigger share of national wealth has been appropriated by Washington and spent at the center.
Being Ruled From Further and Further Afield
Whether as in guise of a tax or a mandate, the decision suggests there is no legal way to keep the process from continuing indefinitely, provided the right forms are observed. The expansion has been under way a long time. From the Civil War and certainly after the New Deal. After all, President Obama did not create Obamacare from a standing start. He was amplifying on a longstanding trend.
In the process it is also spending the country into oblivion. Leo describes the moment he realized how great was the tide of red ink in his article:
My personal political journey began about five years ago when I was sitting at a business luncheon in Houston, listening to a presentation by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher. He showed a series of slides with typical Fed fare: deficits, interest rates, home prices, mortgage markets.
This was before the financial crisis, and the economy still seemed strong. But Fisher was not so optimistic, and his talk was a little unnerving. At the end, he said words to the effect, “All of this probably sounds scary, but the next slide that I’m going to show you is the one that keeps me up at night. If you are concerned about your country, it should keep you up at night too.”
On the screen appeared one number: $84 trillion. “That is the unfunded liability of Medicare,” Fisher said.
I quickly ran the math and realized this was almost $300,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, including my wife, my five kids, and me. I was stunned.
After the luncheon, I made my way through the crowd to find Fisher. I expressed my bewilderment and said the number couldn’t possibly be true. “It’s true, “ he replied. “It’s one of the first questions I asked my research staff when I joined the Fed, and it has been checked and double-checked.”
“How did this happen?” I asked.
He looked at me and said one word: “Congress.”
With that word, Fisher awoke me from my dogmatic slumber.
But to awake to a realize you’re broke and then rushing out to because nothing prevents you from spending more – as the Supreme Court observed — is not to end it. It is only to make one aware of the nightmare and extend its horrors to the daylight hours
Mitt Romney’s assurance that his election will undo Obamacare is less than convincing. Since both the Republicans and Democrats have an interest in government continuous government expansion, in the event of his election, while Romney may try to roll aspects of the medical care expansion back all he can hope for in the face of the special interest pleadings that created Obamacare in the first place is only to retard its progress somewhat. The image of Sisyphus rolling a rock up a cliff-face comes to mind.
Yes We Can
But who plays the role of Sisyphus in this scenario? Is it those who are trying to “roll back” the unremitting expansion of state power into something of the shape of the Old Republic being forced ever back? Or as is it the reverse: is it the State that is Sisyphus?
Government is always trying to muster one more mandate, one more regulation, one more tax that will perfect their expansionary program forever. At least one writer has called the European debt crisis Sisyphean. After all, Obamacare is hardly the last stop in the program. There’s Climate Change and Big Gulf soft drinks still to conquer. A few more bailouts and the rock will attain the summit and roll down the other side into a gentle valley, there to remain forever.
We have seen Europe suffer the same fate as Sisyphus too long. They push the rock up the hill, only to find that it rolled back down the next day. Europe can do what they usually do, declare victory, delay implementation of ESM, avoid serious negotiations on the Greek bailout, and fail to implement any of the Spanish bailout. That is what they have done so often, and if they do it again here, we will see the rock rolling downhill, and this time it might not be able to stop it and push it back up.
On the other hand, with the rock so close to the top, Sisyphus or Merkel might ask what can be done? Can the rock be pushed over to the other side? Can it be smashed once and for all? This may be the opportunity to end their misery. Now is the time to unleash the “coordinated” bailouts. Launch new financing programs. Renegotiate the existing bailouts. Implement the FROB deal and create similar programs elsewhere. Cut rates. Create realistic growth and infrastructure plans.
And then Europe will find its footing forever. “With the rock so close to the top …” There’s the rub. If it is not, then the likely outcome will more resemble Indiana Jones fleeing from a boulder or the crew of the Prometheus trying to escape a crashed million ton alien spaceship rolling on the ground after them. The rock will chase Sisyphus as it is doing now in Greece, Spain and Italy.
Run For It Boys, It's Krugman's Space Aliens
The question who really plays the role of Sisyphus will be empirically answered by how things actually turn out, in Europe at least. While those who believe that “one more push” may create a stable welfare state forever, the probability is that their efforts are doomed by arithmetic. If the word “deficit” means anything it means unsustainable. And unsustainable is at least as forceful as “unconstitutional”.
The EU must be crushed by forces that it has itself stored up. The same fate is now apparently in store for the Federal Government. If it cannot stop itself from expanding without apparent limit then it will spend itself to death. The inertia built into the program of government expansion is tremendous. And the fact that there is no obstacle to its continued inflation is no proof it can continue indefinitely. After all, France and Greece have responded to the crisis by voting in left-wing parties; let us see what they will spend. And now, in the United States, the Supreme Court has decided that it cannot legitimately stand in the way of yet another expansion.
Maybe an empty wallet will.
The dispute over the question of limited government has moved past the purely legal sphere to the political one. What will drive the political outcome are economic conditions. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, asked Benjamin Franklin what he thought they had wrought:
Q: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
A: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
In the same vein, one may say that the Court has decided: Obamacare, if you can afford it. Any hope that the Constitutional flight control software can of itself keep the trim has faded. The voters have got to actively pilot the great ship of state if they want something other than the direct course into the sea of debt. That’s about all we know for now. Whether they can succeed is still a question that is up in the air.
Belmont Commenters
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
So … what’s going on in Australia today? Anything?
If the Individual Mandate is a tax, without regard to the rules in the Constitution or the text of the bill, then the Rule of Law is over and the Constitution means nothing.
My image for the Fed is not Sysiphus but Ungoliant, who in her ultimate empty gluttony consumed herself.
In order to overturn Obama Care, the Republicans have to win the Presidential Election, maintain the majority in the house and win a filibuster proof Senate Majority. (Even though Court says it is a tax and you supposedly can’t filibuster a tax bill I doubt that it will stop the Democrats.) The current Senate is composed of 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 47 Republicans. However, both Independents caucus with the Democrats and thereby provide a 53 to 47 majority for the Democrats.
There are 33 Senators up for election in 2012: 21 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 10 Republicans. In order to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats, the Republicans have to win 23 out of the 33 Senate elections. Based upon recent polls, 10 seats are considered to be Safe for the Democratic Candidate. Therefore, in order to repeal Obama Care, Republicans will have to win all of the remaining Senate elections, including seats in significantly blue states such as Wisconsin, Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, and Nevada.
Calling Leo
Part of this was cross-posted at Roger Kimball –
1) I have just read the first 50 pages of the ruling. On the bottom of page 44 and top of page 45 it says, quoting Chief Justice Roberts:
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
So basically Roberts said that the mandate, as a mandate in plain language, is unconstitutional, but the penalty for not observing the mandate can (with a stretch) be construed as a tax, so it is constitutional.
Bottom line — we are free to ignore the mandate as long as we are willing to pay the tax (really a penalty but considered by the Court to be a tax). We would be observing the law because Congress can’t compel us to buy something but it can tax us if we don’t buy it.
Therefore, since the penalty/tax is so much lower now than the cost of insurance, if everyone paid the “tax” and didn’t buy insurance, they would be complying with the law while at the same time making its implementation financially impossible.
I think this is the recommended course of civil (dis)obedience. I say it with the parentheses because it would be an act of defiance implemented by complying with the escape clause found within the part of the law that the court found constitutional.
In addition, I believe that Chief Justice Robert’s strained efforts to find the penalty provision, the one that both Congress and the President vehemently asserted was NOT a tax, was indeed a tax,is an example of the bed of Procrustes. Here is the essence:
Procrustes was a host who adjusted his guests to their bed. Procrustes, whose name means “he who stretches”, was arguably the most interesting of Theseus’s challenges on the way to becoming a hero. He kept a house by the side of the road where he offered hospitality to passing strangers, who were invited in for a pleasant meal and a night’s rest in his very special bed. Procrustes described it as having the unique property that its length exactly matched whomsoever lay down upon it. What Procrustes didn’t volunteer was the method by which this “one-size-fits-all” was achieved, namely as soon as the guest lay down Procrustes went to work upon him, stretching him on the rack if he was too short for the bed and chopping off his legs if he was too long. Theseus turned the tables on Procrustes, fatally adjusting him to fit his own bed.
I believe that because Chief Justice Roberts wanted to find a way to make Obamacare constitutional, he adjusted the meaning of “mandate” and “shall” (a word that Constitutionally means mandatory) and “penalty” to stretch and trim into the concept of a tax in the same way Procrustes “adjusted” his guests to fit his bed.
When one starts stretching and trimming the meaning of words to fit the a priori desired conclusion, we begin to erode the fabric of things. Lewis Carroll anticipated this when he wrote these words for the Red Queen, “When I use a word it means what I want it to mean.”
We will see what unfolds from this in November and thereafter. I fear that once words lose their meaning and mean only what the speaker wants them to mean, we will have entered very dangerous and slippery times.
2) An additional question: Was the actual effect of the ruling that the mandate per se is unconstitutional, since it relied on the Commerce Clause, but the penalty for not observing the mandate is constitutional because Chief Justice Roberts ruled that it was not a penalty after all but a tax?
3) And a final practical remark: Young and healthy people may make the financial decision to skip insurance and pay the penalty/tax instead. Then, on the day they are diagnosed or injured, they can obtain insurance knowing that they can’t be refused for a pre-existing condition and that their premiums cannot reflect their newly acquired disease or injury. Meanwhile, as Ann Althouse explained well in her blog, the penalty/tax goes to the IRS and not the insurance companies, so they will not be compensated for those who opt not to observe the mandate. And when those folks do become insured the insurance companies will not be able to collect premiums commensurate with the risks they are forced to insure. Thus, over time, either the penalties will rise considerably and the funds used to prop up the insurance companies, or more probably, the insurance companies will cease offering policies altogether. This will then raise a clamor for single payer health insurance.
Was this a bug or a feature? Were the proponents aware of this potential and thus extremely clever, or was it just dumb luck? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks for putting up with such a long post.
Another Repub appointed justice who sells us down the river. For good, this time.
USA, RIP. Death by penumbra.
Newsweak was right, after all.
Exhortations to buy and load more ammo now have taken on a whole new magnitude of significance.
Civil war is now a virtual certainty in the near future.
Worst. Day. Ever.
The Supreme Court ruled that while it may be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, it is constitutional as a tax. Interestingly enough, it is a tax that corporations and unions who contribute to the Democratic Party are EXEMPT from. The terms of rule by the government have been turned upside down. Whereas before it was expected that laws and government actions not be in violation of any part of the Constitution to be valid; the new measure of legitimacy, in this the 4th Year of Anno Obama Regnant, is that a law is valid if it can be construed as being constitutional under any tortured reading of any single part of the Constitution.
1) Based on this, anyone who gains power in both Congress and the White House can now do literally anything as long as they call it a tax. This fact will be remembered.
2) The Constitution can no longer be considered a protection from government tyranny, and in fact is functionally moot with a host of future implications.
3) We, as individuals, are about to be crushed by taxes and penalties.
4) The American health care system is gone. We will be left to whatever dregs remain, doled out and rationed by whatever party is in power; just like every other country where health care has been taken over by the government.
5) Any business in this country has to prepare for several contingency plans from this point on; dissolution and bankruptcy, downsizing drastically, moving operations or the company overseas, or moving operations underground. Controls on the movement of capital and currency are coming. As is the growth of the underground economy. Every dollar diverted from government seizure as taxes is now a patriotic act.
6) The split between Left and Right, shorthanded by Democrat and Republican, is now absolute. This was forced through by a Democrat controlled Congress, with no dissent, even by the supposed “moderate” Democrats. If there are ever meaningful elections in this country again; there is no reason for anyone who loves this country, what it was, and what it may yet be again to ever vote for a Democrat in any election at any level ever again. There are no “innocent” Democrats. If they declare themselves to be Democrats, take them at their word. They worship at the altar of absolute government power. If there are not meaningful elections again, and all restraints on government conduct are gone, all bonds of obedience and duty to the government are gone.
This does not mean that the Republicans, who enabled all of this by a refusal to stand and fight the Enemy throughout the last 3 ½ years are in any case “good”. It means that removal of Democrats from every office, at every level, is vital to the survival of the country. If you are bitten by a poisonous reptile and its jaws are still clamped on and the fangs are still pumping venom into your system; the first thing that you do is remove the head and jaws to get the fangs out.
After the Democrats are removed from any position of power; if the Republicans can be forced to do so, the same arrogation of government powers that created Obamacare has to be used to remove it [we cannot bring a knife to a gun fight], and every vestige of unconstitutional acts by the Democratic Party possible from American law, government, and society. If they cannot be so forced, they can go next. I do not expect them to turn against their Democrat colleagues, so we will deal with them when we come to that if we can.
7) The split between Democrat [and their natural allies further to the Left] and Patriot needs to go beyond politics and the current social division. Voter registration is a matter of public record. If you are choosing to do business with someone, look at their registration. If they are a Democrat, look for another person to do business with. Even if it costs more, because every dollar taken away from the supporters of the regime is also a patriotic act. If you are hiring [ok, after this, hiring is the last thing any business is going to have in mind; but sometimes you have to replace critical people] check party affiliation as part of your screening process. If you are laying off [and that will be common] Democrats need to be the first to go. No matter how good a worker they may appear to be. No matter how honest they appear to be, the country has come to a fork in the road. Choices of sides have been made. Anyone who supports the Democrats, cannot be trusted to do anything but betray every trust, every loyalty, every duty. The Democrats who are in Congress swore the Oath. It meant nothing to them.
In a number of venues I have referred to the Political Class as TWANLOC. [Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen]. It is a clumsy formulation, but I kept it because it is true. I think I have been justified by events.
I may not be alone in that belief. On June 15-16, 2012, the Rasmussen polling company did a survey of the American public. Only 22% believed that the current government has what the Declaration of Independence called, “the consent of the governed”.
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2012/22_believe_government_has_consent_of_governed
My bent for studying history has made many think of me as being somewhat out of the ordinary [read that as bloody strange]. Yet, there is a certain comfort in relating current events with what has happened before. It is nice to have a guideline for the future, from those who did the right thing in the past. Sam Adams has been one of my favorite founding fathers. For some reason, the gathering at the Old South Meeting House in Boston on December 16, 1773 is coming to mind. The discussions closed when Sam Adams rose and said, “This meeting can do no more to save the country.” The time for just talk was over.
Subotai Bahadur
The precedent set by the Supreme Court today is effectively this: Congress has the power to mandate any activity it wants, as long as it calls it a tax. I don’t think that bodes well for the future.
What strikes me as most surreal about this entire sorry episode of American history is that, from beginning to end, the battle over the ACA has been all cant—verbiage utterly unconcerned with facts or practical outcomes, or with any metaphysical principles. It is one big triumphant repudiation of truth. That does not bode well either.
Roberts may have done us a favor. He has removed the SCOTUS from being the target of the liberal monolith. He has clarified for the conservative opposition that they must fight for complete repeal.
If SCOTUS overturned the act, the liberal monolith would be enraged, full onslaught on the Court and conservatives; the administration would have ignored the decision with many excuses and obfuscations; Republicans would have little incentive for the repeal battle.
No matter his reasoning, it is clear to me that he has battered the rule of law as badly as any other actor I know of.
Why is it necessary for the Supreme Court to save us from ourselves?
I read the Roberts’ ruling as saying, in effect: “The people elected this pack of fools. Let the people undo their error.”
Roberts’ opinion did say some limiting things about the Commerce Clause’s infinite elasticity.
In the oral arguments the Government argued that the mandate was actually a tax. Roberts took them at their word. The Dems now have to deal with a massive TAX increase. I predict it will not end well for them.
The institutional Repubs are not looking to overturn Obamacare. They are scurrying to curry favor with Andy Stern and Mary Kay Henry (the titular head of SEIU) in preparation for the legislation that will mandate that all health care related workers in the USA become dues paying members of the SEIU.
Health care workers comprise about 1/8 of the workforce. That means 100s of millions in campaign finance and thousands upon thousands of campaign workers for whichever party captures the fealty of the SEIU. The Democrats currently have the advantage but that doesn’t mean that the Repubs cannot come up with a better offer. It’s just business, ya’ know.
Chief Justice Roberts could have sent Obamacare back to Congress for a rewrite with the assurance that it would pass Constitutional muster as a tax. He did not. Why? To protect Congress Critters from having to vote for the biggest middle class tax increase in US history.
The USA is as much a constitutional republic as 1st Century Rome. Don’t kid yourself by thinking otherwise.
John Roberts should be congratulated for his corageous vote. He did three things with this ruling:
1-He preserved the commerce clause the integrity of which the liberals wouild have destroyed along with this nation. They cannot force us to eat broccoli!
2-He threw this election to Romney (hopefully Romney will not blow it). By declaring the mandate Ok with a tax, Obama will realize how this will adversely affect his re-election chances. (This new tax becomes a job-killer as well as another patented hit to the economy by Mr. Obama.
3-Medicaid is rescued by allowing the states to run this show and not be penalized by the GOV witholding grant money.
Not bad for one day’s work.
Thanks, antny.
I agree.
I’ve been cross-posting a more or less similar comment in other blogs here at pjmedia, about being glad I live in Europe (NOT the Euro Europe) and if I didn’t, I’d be preparing my own samurai imitation of George Armstrong Custer, but here I’ll just say either John Roberts intentionally handed the election to Mitt Romney, or he didn’t.
It doesn’t matter which one is true. What matters is how Rombo jumps on it, and how the rest of us go after it, with Romney. (I shudder at that, but maybe he’ll surprise us happily). If we work together, we can give the Dems such a massive right cross to the jaw in November that, even if they keep enough Senate seats to filibuster a repeal, they won’t dare try it (thanks, Anarch, for the details–we MUST not forget them, and yes, we must page Leo III asap!).
There are two ifs.
First if, can we Tea Party our way to a 2010-style victory across the board in November, and secondly, if Obama-Moloch sees that comin’, will he deep-six the elections and go for executive fiat imperio Baraco Primo?
If we can’t do the first, he’ll not have to do the second, of course. Let’s push him as far as he’ll go.
But in the end, I’ll make the sad observation that if it is clear that we, Americans, south of Canada and north of old Mexico, freely, of our own will, by a non-fraud majority, vote in Barry Sotero etc as Imperio this November 2012, then, well, as I said in the other blogs, I can go home.
Buíochas le Dia ar son Éirinn, agus mo sheacht sinsear. And from there, Australia might look good. (Though there are places in Mayo I could live in forever.) But that’s an option of desperation, and because I have kids, and they have to live.
An Préachán
The stock market tanks. Under 10 when they close trading tomorrow, under 8 by the end of next week. Unemployment for June will jump. No telling how high since this administration will cook the books to get an acceptable (to them) number.For those who are willing to fight for America, we are now manning the last ditch.
If we survive this period, Roberts will go down as the greatest traitor in American history.
If we don’t survive, well, when treason prospers, none dare call it treason.
SB 6:
the same arrogation of government powers that created Obamacare has to be used to remove it [we cannot bring a knife to a gun fight], and every vestige of unconstitutional acts by the Democratic Party possible from American law, government, and society.
Thank you, SB, for putting this so succinctly.
By any means necessary. This means not helping someone (any age, any gender) by the side of the road broken down if they have an Obama sticker on their car. It means purposely not doing business with someone who is a leftist, or, if you can, charging them very, very much more than you would otherwise on the basis of their political affiliation alone. It means firing every known leftist from your organization on the basis of the politics alone.It means thwarting them and their families in any way you can in your community, so long as it is legal. It means using the law to legally cause them as much harm and damage as the law will allow, in the financial sphere. No more raises of benefits for public employees, ever, and damn the consequences to them and their families.
It means getting our own into power and defunding them up to the point where they lose their houses and end up in financial ruin. It means disenfranchising them legally at every turn.
@Batman: And a final practical remark: Young and healthy people may make the financial decision to skip insurance and pay the penalty/tax instead. Then, on the day they are diagnosed or injured, they can obtain insurance knowing that they can’t be refused for a pre-existing condition and that their premiums cannot reflect their newly acquired disease or injury.
Feature. This is how insurance companies will quickly be put out of business, which is the plan-within-the-plan (“pass it to see what’s in it”).
Since the top tax penalty is 1% of your income (or so I read), then not having insurance will be cheaper for almost everybody but the very rich, who of course have insurance. Then when disaster strikes, you buy a policy, get a nice fat check, and once you’re better, drop the insurance. In other words, it sends the word “insurance” right down the Lewis Carroll rat-hole, like so much else.
So among other things, we will now be encouraging millions to become deliberate tax scofflaws.
In the bigger picture, as Subotai says, you can now be taxed for ANY REASON and for any coercive action that the gubmint wants to shove down your throat. Well it’s just a tax, some may say. Yes, and you can GO TO JAIL for not paying taxes.
I never really saw Roberts as a solid Conservative. I did not know he was a totalitarian monster like the rest. But goody for him, his social standing on the elite cocktail circuit just shot through the roof. Hell, Bon Jovi is probably calling him right now to congratulate him, and Sarah Jessica Parker is offering him some under-the-desk Obamacare.
Sorry, Dr. Franklin. We tried.
b @ 4: Procrustes
I second that emotion.
Again, Scalia’s dissent is quite clear, and it supports the Procrustes metaphor.
We all assume the three libs are lost causes. Kennedy is a feather in the wind. So the question is, wtf does Chief Justice Roberts imagine he is doing? Psychology at a distance aside, what he is not doing is agreeing with Scalia. My read is he is just being a little too clever for his own good, and whether he knows it or not he is twisting himself like a pretzel, conforming to the libs.
SCOTUS is now more badly broken than any time in the nation’s history – look at today’s “stolen valor” decision, ANOTHER where a simple, naive few is violated by pinhead “liberals”, again where Scalia’s (Alito’s) simple dissent is miles clearer. I don’t really have any solution, either, except the local favorite ideas of devolution of power so at least one broken court doesn’t rule everything, and my own favorite – move the senile elements off the court faster, term limit of 20 years or shorter and age limit of 72 or younger. Sadly, Scalia is already 72.
Is there any limit to the “individual mandate”? The answer is no. Yes we can be required to buy broccoli. Yes we can be required to buy the complete works of Karl Marx. Yes we can be required to buy wine. Yes we can be required to buy voodoo charms. Yes we can be required to buy stock. Yes we can be required to buy shares in a mutual fund. Yes we can be required to buy whatever Congress orders us to buy – particularly if it comes from a congressman’s home district.
In other words, the “individual mandate” is a huge opportunity to expand pork barrel politics while letting Congress piously claim it isn’t a tax. Merely a mandate that the Supreme Court calls a tax.
11. antny
I agree. In many respects, Roberts has handed Romney a great opportunity. He’s also thrown down the gauntlet, challenging us to make our will known and hold our representatives’ feet to the fire if they do not act on that will.
4. batman
Excellent post. (Small nit: wasn’t Humpty Dumpty the source of the “a word means what I choose it to mean” quote?)
Subotai Bahadur, batman, I read what you’ve written with solemn agreement. We must explore and begin to implement the means of resistance. Legislative and judicial redress may no longer suffice or be effective, likely requiring a “course of civil (dis)obedience.” Of course that will provoke a reaction – likely increasing penalties for those who don’t wish to conform.
The power to tax is the power to rule. That power, in both cases, is as of now unlimited.
This doesn’t end well, no matter who wins in November.
(Did the Democrats just walk out of Congress?)
4. batman:
“Therefore, since the penalty/tax is so much lower now than the cost of insurance, if everyone paid the “tax” and didn’t buy insurance, they would be complying with the law while at the same time making its implementation financially impossible.”
—
Part of the strategy:
People don’t pay for insurance, insurance companies go out of business.
Mission Accomplished:
Single Payer!
(short version of your number 3)
From Volokh via Ace: Robert originally voted to gut the whole thing but caved to pressure from our Imperial Dark Load- Dear Leader:
“Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.”
Should the euphemism for spineless now be “doing a Roberts”? Did our Chief Justice sell out for all time the Constitution and the credibility of the Supreme Court just because he felt pressured? No words can describe my disgust.
One brief note. Obamacare imposes significant drag on economic recovery. Had it been voided and the impediments to recovery removed, the increased economic activity would certainly impact the coming election.
We’ll only know in November, if this finding of the court ultimately enabled defeat of the progressive catastrophe.
Ann Coulter – 7/20/2005
John Roberts, Another Stealth Nominee
Finally, let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater. It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart. If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
—
Hewitt worked at the Whitehouse at the same time as Roberts:
When he was nominated, Hugh also said then he had no idea whatsoever about any of Robert’s views.
It wasn’t Scalia’s dissent. It was a joint dissent for all 4 of them. Kennedy read from it at the bench today and if you read it the writing looks like he did most of the salient points. I’d guess he’s responsible for most of it. Kennedy was the main dissenter, not Scalia.
Sirius at 20:
Let me take my second chance to post to say I also agree with Batman at 4 and Subotai at 6. Though of course I usually agree with Subotai. But here, too, he is right on:
He writes–
In a number of venues I have referred to the Political Class as TWANLOC. [Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen]. It is a clumsy formulation, but I kept it because it is true. I think I have been justified by events.
I may not be alone in that belief. On June 15-16, 2012, the Rasmussen polling company did a survey of the American public. Only 22% believed that the current government has what the Declaration of Independence called, “the consent of the governed”. –
NEVER have I felt anything so true.
An Préachán
The idea that Roberts handed an election to Romney is ludicrous. First, in all probability Romney will not be able to overturn the law without a filibuster proof Senate majority. Second, while I sincerely disagree with Roberts’ decision, the idea that he would flush away the Republic in order to win one election is beyond stupid. The fact is that he has a centrist with a mis-guided sense of judicial deference. Rather than simply find that the mandate was an unconstitutiona exercise of Commerce.lHe re-wrote the law in order to find Congress’ action valid to avoid the consequence of the Court’s rejecting the law. It was an act of Cowardice not a conspiracy.
Here is a dumb question.
If it is a Federal Tax – as it must be, now – then if paid does a Tax Credit exist relative to Federal and State income taxes? If it does, that will torpedo the whole program.
If such a tax credit does not exist, then the Repubs in Congress ought to pass a tax bill ASAP that contains that provision. So then Obama gets to explain why he vetoed a bill that would have reduced taxes.
I thought I heard Romney say that he would block implementation of the ACA by executive order. So where would that leave us?
A clearly unconstitutional law was passed by both houses of Congress, which was then rewritten by SCOTUS instead of sending it back through the legislature as the Constitution requires, which we are told will be blocked by a clearly unconstitutional act of the new POTUS.
Is that republican government or is it an oligarchy fighting over who gets to make the rules?
Whatever plans you said you would make if the American Republic went down the tubes – now’s the time.
#28 RWE
Dumb??!!?? That is freaking BRILLIANT! Forwarding to Congressman Doug Lamborn. May I suggest others do so to their own Congress-critters?
Subotai Bahadur
28. RWE, that is a brilliant suggestion.
30. SB, do I owe you a Coke?
“he threw this election to Romney”
Evidence please! I think you are whistling past the graveyard. That you are allowing wishful thinking to overwhelm logic. What this ruling shows me is that anybody can be bought. The ONLY reason anyone changes long held opinions is either money or fear. The Machine got to Roberts. So Obama will lie cheat and steal his way to victory come November. The only way to avoid that is a landslide type election. Roberts just made sure that won’t happen. He has made a civil war inevitable.
The Question Americans need to ask themselves is “Fight now or after 0bama steals the election”.
For every voter that gets their back up about Robert’s treason and vows to fight harder, there will be at least as many that realise the game is rigged and the time for revolution is now.
j @ 25: It wasn’t Scalia’s dissent. It was a joint dissent for all 4 of them.
Yes it was, and it reads like it was pasted together from several contributions, but I’m guessing the good parts are from Scalia, and he’s certainly the leader on the conservative side anyway. He did write a stand-alone dissent on Monday’s Arizona ruling, which was outstanding. I think he concurs with Alito’s dissent on today’s stolen valor case, but again I’m guessing he contributed the best parts, even if Alito wrote most or all of the actual text.
I’m just very bummed about this whole thing, it is so much an institutional failure, in keeping with so many recent DUMB decisions, whatever intellectual leadership SCOTUS was ever supposed to provide, is simply not being provided. Why don’t they just close down the building to save money?
Disagree strongly that we need a filibuster-proof majority in the senate to repeal this monstrosity. I would guess that number is along the lines of 54-55 Republicans would do the trick.
All filibusters these days are conducted via a simple notice of intent to talk. The next congress ought to let them talk if they want to – and televise it. I don’t think the filibusters will last more than a week or three.
The second way is to pass the repeal as part of the first budget revision out of the next congress. That only takes 51 votes in congress.
Roberts threw this back in the laps of the democrats in congress and in the executive. He did an awful job doing this. But it appears to me that is what he did. Cheers -
The conclusion derived from this terrible decision is clear: Congress can now mandate anything, for example all Americans must do 10 sit-ups every morning, and so long as the law includes a financial penalty if they don’t, it is constitutional.
Relevant point:
“Our history as a republic under a government of limited, enumerated powers is officially at an end, thanks to yet another Supreme Court justice nominated by a President named Bush.”
#32 sirius
Tell you what. If you do owe me one, given the way things are going, I’ll claim it when we meet atop “Redoubt #10″ wherever it may be in what is to come.
Subotai Bahadur
Unsk at 22,
If Volokh is right, then Roberts’ name will live in infamy. Deservedly so.
But now is the time for rumors. We’ll find out more soon. However, as Aragorn said, “Oft will evil will evil mar”. We can hope so. The arrow they used for victory comes back to bring them down, etc.
Anarch at 27,
Maybe. Perhaps you are right. But if so, then from Roberts’ point of view, Congress has the power to tax, etc etc. A case can be made for his position, if one is inclined to strain at it long enough. AND Roberts’ decision made sure Obama can’t hide the Medicare mess, as well. It will be out in the open. It is now plain that Obamacare is economically impossible and the states can’t afford it, and Medicare is being cut massively, and so on.
As for Roberts, I’ll wait till Andy McCarthy’s opinion on Roberts and his intentions, if Andy cares to comment at some point. As of now, Andy has said it looks like Roberts deserves a “pile on”. So, we’ll see.
I surely don’t know the full truth of it, unless Volokh is proved right. In which case, we know who Roberts is. He can never live it down. And we ourselves just find ourselves on the road to Barad-dur with no hope of concealment. But the whips of the Uruk soldier orcs will be on Roberts till he goes senile.
Anarch also writes, “In all probability Romney will not be able to overturn the law without a filibuster proof Senate majority”.
Maybe. We’ll see. Scott Brown won in Massachusetts just to get rid of Obamacare. Remember that. If we can push this to the max, he and many others will win this year, so that even if the Dems still have a filibuster-sized crowd, the fear of the Lord will be put in them.
Of course, if we just go all crazy and despair, then of course the bad guys win.
Let’s not get trench fever and go shell-shock crazy will we absolutely have to.
An Préachán
37 Subotai, fair enough.
Before reading everyone’s comments – my first take was on listening to reaction via radio and news:
Got up early just to hear the announcement – hmmm – breathe, breathe, breathe – energize re November… My oh My, did all the pundits miscalculate. Now they’re trying to start a rumor that somebody got to Chief Justice Roberts or that he wants to leave a legacy – I call bullpucky on both. The minute it was found to be the Mandate was a tax, which is how Obama’s team argued it – despite all their representations to the public that it wasn’t – the Court was on notice – not their job to write legislation, but to affirm legality and Congress has the right to tax – whether it is good policy or bad. If you want a Court to stick with the Constitution, you can’t have it both ways – I actually think this throws it right back on Congress and Obama and a GRAND SLAM in November – you want to talk about activating the base… a DEMOCRATIC Congress passed this – you’re going to need a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, SENATE AND HOUSE to repeal it…
Reserving the right to change once I get to read and think it over….
Now the Holder vote re contempt – got all excited thinking it had passed only to find out it was a practice vote… no wonder they have such a hard time getting things done.
We conservatives had ourselves convinced that Obamacare was a dead duck. We forgot that the SCotUS is a wild animal and unpredictable. This was a classic example of confirmation bias. We need to be careful about echo chambers.
Obviously Obamacare needs to go away. Was a SCotUS decision the best way to make it go away? As mentioned before, the best way to get rid of Obamacare is to repeal it. Maybe the SCotUS decision will energize the conservative base (It’s difficult to get enthusiastic about Romney). We need to be reminded about how bad Obama is. Also we need to not tell ourselves fairy tales and avoid confirmation bias (no echo chambers).
I was dumbstruck by the SCOTUS decision because I bought the narrative of the clues leading up to the vote that the mandate, or even the law, would be struck down (eggplant’s confirmation bias).
I had forgotten, as I think many here have, about previous decisions by this very same court (OK, O’Connor was on the court at the time, but she is a cypher). Remember Kelo vs Connecticut? Or the case I can’t remember the name of with the individual in California who was busted by the feds for growing medical marijuana? Or for that matter the affirmative action case involving Michigan a few years back. In each of those cases this supposedly “conservative” court made — by our reasoning — spectacularly wrong-headed decisions. In the cases cited, there was nothing conservative, and a lot of convoluted blather in the majority decisions, that should have reminded us of the treacherous nature of this SCOTUS.
“a practice vote…”
*Snicker*
Okay… I’m out.
37. Subotai Bahadur & #32 sirius
Tell you what. If you do owe me one, given the way things are going, I’ll claim it when we meet atop “Redoubt #10″ wherever it may be in what is to come.
Since buddy larsen is not present, if I may presume to offer a suggestion, make it an offer of a Texas-style “coke”. In Texas the offer “would you like a coke?” refers to pretty much whatever beverage you want…
The practice for a Republican President, since the Robert Bork failed nomination, has been to nominate to the Supreme Court someone with no past writings or opinions that could be in anyway construed to be controversial. That got us Souter, Kennedy and now the Traitor Roberts. No Mas. We now must demand that the nominee will defend the Constitution without any hesitation and/or doubt, and have a history to prove it, or send him or her packing.
Chalk this one up as another failure for Dubya. Another RINO/Leftie put in by Dubya that sold us out.
HAMILTON IS NOW “WINNING”
In the Federalist Papers debate about the extent of power granted a national government by the not-yet-ratified constitution, Alexander Hamilton was the one most insistent on a strong central government as that term would have been understood at that time in the American context. He didn’t even see the need for a Bill of Rights. He “lost the argument,” so to speak, and Madison’s views carried the day, and we got the Bill of Rights and the assumption that the Constitution was a brake on unlimited power, and not the opposite.
Of late I’ve seen leftists quoting Hamilton assiduously — but out of context and dishonestly — to “prove” that the Constitution grants unlimited powers to the national government. I’d point out what I said above in my rebuttals to them. But now I see what they were up to, and I also see that Roberts is unconciously channeling what the left and other statists think Hamilton meant. The real Hamilton would have been appalled at the state of modern American affairs.
The Court’s ruling today means that it no longer matters who wins in November, because the ramifications of the decision shore up both parties’ will to power at the expense of the people. My short post on why is here.
Today was the day that our freedom ended. The Court’s decision rockets light years past Obamacare itself. It now makes absolutely no difference who prevails in November.
Here’s the thing about Roberts, let’s say he’s a smart guy and was doing his best. Yet, when you do that, and look up and see who you’re standing with, isn’t that a sign to go back and check your work?
Whether he knows it or not, I think he just gave in to all kinds of pressures. And, one might wonder about his health. He’s “only” 57, I can’t easily call age on him. This is the same guy, isn’t it, who shook his head at Obambus at the state of the union, two years ago?
Sigh. I don’t want to pile on. I suppose he’s only human, and I’m trying to look at this as an institutional issue … and failure.
There will be no repeal of Obamacare. It is not politically feasible in our system as it would require Republicans retain the House, win the White House and get 60 votes in the Senate. Obama successfully took advantage of one of those rare moments in history when one party has complete control of the government.
That however does not mean that Obamacare will not collapse of its own weight. It simple means that it will create untold suffering in the process.
I am utterly mystified by Roberts definition of freedom. Presumably the government could levy a tax on speech and that would not violate freedom of speech if I read him correctly. After all you would still be free to call your congressman an ass as long as you paid the fine – ere tax. Looked at in that light this is probably the most destructive and dangerous ruling in Supreme Court history and much more damaging than an unlimited expansion of the Commerce Clause.
But as conservatives lets look on the bright side. Roberts has finally given us the power to shut up every liberal voice in the country as long as we gain control of the congress and White House even as he has given liberals the same power. That is sure to lead someplace interesting isn’t it?
Friends it is really time to stop thinking that tinkering with the system we have can save it. I believe it is too late for that. It will fall with or without a push from any of us but in the rubble of the aftermath there will still be a need for government and one that can do the needful without becoming a destructive Leviathan. We should focus on minds on what a better constitution would look like. Meanwhile I am going out to furl the flag one last time. It was a good run while it lasted.
42. Don Rodrigo
I was dumbstruck by the SCOTUS decision because I bought the narrative of the clues leading up to the vote that the mandate, or even the law, would be struck down (eggplant’s confirmation bias).
That’s a very apropos observation. It is so easy to get wrapped-up in the minutia and nuance that we forget that for many years SCOTUS has been almost uniformly and consistently statist, with only a very few decisions leaning towards support of the rights of individuals. And, even those few are usually larded with carefully contrived, narrowly-construed equivocal loophole language.
Sorry, but I can’t agree with most of the criticism of Roberts tho I do share the disappointment. For too long the courts have served as a substitute legislature, handing down rulings when someone didn’t like a law, or when a law was deliberately written so poorly that it was left to a court or some regulatory agency to say what it meant.
In this way, politicians could pass laws with grand-sounding titles, little substance, and avoid any of the friction that might come from displeasing someone, somewhere. After all, them judges and bureaucrats don’t have to run for election, do they?
To me, it looks like Roberts said, ”You elected those clowns so you’re responsible for their behavior. If you don’t like it, obtain what you want the way it’s supposed to be done: through the ballot box. My presumption is that you got what you voted for. Is my judgement superior to that of the people? No? Then in that case the people voted, their legal representatives acted, and it’s not our job to improve this unless there’s a crystal-clear violation of the Constitution.” (The commerce clause argument was, the other wasn’t.)
IOW, it’s up to us as it always should have been. We’ve had courts running school systems for decades and all kinds of mischief because we’ve allowed our politicians to escape their responsibilities and be all things to all people.
No, I think I may like this: we don’t like what we voted for? Then it’s up to us to fix it. No more crying to Daddy.
PS: the decision re the commerce clause may turn out to be the best part of the whole thing—that monster was gobbling up the whole country.
Roberts goes three for three from the wrong side of the plate. He sided with the Left on the Arizona Immigration case. He sided with the Left on Obamacare. And today it came out he sided with the Left on the Stolen Valor case.
He’s another Souter. Screw him. Traitor to the Republic.
Roberts had the option to vote that ACA mandate was unconsitutional under the Commerce Clause, and at the same time say that it would have passed muster under the taxing authority. In that case the legislation would have gone back to the Congress where the elected representatives of the Republic would have had to openly vote their positions on a huge tax increase.
Did the Solicitor General even argue for this result?
Roberts handed the Democrats a huge tax increase without a single Congress Critter having to say that he/she voted to increase taxes and then face the political consequences. How is that representative government?
We just got whacked with a huge tax increase and not a single citizen had the opportunity to redress Congress with their grievances of this burden. How is that representative government?
This stinks. Call it what it is.
12. An Préachán
I love Mayo.I’ve spent lots and lots of time there. My people are from nearby.
But I wouldn’t want to live in Ireland unless I was rich or had a great job in Ireland. And wealth and great jobs in Ireland have been hard to come by for going on 900 years. Now more than ever, perhaps–and in the future.
Well, despite all the childish drama via the walkout on the vote – instead of doing their job – the House PASSED the vote holding Holder in Contempt. Here we go…
The purpose of the bill was to make people angry. If the all signs are right, then as soon as next week we might see the Constitution again validated (by mere mention in the news) as an impeachment process begins. Nobody wants this to happen more than the President, who hates his job and always has.
House now voting on the Civil aspect of holding Holder in Contempt – if it passes, my understanding is they can then go to a judge to circumvent the delay if it was criminal only – and have a judge rule on turning over the docs.
They don’t call it a ruling for nothing…
Seems to me the whole idea of the U.S. Constitution being a talisman that somehow limited the power of fedzilla.gov over the people, has been fundamentally transformed into a leviathan-sized rhetorical rope-a-dope to serfdom. Fenrir has broken his last binding and is eying his breakfast.
The familial freedom SERE contingency plans have officially been upgraded to Plan A status.
House passed the Civil aspect as well – now pundits stating the Republicans are wasting their time on this – the Fast & Furious investigation, which for my money, is a, if not the, scandal of our time. (my posts are up)
Either Roberts is a shrewd genius or else he’s….well… you know. He sent the message that the court has now officially abdicated it’s oath to the constitution. (this has been tacitly true for some time, now it’s official) His actions clarify that preservation, protection and defense of the constitution lie squarely with us. No excuse for not voting now. And we have to win big, everywhere. Which we will. This appears to be the last remaining opportunity we will have before voter participation has become an option no more.
55. Knight1 :Well, despite all the childish drama via the walkout on the vote – instead of doing their job – the House PASSED the vote holding Holder in Contempt. Here we go…
Brave, brave Sir Robin. Walking away from your responsibilities worked well in Wisconsin if I recall correctly. Isn’t the left always blaming the problems of inner-city youth on their fathers walking out on them? Led by the Congressional BLACK Caucus no less. It must have been for the children.
Ironically, I have more contempt for this congress than Holder ever could.
Cowards. (with a few exceptions, to be fair)
If I read it correctly, someone above indicates that Roberts went to the Commerce clause and found that the entire monstrosity was unconstitutional there, in that clause, and so then promptly ignored that disqualification and went to the taxation clause for succor and said that the supreme government can tax anyone and everybody any way they dern well please! Even common sense will tell you it doesn’t work that way. Any clause that disqualifies it, disqualifies it. (the opposite is to say, as Roberts did, that any way that can be found in any clause to ok this P.0.S. supercede all constitutional restrictions prohibiting and forbidding it and it’s implementation as [a] law) End of story. end of song. end of meeting- adjourned. To try and hide this in plain sight (for Roberts) is more than curious. It’s not for the judiciary or it’s judges to interpret or survey the landscape of what is “right” or what “public sentiment” is; it’s to check the unrestrained aquisition of power by branches of government. History will not remember Roberts well on this, even if it can be deduced that it was shrewd in it’s political calculation.
Gordon/51: “IOW, it’s up to us as it always should have been.”
If it’s up to us, meaning Americans who vote, then I don’t expect Obamacare to ever be repealed.
I don’t think that it’s appreciated how many Americans believe the title “Affordable Care Act” is accurately descriptive.
Reminds me of a discussion a couple of years ago with my in-laws. We never talked politics but I always admired them because they had all lived their lives in accordance with conservative values. All highly educated in scientific fields. One evening I made a brief derisive remark about Obamacare, after which, dead silence. An awkward, uncomfortable silence. It dawned on me I had taken a lot for granted and made assumptions that were not warranted.
Americans want to believe we can do anything. If only _____ (insert favorite boogeyman) would get out of the way. It doesn’t matter if the arithmetic doesn’t add up. We can do anything we set our minds to. Everything’s going to get better, the economy is going to recover, blah blah blah. Americans are afflicted with a fatal optimism.
Keep standing for the truth but be fully prepared for the worst. As best you can, anyway.
If private health insurance is destroyed (and it will be), I think insurers will be saying, Hooray! Now we can concentrate on areas of insurance where the risks make sense.
The role of Sisyphus is played by the taxpayer. It’s a crushing load that will continue to be borne until it all collapses.
Forgot to add – not only will private insurers be glad to be rid of healthcare, but employers as well will be glad to be rid of these costly benefits.
Tonite my hands are incapable of typing much. So…I will repost this from a couple of years ago. (12/31/2009)
I think it applies more now than it did then.
“IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE”
As far as the (other, more dangerous) immediate threat to our Republic, here is what I have to say about that:
I have had to counter about half of the social education my four grand kids (now 5, Hanna wasn’t born when I wrote this.) get from their schools. Schools that teach from textbooks that are not only incomplete, biased but in some cases just outright wrong.
For almost fifty years the liberals, progressives if you will and the closet Commies and Marxists have been infiltrating and perverting the American Educational System and in turn, churning out new young progressives that influence and pervert their kids and send them to the same institutions of “higher learning”. Even worse is that this progressive decay has creeped down into our primary and secondary educational systems, giving them a head start on the brainwashing of our children.
You think the divide in America is growing? Well so do I and millions of other Americans in flyover country do too.
This time it really is not just about politics.
SOME of us realize that it is about taking control of the United States of America and turning it into a Socialist/Marxist cesspool just like the other failed states in this world. Which of course will cause our Military to shrink and it’s ability to defend to diminish. The economy/energy/education will be fully in the hands of the state, which is the fastest way to the complete destruction of America and her beliefs.
We conservatives and others haven’t liked the choices our representatives have been making for about the last fifty years. But being the silent ones we just kept working and hoping that our government would somehow see the light and the errors in their ways. And being gullible we kept voting for those that lied and said they were for conservative ways and measures and a smaller government.
While of course the progressives and closet communists kept eating out bigger and bigger pieces of the federal and state governments.
So there you have it…Our continuing bad judgment and mistakes. We have to bear much if not all of the blame. Especially for electing Obama.
Also remember this, Obama and his backers not only understand the stealthy incremental nature of legislation, but he also has been taught the Chicago way of doing business in politics, and he has backers and handlers that understand it even more. How do you think he got where he is?
The dirty tricks department not only extends to false registrations and well hidden vote fraud, but to Chicago dirty tricks in the Senate and the House, and in the back rooms of Lobbyists, Progressive Support Groups such as ACORN and of course-Unions.
They don’t even bother to try and hide it anymore and Obama has put in place Czars to do their bidding and cut Congress almost completely out of the legislative loop.
Then we have the Supreme Court which is just now getting warmed up to really make some serious changes in the Law. (I don’t think they will all be for the good of the American people.)
When enough Americans finally understand what our Founders feared would happen-has indeed happened slowly and steadily over the last fifty or so years, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and RINOS like them should never be reelected. Or you would think so, wouldn’t you? But if we go by our past record, it appears that Americans can’t see past the lies told by those running for office.
Maybe that will change, I certainly pray it does – because it has to.
In the LAST ten or so years, it has taken an out of control federal government spending our money and lots of it to FINALLY get our attention. while it should have happened over these last fifty or so years, it just didn’t because it was a slow and steady drain of our liberty and stealthy building of government theft and accumulation of powers. And of course payments over and under the table to almost everybody, including the millions of blacks, other minorities and poor whites that have now become a welfare state of their own with no chance of ridding themselves of it.
Even now today, there are still millions of Americans that don’t know or care a twit about politics but just vote the party line or even worse…don’t vote at all. The democrats almost have a lock on minority and black voters and will close that lock with legislation in the next few months.
This time in our history, this enemy within, are almost succeeding. The only thing in their way is you and the rest of loyal Americans, of all parties and affiliations, that see and are appalled at what is happening to our Republic. Because it appears our representatives and especially our President will not uphold their oaths.
Power indeed does corrupt, but it takes a certain deviant breed of people that want to change America into something that our Founders never wanted, fought against and warned us about. They are our enemies within.
Our Founder’s not only warned us against all this, but wrote rules in our Bill of Rights (and it’s Preamble), our Constitution. And inscribed in other important papers that were meant to warn, prepare and enable us to protect the Republic for which they stood, died for and wanted for all of their future generations of Americans.
It has only been in the last few months or so, that millions of American’s attention has not only been raised, but also their long held anger has been allowed to vent itself against our so called “representatives”, the ones that are supposed to be working for us, but seem to just be working for themselves and others.
I pray in the next few years or so there will be many more millions of Americans that will voice their opinion loud and clear and vote accordingly. If they don’t or are stopped by voter fraud and other Chicago tricks and tactics, then the only alternative is not to be spoken of until it will be almost too late.
Papa Ray
West Texas
__________________
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
Polls have 60 percent of the country against Obamacare. This judgement should draw more independents to Romney and hopefully they will help to vote out the lords in the Senate who have been presiding over a failed body. What today’s ruling really shows is a need for direct democracy via up/down national referendums on laws that have such sweeping impact on citizens lives. Of course in California that hasn’t worked out to well either with courts over ruling the will of the people. Our democracy has been high jacked by special interests, big money and now the SCOTUS. If Obama wins in November pray that the House and Senate go Republican and we have a stalemate until the economy crashes from the Federal debt. Then it will be up to the States to rebuild and withdraw as much power as possible from the failed Federal behemoth.
As much as I enjoy all of the comments, I think everyone so far has missed Wretchard’s main point. OK, Obamacare was upheld. Fine. But how are we going to pay for it? We can’t. No more than we can pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The government only survives now based on its ability to borrow. They can’t tax anybody enough to get the revenues they need for all their grand programs because there just isn’t enough money out there to meet the spending promises made.
Unfunded liability of Medicaid? $48 trillion! That can’t be paid. Simple fact. All the liberal promises soon meet up with that reality.
My first semi-coherent thought after today’s ruling was “a republic, if you can keep it”. The surprise came when I typed it into google to refresh the exact quote in my mind and found Wretchard on the first page on the same subject.
So we’ve got a little reminder that it’s up to us. Mommy and daddy won’t fix it for us. Aw shucks.
What the Roberts decision essentially said that the government has the power to tax, and that power to tax extends to behavior. Not merely to actions you take, but also to actions you fail to take (inaction). The government does not have the power to compel you to do something (at point of a bayonet) but it does have the power to require you to do something, and if you fail to do so, to tax you, and if you fail to pay the tax, throw you in prison (at the point of a bayonet). There was no limiting principal applied to this logic, only that it be deemed appropriate by the other two branches of government. Roberts said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” The power to tax can be used to compel behavior.
In that vein, let me propose a hypothetical and determine if it passes Constitutional muster under the Roberts decision. This bill is meant to address the general welfare issues caused by certain uppity members of the citizenry failure to ‘respect my authoritay!’ of the federal government. The contents of this hypothetical bill is that each citizen shall travel to (interstate commerce!) and present themselves in person upon the Mall in DC, upon their birthday and no later than the time of their birth, where they will be ‘mandated’ to lick the boots of their Representative, either of their Senators, the President, Vice President, or any of their designees. For avoidance of doubt, the boot licking does not require the presence of their esteemed personages or designees; they can merely drop off the footwear of their choice, in any state of cleanliness or soiling, and require citizens to lick them. However, this is not strictly a mandate, as citizens can opt out of their boot licking obligations, and pay a penalty (don’t even have to actually call it a tax!) of $10,000 (or $1mm, or an additional 50% of income).
This act can be referred to as the Universal Boot Licking Obligation in Washington of the United States, also known by its acronym, U BLOW US. While this may be unwise law, would the interpretation of our Constitution by our supreme court protect us from this idiocy by our political class? Per the logic of the Roberts decision, this would pass Constitutional muster. Anyone whose jurisprudence would find that law Constitutional ought to be intimately familiarized with the American political tradition of tar and feathers, if not lamp post decorating, and there are at least 5 candidates.
They can’t only make us eat our broccoli, they can make us lick their boots. On a bright note, the President can choose to enforce or not enforce the law, or issue waivers to anyone he so chooses, such as people who donate sufficiently, or even cry believably enough at his daddy’s funeral.
This reminds me of the Dredd Scott decision. Back then the question before the Court was decided in such a way as to obliterate any limits on the spread of slavery- now this question has been decided in such a way as to obliterate any limit on the power of the Federal government.
That won’t go down well. I’ve had the strange feeling that the Federal government has been playing Russian roulette for a good long time and now has finally pulled the trigger and instead of a click has gotten a BANG!
As I see it the Supreme Court has decided that tyranny is a-ok, Constitution-wise.
It’s up to the people to overturn that, as the Dredd Scott decision was overturned by the Civil War.
A few thoughts:
1. My initial read of what went down is that the 4 dissenters wanted to toss the entire law, and were not willing to move. The 4 concurrers wanted to preserve the law, and were willing to negotiate. Roberts wanted to avoid throwing out the entire law (maybe in his mind due to a deference to Congress, or a desire to be loved, or the support of the NYTimes – who knows?)
But Roberts:
a) wanted to limit the scope of the Commerce Clause,
b) wanted to limit the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and
c) wanted to rule that the Medicaid expansion is coercion.
Kagan and Breyer were willing to let Roberts win on these principles if he upheld the law (Ginsberg and Sotomayor were less accommodating, but were willing to go part way), so long as Roberts agreed to let the law stand and made his arguments. Roberts tried to “split the baby,” winning the philosophical argument but losing the practical one.
At a practical level, a loss is a loss. I have to figure out what to do with my company’s health care plan as ACA goes into force. It will have a huge impact on my co-workers, and I’m not looking forward to it. But every bad impact will create more momentum for restoring self-governance.
2. We must remember, even in our frustration with the SCOTUS, that the root of the problem is Congress. ACA sprung from the head of Pelosi and Reid, and they were responsible for ramming it through a deeply divided Congress. How were they able to do that? Because after years of Republican control of the federal government, conservatives were dispirited and demoralized as they saw their supposed philosophical allies in Congress and the White House preside over the further expansion of the federal government and its power. Progressives were energized by Republican failure, and swept droves of Democrats into Congress, and Obama into the White House. Congressional seniority assured that we had lunatics in charge of the asylum.
Sure, the Tea Party soon emerged to push back, but it was too little too late for the health care fight. Even the Scott Brown setback was not enough; through procedural tricks and short-cuts, “bribes,” and arm-twisting, ACA was passed.
ACA, like Dodd-Frank, Medicare, Medicaid, NCLB, and hundreds of other arrogations of power to the center, is a creature of Congress. Congress is the primary site of our political cancer. It’s disappointing that the SCOTUS chemotherapy didn’t work, but we should focus our ire where it is most deserved.
3. The Courts will not save the Republic. They are laggards, and unreliable. And I’m not sure we want to rely upon the wisdom and courage of 9 people to protect us. We have to do this ourselves.
—
I will restate the four strategies we are pursuing to restore self-governance, with specific reference to today’s events:
- Changing the paradigm from horizontal to vertical. Today is a perfect example of where “liberal” and “conservative” are of limited explanatory value; John Roberts is a conservative, right? The real fight is the centrocrats vs. the citizens, and historically the Courts have almost always sided with the centrocracy. We have to think differently about governance if we’re going to get back on track as a nation.
- Breaking the cycle of incumbency. ACA has never had the support of the people, but the long-term incumbents who run Congress are unaccountable to the citizens so they can do what they want without fear of losing their seat. Beating incumbents in primaries is the best way to restore Congressional accountability.
- Dispersing power out of Washington DC. Health care should not be regulated at the federal level. It should be regulated at the state or local level. But it’s also 1/6th of the economy, so it’s a tempting target for centrocrats. The Health Care Compact is the best solution as it pits the states vs. the centrocrats in Washington, and we need the states engaged to succeed. But other compacts are needed as well to shrink the size of the federal leviathan.
- Re-engaging the citizenry. Most Americans don’t realize the full impact of ACA, due to the complexity of the law and the “boiling the frog” method used by the centrocracy to implement it. As that impact becomes clearer, more people will get suited up for the fight, and this will embolden the state legislators and governors who need to play the leadership role we elected them to play.
It’s hard not to be discouraged, but the fight is not over. Things will get worse before they get better, but they will get better. The vast majority of the American people have not yet woken up to the reality of our impending crisis.
But they will. Oh, yes, they will. And it won’t be much longer until they do.
We just need to be ready when the time comes.
L3
My comments are on the previous post as well. Still following all the opinions, interviews, etc. via internet, radio and tv – there is a new pulse about future Supreme Court nominations – as many as three possible (maybe more) for the next president – the uproar now is about the lack of true knowledge re Chief Justice Roberts… okay, is anybody besides me hearing the echo of how Obama became president – everybody put their dreams on him and no true vetting – now, they accuse Chief Justice Roberts of being a traitor – if we, as the electorate, do not do our job, we get what we get – and, frankly, I believe Chief Justice Roberts called it – the dissenting Justices pointed to exactly how to counter the follow on.
“Polls have 60 percent of the country against Obamacare.”
By next week that will be down to 55 percent. And by Election Day, it will be around 40% opposed. Because The Supreme Court says it’s good and right, the cattle will heave a sigh of relief that they no longer have to maintain a stressful opposition anymore. The argument against Obamacare has been lost forever. I don’t know where these fantasies come from thhat NOW, AT LAST the people will rally against the tyrant Obama and cast him down. The opposite is going to happen: people are now reassured that Obama is a WINNER. The press have been saying that for ages, but they’re a dodgy bunch and nobody really believes them. But now the Sacred Priests of the High Court have said it, and everyone knows that they’re above reproach, so now your ignorant populace will slide comfortably down the familiar groove of re-electing the incumbant without thinking twice about it.
#71 Leo Linbeck III
Fourth and final post, this thread.
L3, I literally have the highest respect for you and what you are doing. If we have time, it is the way to redeem our liberty and rescue the Constitution. And I really, really hope that you can make it work.
But looking at how much power is being arrogated to the Federal Executive branch in the last few weeks alone, and the arrogance and contempt they are doing it with; it does not look like they have any conception of being stopped by mere citizens and votes. Since Obama claimed the right to a) create law [the sogannante DREAM Act is not a law or even an introduced bill], b) negate laws on the books, and c) pick and choose at whim who laws apply to and do not apply to; the prospect of free, fair, and honestly counted elections taking place has been receding. It has been claimed that it has been a bad month for Obama. It has been a worse month for the Constitution.
I am an old man. I had hoped to die peacefully, knowing that my children and any children they might have had a chance at a good life. My children are struggling along with everyone else; and the most likely prospect for my death is going to be either fighting to restore the Constitution, or neglected and denied medical care by the government. My best hope will be to take a party of sideboys with me.
This is what it is like when the Mandate of Heaven is withdrawn from a country and people.
Subotai Bahadur
71. Leo Linbeck III
I respect you greatly, L3, and I understand your perspective and belief on how best to effect certain necessary change in our political culture. That said, however, you, like so many others here and in other discussion fora across the cyber plain, are so focused on process and methodology that the fundamental underlying principles upon which the Republic was established and on which our continued existence as a free people depend are being ignored, forgotten or otherwise lost in the melee.
Put more succinctly, in their desperation to grasp a silver lining in this shocking episode, far too many people are over thinking this. Whatever their erudition, legal expertise, etc., etc. ad nauseum, John Roberts and these other Justices are supposed to understand and respect that the people of this country have unalienable rights and freedoms, their government is supposed to have limits on its power, and that it’s their duty to guard and protect those things.
When all his and their convoluted, contorted and sophistic language is distilled down to its logical essence, he and his colleagues have now stated clearly and unequivocally that they believe there is absolutely no limit to the coercive power of government over the citizenry.
Roberts is not stupid, and no matter how he tried to obfuscate and equivocate, he knows the real meaning of his words. He has now self-declared himself to be, as Subotai terms it, one of TWANLOC, or, as it will be more simply expressed in the terrible days, months and years to come, the enemy.
When I watched him and his family with President Bush at the time of his confirmation I saw what appeared to be a classic all-American boy who, by dint of hard work and his ability, had raised himself to be an exemplar of the quintessential example of a public servant.
Never did I dream that I would live to see him, in one single week, betray his Oath, the Constitution, his fellow countrymen and disgrace himself for posterity.
74. Subotai Bahadur & #71 Leo Linbeck III
If we have time, it is the way to redeem our liberty and rescue the Constitution. And I really, really hope that you can make it work.
Thanks, Subotai, you said it better while I was composing my last post. L3′s program would be the way, but I don’t believe we have the time. Cascade failures throughout “the institutions of civil society” are already in progress, and I imagine somewhere Gramsci is wearing a demonic smile.
One more thing – about this tax thingy:
For purposes of the Anti-Injuction Act, it’s not a tax.
For purposes of the constitutionality ACA, it is a tax.
Perhaps we should call this Schrödinger’s Tax.
L3
Methinks Justice Roberts woke up one March morning with the severed head of a horse in his bed.
Clearly to me, his position on this decision centers more on himself than the people or America or even the Constitution. Why is it that it is always the Conservatives that cave in the hour of dire need?
I think the conservatives’ self-promotion as the “moral” part of this government is nothing but a two legged stool. You can’t ask for the strength of God if you never pray.
I am starting a new prayer journal tomorrow morning when I arise. Clearly, there is no strength on Earth that can win with the second stringers on our team. I am often frustrated with my beloved Cleveland Indians…but they at least try.
Grow a pair – this is America we’re talking about. Thank God the Olympic trials are on – champions I can look up to; folk who give their all to succeed.
If Obama gets elected in November we will probably lose the Second Amendment before 1 December. I just bought lifetime memberships in the NRA and GOA, but this juggernaught may simply run over everyone, just like thy did in Fast and Furious…and the pundits today were advising the pols to drop the spectacle Issa’s Civil Suit. Geeze, we have no integrity.
CBDenver/67: “As much as I enjoy all of the comments, I think everyone so far has missed Wretchard’s main point. OK, Obamacare was upheld. Fine. But how are we going to pay for it? We can’t.”
Of course we can’t, but that’s not going to stop them from trying to make us pay. Do you, right now, have money in your pocket? Do you have money in a bank account? Do you have a retirement account? Do you have any other assets? Property? There’s still a lot the State has yet to get its hands on. It’ll never be enough but they’ll keep on trying until we’re all reduced to near subsistence levels.
The centralization of power and authority has never been stopped. In a hundred years, it hasn’t been stopped. It may have moved forward in fits and starts but it’s never been stopped.
If ACA ends up being repealed, it will be replaced with something almost as bad.
There seems to be something in man’s nature that impels us along this course. The Founders were able to flee to other shores, but we have nowhere to run.
I too have the greatest respect for Leo III. His efforts have been nothing short of heroic and he has sacrificed a great deal. But he and everyone else at BC, whether republican, libertarian, independent or whatever, could be loosely included in what they call the republican base or the tea party base. Okay, the base is fired up but so what?
When the vast majority finally do awaken to the crisis – the vast majority currently still asleep, witless and uncomprehending – what will they be, an uncomprehending mob? How are we to get ready for that? Hasn’t the State already made plans to be ready for that?
I think it is redundant to discuss this in terms of how UNaffordable this concoction is. To discuss this yet again in these terms risks being lured into the same soft sell, trojan horse straw man trick the democrat party used to exclude ALL attempts and ideas to make this a debate about improving the state of the health care/medicine/insurance industry or anything else in this country. It was never about making anything “more affordable” for a minute. It was always about usurping and acquiring more power to branches of the national government. Making things more affordable -or affordable at all- is a free market concept- It requires competition and the liberty to offer something that is better and/or, is less expensive. UNREGULATED.
If you are more than a little discouraged to see the national government annex a sixth of the industrial economy, and then consider what it takes to try and succeed now with the amount of regulation of business elsewhere. Take heart, because this is a “glory” most fleeting for democrat party.
Just make sure and keep this issue clarified and focused on this issue before the electorate this fall.
Once you can accept that Roberts gave a pass, a bypass, if you will, to constitutional principle, you can appreciate how he was able out-alinsky these racketeers at their own game. They. will. never. recover from this. They are about to go up in the very flames of their own pyrrhic victory. Let them gloat, let them rest easy. They have no idea what is about to hit them. Or maybe they do. The supreme ct has said this extortion racket is ok? In the name of taxation? That the supreme national government can tax you and penalize you and compel you to do anything against your will if they dern well please? In the name of taxation? And all the while denying that it would be taxation when the supreme court just said it was taxation, all along? Would YOU want go back to YOUR constituency and run for re-election based on YOUR vote, YOUR record, YOUR support of this “legislative bill’? -Good luck with that.
I hope democrat party operatives running for re-election like living under a bus, because that’s where they’re going to spend the rest of their lives.
the onus is on them, I do not envy them their position.
30. Subotai Bahadur
If it is a “tax” then it will be deductable on the Schedule A. Most taxpayers don’t have enough deductions to claim any deductions on the Schedule A (they have to have more taxable deductions that would exceed the already provided standard deduction).
However, if it is a deductable expense for healthcare items, then the deduction will appear on the medical portion of the Schedule A. And there’s the rub: for medical deductions there is a 7.5% “floor” (of Adjusted Gross Income- AGI) that must be exceeded before there is any tax reduction effect. Worse yet, Congress has indicated that the 7.5% floor is planned to be increased to 10%, further reducing the impact/benefit of medical deductions.
Now that I think of it, it all seems timed to Obamacare to ensure no deductions will be taken on the tax return. That cements the amount of tax that the government collects.
These guys are way, way, way ahead of us by a long shot. We have been garotted.
A tax “credit” (not deduction) is a dolar for dollar reduction of the tax we owe on our tax return – no way would they allow that. This at best will be a simple and weak deduction…if you qualify to take any of it on your return.
They are about to learn what it’s like to live by their own standards. The ones they’ve set. Can you say “unemployed“?
Request your sufferance of an extra post for this thread:
#77 Leo Linbeck III
Nobody ever mentions that half the time of the time you open Schrödinger’s box, a slightly radioactive, highly ticked off cat pounces on you.
“Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
Subotai Bahadur
To all the regulars here at Belmont,
Thanks again for all the distilled thinking. If you-all will indulge me, I’ll limit myself to this one lengthy post today. I calculate it’s reasonably of a piece.
In the last year or two, several prominent posters expressed their general disgust and announced they had better things to do than continue shouting into a vacuum. I can understand their frustration, but the value of this forum for me (and I ‘spect a lot of other folks) is the repeated turning of my attention to the longer, wider view. Here are a few ruminations:
It is so far past worrying about evil spies reporting our comments to Obama. For several years now I’ve concluded along with Sgian Dubh that the second amendment will be gone the day Obama and his Marxist thugs believe they can get away with just sending their storm troopers around to confiscate people’s weapons. Casual reasoning suggests it’s likely to happen within hours after the start of the next scheduled general election, whatever results are projected. The logic is that if he knows he’s going to lose, Go ahead and take a shot before anyone is prepared; If he knows he’s winning, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SHOT BEFORE ANYONE IS PREPARED!
I’m guessing that there are people on the White House staff – on the taxpayer’s dime – who have been gaming the various scenarios of a takeover since the results of the 2008 election were known. A few big unknowables may give them cause to hesitate: (1) Will the active duty military resist a clear coup d’etat? (2) How many armed citizens will be ready to actively resist uniformed law enforcement officers coming to wrest their guns from them? (3) Will individual citizens have the resources besides personal firearms to organize sustained effective resistance? This last item is likely the entire reason for the designation by the Department of Homeland Security of returning combat veterans as this nation’s greatest terrorist threat, which makes me conclude they’ve been thinking about this a long time.
On one hand, this government so far has had almost the entirety of U.S. journo-lists fully assisting their every strategy, like a regiment of striped-shirt referees clearing the defending line so the quarterback can just amble toward the goal. On the other hand, with the full cooperation of his wholly-owned DOJ and various other agencies, the prez has shown he doesn’t give a shit about what Congress thinks, so he really doesn’t even need to bother with formal Presidential Executive Orders. All he needs to do now is work out the logistics of identifying likely troublemakers, and quietly begin the process of EITHER removing their weapons, or just relocating the persons to a holding facility, which makes it all the easier to pick through their possessions at leisure.
What’s to stop them?
Ask anyone, and see if you can find more than one in a THOUSAND people who are aware that the NAZI government executed 20,000 German citizens for dissent during the war. Many of them were beheaded by the Guillotine. Teenagers were executed for distributing anti-NAZI leaflets.
Please don’t doubt that government bureaucrats who intentionally provide thousands of automatic weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels without notifying the Mexican Government or anyone else, will scruple to use lethal force against any domestic opposition.
Events scream: Discretion is important, but it is way past time to prepare while it is still legal.
One minor point – since the mandate has been declared to be a tax, only 51 votes are needed in the Senate to overturn – a filibuster-proof majority is not required.
1. Roughcoat
So … what’s going on in Australia today? Anything?
Yeah plenty.
Our disfunctional Labor/Green Government makes Obama and the Democrats look like moderates. From a surplus under our conservative (Liberal) govt five years ago, our national debt is approaching 25% of GDP. Give em a few more years and we will be up there with the US and Europe in debt levels.
(PS I always read this blog, but rarely comment as I am a bit awed by the quality of the contributors, and its not my area of expertise anyway)
Cheers
77. Leo Linbeck III & 83. Subotai Bahadur
I stated in an earlier post that one of my favorite conversational quips has always been that I’m a theoretical pessimist but a functional optimist. In that spirit, re:
L3 – One more thing – about this tax thingy:
For purposes of the Anti-Injuction Act, it’s not a tax.
For purposes of the constitutionality ACA, it is a tax.
Perhaps we should call this Schrödinger’s Tax.
SB – Nobody ever mentions that half the time of the time you open Schrödinger’s box, a slightly radioactive, highly ticked off cat pounces on you.
Please let it be so, otherwise I fear Star Trek’s Dr. Leonard McCoy may have presciently given us the real prognosis:
“It’s(we’re) dead, Jim.”
That said, from the serious, functional optimist perspective, Subotai’s invocation of Tennyson’s “but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield” illustrates the right attitude for continuing to “fight for right” and why Leo’s efforts, no matter the odds against them, are so necessary.
I would humbly add that Leo and Subotai are in good company as well with Churchill, who also presciently described our current situation:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish then to live as slaves.”
At least Obama has left us an easy out.
We don’t need a majority in the senate. Or even the House.
All it will take is a Republican president to use Obamarules and direct the government not to enforce the laws regarding collection of the health care tax.
As if that would be something to cheer about, though. Because the next Democrat president will declare “Rules Back On!”. And so it will go. Rules on! Rules Off! Rules on! Whenever the oval office changes hands- the legislature will truly have become obsolete. Regardless of the actual laws passed, we will be ruled by Decree.
What we’re going to find out in the long run is that Obamacare is not the worst thing Obama has done. Far worse has been the precedent that the laws of the nation can be ignored or enforced solely on the whim of the president. “Because it’s the right thing to do” will go down as the meme that undid America.
So Roberts is actually a Bolshevik redistributionist? Who knew?
I am reading that the repubs can undo this via the same procedure the dems used to pass it. I am also reading Romney could simply grant waivers to the states effectively ending 0bamacare.
Somehow I doubt this will happen.
As Wretch has repeatedly stated, the arithmetic doesn’t work.
I take grim solace in that.
Since the Supreme Court failed in its responsibility to strike down this un-Constitutional law, it falls to the States to nullify Obamacare within their respective borders, thereby defending our Constitution. Our States possess the power to do so because the States acting in concert are “the authority which, in fact, made the Constitution; the authority which being paramount to the Constitution was paramount to the authorities constituted by it, to the Judiciary as well as the other authorities [Congress and President].” Here is their guide and example.
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact [U.S. Constitution], to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil… the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid [Alien and Sedition Acts - and now Obamacare], are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.” James Madison – 1798 Virginia Resolution
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
“The course & scope of the reasoning [1798 Virginia Resolution] requires that by the rightful authority to interpose in the cases & for the purposes referred to, was meant, not the authority of the States singly & separately, but their authority as the parties to the Constitution., the authority which, in fact, made the Constitution; the authority which being paramount to the Constitution was paramount to the authorities constituted by it, to the Judiciary as well as the other authorities [Congress and President]. The resolution derives the asserted right of interposition for arresting the progress of usurpations by the Federal Government from the fact that its powers were limited to the grant made by the States [Constitution]… The mode of their interposition, in extraordinary cases, is left by the Resolution to the parties [States] themselves…in the event of usurpations of power not remediable under the forms and by the means provided by the Constitution [Article V Amendment]… It is sometimes asked in what mode the States could interpose in their collective character as parties to the Constitution against usurped power. It was not necessary for the object & reasoning of the resolutions & report that the mode should be pointed out. It was sufficient to shew that the authority to interpose existed, and was a resort beyond that of the Supreme Court of the U. S. or any authority derived from the Constitution [Congress and President].” James Madison – 1834 Notes on Nullification
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm090163))
Keep this in perspective. democrat party achieved a majority in congress in 2006 off year election. They held that majority til 2010 election and lost it. This will represent a mere window of opportunity that fades into the past and auld lang sines, an advantage they won’t get back. Especially this year.
Swami 88: “Regardless of the actual laws passed, we will be ruled by Decree… What we’re going to find out in the long run is that Obamacare is not the worst thing Obama has done. Far worse has been the precedent that the laws of the nation can be ignored or enforced solely on the whim of the president.”
What you describe is arbitrary law – which is simply the tyrant’s will – as it violates the sacred, unalienable, equal rights of the individual.
“Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society.” John Adams
http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/213.html
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law508/JeffersonRights.htm
I’m afraid most Americans are “JAM TODAY” types: they don’t want “jam tomorrow.”
My friend Vinnie, who’s retired and living mostly on social security, said that she doesn’t have health insurance. She’s looking forward to being “taken care of” by the government.
“‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’” –the Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov
I think Leo is on to something about the polarity of the people. I’m an ex-Democrat, and the classic categories don’t fit me, but I’m far from lukewarm about my ideals. I, too, see this battle as a fight between the autocrats and the freedom-lovers.
But it goes deeper than that, I think, and here is where Dostoevsky comes in: his Grand Inquisitor, making his case to (the silent) Jesus, finally bursts out with the terrible admission that he and his confreres really have been working for Satan for lo these many years: because they’ve been selling a lie to the people, that doing the rituals and donations and prayers the Church directs will save them from hellfire. But the Inquisitor knows it won’t — still, he says, he has taken that sin upon his own back to spare the weak ones, the ones who could never get through Christ’s narrow gate, the stark terror that the realization of their fate would bring.
He has, he said, taken God’s work and perfected it; done what Jesus would not do. And based it upon miracle, mystery, and AUTHORITY, this hollow fraud of a religious experience. Taking God’s mantle as judge and deciding who is too weak, and damning them to hell by giving them false hope and false comfort.
The Inquisitor rages at Jesus for asking that humans choose Him out of love alone; love for the beauty of His teachings, His impossibly rigorous standards (“be ye therefore perfect”….). He declares that humans need to be bribed, cajoled, and led to choose “the good.” The cost of preserving the authenticity of our choice — of leaving us FREE TO CHOOSE — he rails, exacts too high a price from those Weak Ones who can’t muster the courage or the heart to choose rightly.
It’s late and I’m fumbling for words. But I think the spiritual dimension of this struggle is part of the vehemence of both sides. The Inquisitor, too, felt he was doing what was right. His tragedy was that he still longed for Jesus’ blessing.
Wicked pedia [sic] has a nice summary of The Grand Inquisitor chapter. Excerpt:
“The Inquisitor frames his denunciation of Jesus around the three questions Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world.
“The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom, but the Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom which Jesus has given them. The Inquisitor thus implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed it to suffer.
“Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, [narrator] Ivan also has the Inquisitor saying that the Catholic Church follows “the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction,” i.e. the Devil, Satan. He says “We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him.”
“For he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to “death and destruction,” they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that “Anyone who can appease a man’s conscience can take his freedom away from him.”
“The Inquisitor advances this argument by explaining why Christ was wrong to reject each temptation by Satan.
– Christ should have turned stones into bread, as men will always follow those who will feed their bellies. The Inquisitor recalls how Christ rejected this saying, “Man cannot live on bread alone,” and explains to Christ “Feed men, and then ask of them virtue! That’s what they’ll write on the banner they’ll raise against Thee.”
–Casting himself down from the temple to be caught by angels would cement his godhood in the minds of people, who would follow him forever.
–And rule over all the kingdoms of the Earth would ensure their salvation, the Grand Inquisitor claims.”
beverly/93: Agree, there absolutely is a spiritual dimension to this struggle.
“And seek not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Luke 12:29-31
Obviously, not too many people willing to rely on THAT promise. Better to look to government – going down to Egypt, in Biblical phraseology. Back to slavery.
Oh ye of little faith…
Or is it ye of zero faith? Or maybe better, ye of misplaced faith.
I dodged the news for 2 days, fearing this result. My reservations were about CJ Roberts. His opinion should go down in History as one as sad as that of Roger Tawny in 1857. One time a commentator here declareed why should a foreign enemy nuke or electro-magnetically disable a country that was in the process of commiting suicide. I have to acknowledge the senitments current applicability.
I was both heartened and saddened by Papa Ray comimg back on line for this thread. Happy that he is still kicking and doing an admirable job raising kids in a manner all patriots should follow. Sad that this disgusting event impelled him to post.Mad Fiddler (84) has summed up the practical, near term possibilities. Storm Rider may have the only feasable course of action, if people have the courage to select it, in the various states.
If, as suggested, Romney as president used waivers or Taxes of the New Kind, etc., to thwart the results of this latest revolting development (as Chester A. Riley would say), his moves would be challenged in the courts, and in the end, everything Romney did that the Roberts court allowed in Obama’s case, the Roberts court would rule uconstitutional.