As all the subjects of the United States now know, the Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate component of Obamacare as “constitutional.” This means, in effect, that the Constitution, which was designed to limit the powers of the federal government, has now been interpreted to mean that the only thing to be limited are the limitations themselves. Roll that one over your tongue before swallowing.
Now consider that, in light of this postmodern/Foucauldian conception of “constitutionality,” there are a whole backlog of Supreme Court decisions that are currently not being enforced. Why not? This is positively un-American, I say. These decisions are, after all, constitutional. I hereby propose that we bring back internment camps for Japanese- Americans. Why are we not enforcing Korematsu v. United States (1944)? It has not been overturned by the Supreme Court and is therefore still enforceable. An executive order should be issued immediately to remove all persons of Japanese descent into designated camps as a penalty for not paying taxes to support the insurrection clause.
How do I arrive at this conclusion? Simple. This measure is clearly not a violation of the 14th Amendment, since a part of the federal government’s taxing power is the creation of federal internment prisons, which are necessary and proper for the enforcement of the insurrection clause of Article I, Section 8. Since the tax money of Japanese-Americans has not gone toward the creation of such necessary and proper and constitutional internment prisons since the Second World War, they are clearly withholding their money from the federal government, thus weakening the government’s ability to enforce the insurrection clause. The general welfare of the people is imperiled by this unprecedented act of tax evasion. Therefore, the federal government must act immediately to penalize their refusal to pay such constitutional taxes by enacting a penalty (i.e., internment) for such dereliction.
Next week, I shall prove the following:
(1) That Congress can and should, in light of the Second Amendment, force every American to buy two firearms: one to be used for mandatory well-regulated militia duty, as defined in the Second Amendment, and the other to be used to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(2) Suicide for all Americans is Constitutionally mandated by both the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the double-jeopardy clause.
#1 and #2 go together quite well (means to an end).
?
Is that all?
Why not add in declaring all state drug laws unconstitutional because they intrude on federal drug laws as per the Arizona case?
How about objecting to laws about falsely claiming to be a lawyer because of the Stolen Valor Act decision?
There are plenty of laws that are clearly unconstitutional, or things that can now be done with abandon, because of these three decisions.
How about this? If you speak out against Barack Obama or any of the unDemocratic party leaders can we not therefore be placed into an internment camp? Could we not be considered inciting sedition? After all, numbnuts McCain wanted to stifle speech of corporations or organizations. Why not extend it to us. After all, if Congress or Obama passes it will the Supreme Court stand up?
If Roberts did what he did for some political gamemanship then he deserves a place in political hell (if not the real one) for NOT going with his conscience. We already know where the abortion supporting members of the Supreme Court are going.
Toque el Deguello. Sound el Deguello.
Texans know that it means “No Quarter”. The Mexicans played it at the Alamo. Later, just before San Jacinto, they heard it again but this time from the Texians.
This is a fight to end. Sound el Deguello and fix bayonets.
$5,000 tax for failure to buy a pick up truck.
$10,000 tax for failure to purchase a firearm.
$50,000 tax for failure to carry a pregnancy to term.
Bad law is bad law for all.
Now that ObamaCare has established the precedent that the federal government can force individuals to purchase health insurance, ostensibly to prevent the taxpayers from being burdened with their healthcare costs, it opens up all sorts of new cost-saving possibilities.
One obvious example would be to force pre-menopausal women to purchase “child insurance” starting at the age of 18. This insurance would protect federal taxpayers from having to pay the massive costs of feeding, clothing, housing and educating other peoples children. After all, why should taxpayers be held financially responsible for any individual woman’s “choice”?
As liberals like Pelosi argued, the ObamaCare mandate is the same as requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance to cover any financial liability they may incur from an accident. Based on Pelosi’s own logic (and now that of the SCOTUS) requiring women to purchase “child insurance” would be entirely constitutional.