CBS News is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his position on the Court’s Affordable Health Care vote, after initially siding with conservatives.
The reason for the switch? Roberts was feeling the pressure from liberal publications and other experts who saw striking down Obamacare as a blow to the legitimacy of the Court:
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.
It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.
Some informed observers outside the Court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the President. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on – nothing in prior Supreme Court cases – to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.
The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the Court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.
To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the Court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the President’ health care law unconstitutional.
Roberts was willing to draw that line, but in a way that decided future cases, and not the massive health care case.
Moreover, there are passages in Roberts’ opinion that are consistent with his views that unelected judges have assumed too much power over American life, and that courts generally should take a back seat to elected officials, who are closer to the people and can be voted out of office if the people don’t like what they’re doing.
So yes, Roberts caved not on the basis of law, but on political grounds; i.e., he didn’t want to be known as the justice who struck down Obamacare — that mean old conservative.
Read the linked article for the reaction from conservative justices. The contempt in which they hold Roberts for what I’m sure they see as a betrayal is amazing.
Left/liberal media spion influenced him? And not the law? What happened to the law? Roberts discharged his duties a Supreme Court Justice and Chief Justice in an improper manner. The liberal publications only wanted Obamacare and have no respect for rule of law… and he fell for their self-serving straw man arguments about legitimacy just because they kept it up long enough, loud enough. He should be ashamed.
My thought exactly!
Silly me, I always thought the law spelled out in the Constitution should be decided, not political pressure.
Roberts has done unimaginable damage – and is nothing but a political hack.
I was wrong about him!
– calls him a statesman. It will be nice to him for the rest of the day…
Roberts was afraid that the court would be labeled a political tool if he ruled against Obamacare, but he’s fine with being labeled a political tool by ruling in favor it? I don’t buy the argument that he knuckled under.
So–we can’t get the courts to not be intimidated by liberals. We can’t get the media to not favor the left. We can’t get the culture to not try and impose liberal values by stealth. We can’t get academia to be a.) rigorous, and b.) not be a DNC indoctrination tool. We can’t do anything about illegal immigration except accept it, and pay for the greater welfare state arising out of it. We can’t say anything about the performance of an African-American–or even refuse to vote for him–without being called racist. We can’t refuse to write a blank check to subsidize others without being called greedy. We can’t say anything about the ability of the Ivy-educated elites to run anything without being called slack-jaw yokels. We can’t do anything about the coming demographic shift accept embrace it, even though a goodly portion of it will have its roots in illegal immigration and we are being given clear signs that the strength of the rule of law–and especially the idea of blind justice and equality before the law–is going to be a little thin, and that political correctness most often means the white guy gets to pay for the crimes of the past as more fashionable types get encouraged. We, frankly, just can’t do anything, can we, except clap and applaud the glorious triumph of Progressive liberalism?
I’m not angry as I write what I am about to say, just genuinely tired–When someone or something starts the Civil War, I’m signing up. With the intent to win. Because this society is offering me nothing but guilt, orders, the opportunity to sit down and shut up, and a bill to pay for it all. While demonizing me all the while.
Pardon me if I don’t accept.
awesome repsonse. im with ya. if this travesty isnt repealed, im done. i am sick and tired of working my arse off so slackers can get their free stuff all the while being told that myself and others like me are the problem! im done. where do i sign up for all the welfare goodies?
Sir, I am going to assume you are genuine in your disgust, but if *I* was going to try a Jedi mind trick to discredit my post, I’d do something like your reply ended up being, with no punctuation, etc. Now, as I said, I assume it is genuine, I just ask you to realize how it looks to others.
“When someone or something starts the Civil War, I’m signing up. With the intent to win.”
Don’t think we have to take that big step yet. Just off the top of my head, what does Obama or one of his czars or committees do ever single day? Give up? Why they grant waivers from the provisions of the Affordable Care Tax Act to groups of their choice. Thousands of waivers, and no one objects to this inequality under the law. Not a peep.
Romney should campaign with the promise that he will continue this practice. On day one he could grant a waiver to all Americans who don’t yet have a waiver. If Romney is elected, problem solved.
If the justices can be swayed because of political opinion there is no need for the Supreme Court.
– deed!
He deserves every trace of that contempt. For him to have shown such concern for the “limitless” nature of the commerce clause in the theory advanced by Obamacare but to have found a general police power in the power to tax, this is simply craven and inexplicable as any matter of principle or explicitly granted power in the constitution.
It is craven.
Craven Roberts.
In my one attempt in the man’s defense–I can see the tax argument, having raised it before. Not to mean I think it wise Congressional policy, and since an exemption is going to have to be given for religious objectors who swear off modern health care (or make a mock out of other religious exmeptions), or that others without income are going to be waived from having to show insurance, or will have it provided for them, and since I do not believe it falls under being a true tax on income, but is instead just an ordinary direct tax, then it is eventually going to violate the Art I Sec 9 clause on non-proportional-to-population direct taxes. But at any rate, I could see the mandate as a tax in theory, a theory Congress seems not to availed itself of, past or present.
The “heckler’s veto” Roberts has seemed to give in to has infuriated me to no end. Roberts is simply not the man to fight the “by any means possible” Progressive crowd and keep things in balance. With him, non-Progressives in this nation functionally have no check available in the form of the Supreme Court if Progressives think the cause important enough.
Romney wants more like Roberts on the Court.
Perhaps, if he wants people who want to see the left defeated instead of accommodated to have any enthusiasm for his candidacy, he should state he intends to have Roberts removed from the Court–he has refused to do his job–and instead appoint Thomas in his place, and one as like Thomas as possible to the then empty associate seat.
Romney has all he can handle trying to counter the Obama campaign’s lies about his record, trying to acquaint the electorate with Obama’s record in a way they can understand and believe despite five years of the mainstream press sanctifying the man and covering for him, dealing with the race hustlers and hoping that the people can cast votes this fall faster than Holder and Co. can steal them.
You want him to announce during the campaign that he’s going to revamp the Supreme Court? That is just plain silly.
Romney has already announced he intends to put more like Roberts on the court. He has already seen it to be a fit use of his time and resources to claim that.
Your argument is with him in that regard, not me.
In light of the recent behavior of Roberts, he should re-evaluate his position about what sort he will seek to put on the bench.
If he would, I would reconsider voting for him–as for now I will not, and would not have before.
It is possible, that by announcing his opposition to further Robertses on the court, he might sway me.
But perhaps he can do without my vote.
How many like me can he do without in such a swing state as Virginia?
Romney put that Roberts line on his website before any of us knew what an untrustworthy coward he really was – and you know it. Perkins, you’re about as disingenuous as a liberal.
Since I never said or implied Romney put it in after the ruling, you must have the reading comprehension of a liberal.
I’ve only said that since Roberts has screwed the pooch, Romney should disavow his claim that he wants more like Roberts on the court.
As it stands, he’ll probably do fine with out my vote.
At the very least he should be asked, repeatedly to resign. It’s high time we put an end to everyone’s lifetime in politics. Robert’s clearly did not uphold his oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Yep,
We need a vocal campaign to impeach Roberts on the grounds of improper behavior. The cowardice that he’s demonstrated will lead to his resignation before a vote of impeachment.
Being called a ‘John Roberts’ should become the modern equivalent of being called a ‘Benedict Arnold’ circa 1789.
He deserves every ounce of derision he ever experiences for the rest of his life as he’s sold the rest of us into virtual slavery to the state.
I would agree, except that Roberts hasn’t betrayed anybody.
He’s ALWAYS been a leftist.
It is a very clever opinion and I can live with it being called a tax and with the limits on expanding Medicaid. Expected the decision to go the other way, the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause and there is no severability clause. Am hoping this motivates conservatives and enough independents that we can replace Obama. His campaign must be getting desperate, they are sending me fundraising letters.
It may have been an attempt at a clever decision, but it was a failed one.
In oral questioning, seven of the SC justices asked questions which made clear that Obamacare as justified by the Commer Clause was an attempt at exercising a general police power by the Congress, one with no articulable constitutional limits–a plenary police power which would have at best only majoritarian limits.
It was an exercise in totalitarianism.
The Supreme Court has found that totalitarianism is not found in the Commerce Clause, but is instead found in the 16th amendment. There is no trace of such in the 16th amendment, is as made up as Wickard or Roe.
Roberts simply failed to do his job with even the most cursory competence.
Where has he cited the phrase of clause int he constitution which gives the federal government the power to exercise such control of healthcare?
He hasn’t even pretended to.
Ditch him.
As an aside to my above about the mandate being a tax–it seems like an ordinary direct tax, not a tax on income. But it could be considered a tax on income if Congress simply raised the income tax in each tax bracket for each taxpayer by some amount, and then accepted script in lieu of tender for payment (which is exactly what they are doing). So most people, year in, year out, won’t pay anything, but the tax obligation will *always* be there. thus, taxes *have* been raised on everyone.
And the first second someone loses their job they will have an expenditure, in form of ObamaTax, to make, to replace the employer-provided health-care. Anyone who has been unemployed will know how drawing down one’s limited reserve of capital feels. Thanks to Progressives, they will have no choice.
Presumably, also, everyone in America will have to file a return now, regardless of income earned for the year.
The thing that struck me the most was the picture on the cover of the NYT after the decision came down. A dual picture with supporters on top and opponents on bottom. The supporters were a pack of kids visibly yelling, one of whom could not have been more than 21 with his iPhone in hand and braces visible. That young man likely has never paid for a thing in his life much less actually paid taxes. The opponents were two older women visibly distraught at the decision. I like to think that at least one person told Justice Roberts that he was acting like a tween girl upset by a twitter troll. Would that be beneath the other Justices? Probably and really the other justices as serious jurists should not even demean themselves by speaking with someone who has so grossly discarded his oaths and responsibilities. Pressured? By the NYT? Pathetic.
Didn’t Dread Justice Roberts say he was going on an exotic vacation?
I wonder if he would’ve been able to take that same vacation if he’d decided the other way.
The coward is hiding in the impregnable fortress of Malta.
He should be forced to stay there for the rest of his life.
– Knights.
“Roberts at the Bat”
Oh, somewhere in this wide world the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in America – mighty Roberts has sold out.
(with apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer)
Re this sentence:
“CBS News is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his position on the Court’s Affordable Health Care vote, after initially siding with conservatives.”
I’d be suspicious of anything so important as this apparent “insider” information from the precincts of our Supreme Court being “reported” by the likes of CBS News. How does CBS News “know” this to be factual? This reads like a plant from the NYT. That’s not a compliment. What about the traditional secrecy inside the Supreme Court?
We must all pray that our rampant politicizing of everything has not penetrated the Supreme Court. If so, then we’ve nothing left of “integrity”. There’s no check or balance left in our government as it stands now.
Nobody knows what was in Roberts mind. It’s also possible that he is right in his approach. If he was a well known guy with a lengthy track record like Romney or many other politicians, I would say have at him.
But he isn’t well known, and his views are not well known. It’s fair to say he’s no Nancy Pelosi or barack obama. Maybe he is a secret liberal or another guy who lets the Slimes lead him around by the nose, but until I see an analysis that proves it by citing a lot more evidence than this ruling, I’m not going there.
Moreover, he is in a position where people are not usually susceptable to the typical things that scum-bag politicians go for. His appointment is for life. If he wanted to be a gazillionaire, he wouldn’t have accepted an appointment to the Supreme Court. He certainly has a lot of influence, but it is hardly the kind of influence the scumbags seek out. It just doesn’t make sense to suggest he is some kind of liberal mole.
People are making a mistake savaging him because of one decision, particularly a decision that can be intrepretted half a dozen ways, at least.
I think that in the judging business a decision that can be interpreted half a dozen ways is at least poor craftsmanship. I’m glad he went to law school instead of medical school.
That’s a sensible approach.
If those 2,770(?) complicated pages haven’t been read by Miss Nancy and the rest of the lemming-Democrats, even Obama Himself, we (unwashed public) still do not know what’s in them. I trust that Roberts read them carefully with his Clerks.
I’ve read here and there that Roberts may’ve been just canny enough to do that which seems to be inexplicable to us Conservatives to give the Liberals just enough rope to hang themselves. Right now, we can’t know very much…..least of all, we shouldn’t attach too much credence to any reporter on the CBS payroll.
I’m rusty on civics…maybe this is the time for all of us to brush up…but the Republican House always has the national taxing power.
Hopefully some canny lawyers (!) on the Republican side of the aisle can come up with a parliamentary procedure (see the WSJ this morning) to thwart those smug Liberals under the House Rules.
The fallout from this decision will be accumulating for a long time. It’s too early to “know” what Roberts was thinking.
The immediately terrible lesson apparent just now is the danger to this nation represented (no pun intended) by Obama and his scheming Liberals.
Analogy One:
At the end of a long day, Wife wants to go out to dinner. Husband is tired and wants a home cooked meal followed by some relaxation in front of the television. Discussion and argument ensues. Husband finally agrees to go out to dinner, as long as he gets to choose the restaurant. Wife agrees, thinking that she has won the argument.
The choice of the restaurant entails numerous factors of the husband’s choosing: price, type of cuisine, distance from home, whether it is a busy restaurant or a quite little bistro, good service or bad, whether the restaurant will take a check or not, etc., etc.
Justice Roberts gave in on the idea of going out to dinner, but then carefully orchestrated all sorts of factors in his ideological favor. (Because he sided with the majority, he chose who was to write the opinion. He chose himself to write the majority opinion. By affirming the Affordable Care Act he, arguably, saved the Court’s legitimacy. By writing the majority opinion, he set numerous traps for the liberals and their long held beliefs. Traps which have yet to be sprung.)
Nevertheless, just like the Wife, the liberals feel they won the argument.
Let them.
Analogy Two:
George Armstrong Custer split his cavalry forces in two. He commanded one unit as he approached a large encampment of several tribes of native Americans encamped along the Little Bighorn River. A small party of warriors engaged Custer and his detachment. The warriors retreated. Custer and his men hastily pursued these warriors knowing that victory was within their grasp. Custer, in his haste refused to await the large army of foot soldiers and supply wagons several miles behind him. Custer just knew victory and glory were within his reach.
Temporary, tragic, glory was handed to him, along with his scalp. History has weighed Custer’s impetuosity as a failure of his character and a dereliction of duty to his men. Victory, instead, went to the native Americans encamped along the Little Bighorn River.
[Ultimate victory in the Plains Indian Wars came to the government soldiers at Wounded Knee. (Perhaps it was a penultimate victory. Ultimate victory, in modern day America, seems to have been granted to the native American and his gambling casinos.)]
I am uncertain who played the long game, but it certainly was not Custer.
Analogy Three:
During our Revolutionary War, although we, from time to time achieved some resourceful and stunning victories, our strategy under the direction of General George Washington was, largely, one of tactical retreat. Underpaid, undersupplied, and undertrained, the Continental Army was hardly a match for the British Army, its might, and its battle hardened experience. Yet, with the help of our French allies and its large navy, we bottled up Britain’s Cornwallis at the battle of Yorktown. The war came to an end. Our independence was achieved.
George Washington played the long game.
Losing the battle is forgivable. Winning the war is paramount. The long game is more important.
Conclusion:
I believe Roberts tactically chose losing the temporary battle in order to assure ultimate conservative victory in the long war. Roberts played the long game. We will know better by this time next year, presumably after a Republican landslide and a legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The final fruits of his labor may take decades to appreciate.
Patience and steely resolve, my friends.
Roberts could have driven a stake through ObamaCare. Now it’s at best a toss up if it will ever be killed.
Is it possible to conceive that Roberts, looking at the consequences of striking down this law, saw the rage it would engender on the left, saw the Obama camp pulling out all the stops to “undo this injustice,” saw the near-guarantee of another four years of this dictator? I think overturning this law would have been a pyrrhic victory for our side since the media would have gone into convulsive fits of hysteria to flay alive all things anti-Obama. The death of the bill would have made of it a martyr and its revivifi’cation the hill to die on for liberals.
I personally hate the ruling. But I hate worse that striking it down could very possibly have ensured four more years of the destroyer. I think now, as perverse logic as some may consider it to be, that we have a chance to undo both Obama and the law. It’s certainly what I want to believe. And I do think that the wind has gone out of the sails of the Obama lovers because now they exist in a state of false security. They really have no idea that Americans all over this country are even now prepared to give even their very lives to beat back this Marxist, restore America, and hollow out the progressive infrastructure, so passionately do they oppose this murder of our liberty.
Is it possible to conceive that Roberts, looking at the consequences of striking down this law, saw the rage it would engender on the left, saw the Obama camp pulling out all the stops to “undo this injustice,” saw the near-guarantee of another four years of this dictator? I think overturning this law would have been a pyrrhic victory for our side since the media would have gone into convulsive fits of hysteria to flay alive all things anti-Obama. The death of the bill would have made of it a martyr and its revivifi’cation the hill to die on for liberals.
Which requires god like omniscience.
Occam’s razor says that Roberts is a venal coward not an all knowing oracle.
When reached earlier today, Occam said that Roberts is just the latest Eastern Establishment Country Club Republican to renounce his supposed conservative “principles” at the first indication that he might lose his spot on the Beltway B List (Republicans are really never on the A list – they just don’t know it!)
On the strength of Roberts’ attending Harvard, and I suppose so you, I recall the concept often seen at Instapundit, that our “elites”–to judge by their product–are more merely credentialed than worth much.
I see it confirmed in your post at least.
I have a far better analogy, and it takes so many fewer words.
***
A anonymous falsely accused man is condemned to die by poison in a weeks’ time, and has his pick of strychnine or cyanide. Being a terribly clever Harvard man, he insists instead on a lethal, painless bolus of morphine.
Of course, his cell has been unlocked and unguarded the entire time, and he need only leave, enter the crowd, and go back to his life. This obvious thing does not occur to the Harvard man.
***
Roberts just blew the call, and for no good reason he has seen fit to name. It is not yet explicable in any exculpatory fashion.
I will demolish your assertion Roberts decision can be any good part of a “long game”.
The chiefmost flaw in the Commerce Clause justification for Obamacare is that there was no way, if the CC permitted it, for it not to confer on the federal government a general police power which it is inarguable the constitution is not intended to grant to it. The oral argument made this plain, event to he left, it why they were in a tither these last several weeks.
What Roberts has done is say it is not the CC which makes the federal government unlimited in the scope of the laws it can promulgate, it is the taxing power which does it.
This is does not help obedience to the constitution, if in fact that was his end, as it solely should have been.
He didn’t do his job.
So what are the nuts and bolts, Harvard man, of how this is any part of a long game. How is your analogy made manifest is this case? How does Roberts decision help?
It appears, sir, where the opponent had carefully built an arsenal of nukes to threaten us with since FDR’s court packing threat, that Roberts has now given them VX as well.
I believe CJ Roberts did irreparable damage to Our Constitution, he re-wrote the law, so much for a man who said it was his job to call balls and strikes. He called a balk, then went out to the mound and pitched a strike, he didn’t even give the pitcher a do-over, he tossed the ball and then called Strike 3.
He expanded the taxing power of Congress so they can now tax behavior for not doing something (I agree with the dissent, it is not a tax, it is a penalty. Taxes are for raising revenue not to deliver a punishment for not doing something)
He did not limit the Commerce Clause
He set precedent for Judges to rewrite laws instead of tossing it back to the legislative body. I don’t want to see anymore nominees from Ivy League Schools, I’ll take someone from flyover country.
I have found Mark Levin’s insights to the rulings depressing but realistic, you can download his podcasts from last week, I highly recommend June 28th and 29th for the discussion on the AFA decision and the Monday show on SB1070 is also worth a listen. It was after the SB1070 ruling, I became worried about Roberts. Does anyone else recall when Kagan was nominated to the Court, she was said to be a consensus builder?
http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp
Levin’s book Ameritopia is spot on, we are living in a post Constitutional America
Benedict Roberts Iscariot.
John Roberts has the smallest mind and the selfishist soul and the cowardlest heart that God makes.
ROBERTS was paid off by Obama’s Handler SOROS, no doubt in my mind
…..that’s a terrible accusation.
Terrible maybe, but the hurt Roberts has done to the constitution is worse by far.
So?
Are you implying that because it is terrible, it cannot be true?
Or, worse, are you implying that because it is terrible, while it may be true, we should never say so?
Neither is logical or helpful.
More importantly, the accusation is factually incorrect. The truth is far worse.
Roberts is a mole, a Trojan Horse. He’s always been a leftist. Bush was suckered.
In some respects, the Roberts decision appears to be an attempt to reach out from the cloistered court to smack voters on the head and say, “Wake up.”
By declaring ObamaCare to be a tax, Roberts simultaneously turned it into a neon target and made it more vulnerable.
ObamaCare is an abomination. It must be over turned. Time to roll up our sleeves and make it happen.
No, that is nothing of what he’s done. All he accomplished is to destroy the notion the federal government has constitutionally limited powers. Now the government has all the power to do whatever 50%+1 of the congress critters say it should, as long as they frame it as a tax.
It is a loophole bigger than FDR’s bogus “interpretation” of the commerce clause.
One has to be a great politician to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Are we surprised that the most political of these politicians, the Chief Justice, behaved politically?
What is surprising is the constituency he chose to please. He chose to curry favor from the left, not the Right that put himin power. Does that mean he knows they matter more? Or is he a worse politician than those on the Right had hoped?
Roberts didn’t switch sides.
The time was ripe, the situation demanded it, so the mole was activated and blew his cover.
That’s not switching sides.
Look at his history.
There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on – nothing in prior Supreme Court cases – to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.
Hmm…even if true (big if), there’s always the unforced, common-sense meaning of natural language. Why the need for a pretzel machine next to every gavel? And if it is true, isn’t it part of the SC’s job to fill in the blanks in a minimalist way, without taking the blue pill and jumping down the hole?
Roberts’ defenders declare, ‘Lo, ye peasants below, it’s a Tax!’ to be a brilliant finesse. The peasants demur. My money’s on We The Peasants.
So’s mine!
Honest people don’t need a “pretzel-machine” of “stare decisis’” convolutional capabilities.
The first (and generally only) meaning of a law is held to be the meaning of its plain written language. If that contradicts a “higher law”, then out it goes. Commerce clause contention unsustainable; Necessary clause contention unsustainable; oral arguments (presumably also written briefs) say tax, but the law (which is the proper subject of reference) says “penalty”, for failing to do something “mandated”. That’s it. We’re done. There cannot be a legitimate penalty to enforce an illegitimate mandate, not while subject to any rational higher law.
The tax aspect came from its method of calculation, means of levy, and process of enforcement. So it might be legitimate to view it as a tax, but the law clearly intended it to be a penalty for failing to do the gov.’s bidding. End of case, if you’re a “strict constructionist”. If you’re not, you get out the stare decisis pretzel machine and give the lever two or three twists. Voilá! Congress enumerated powers just vanished. Congress can do anything it wants just so long as it calls it a tax and makes it look like a tax. Then it can lie to the people and write “penalty” for “tax” and the bloody thing is OK. A done deal! — “We LOVE YOUR MONEY!”
My money’s on the peasants when they call to impeach for gross dereliction of duty and misfeasance in office. They too will need a pretzel machine. But, they just were provided one!
Go peasants!
Have a happy 4th! Enjoy the fireworks! — Remember Nov. 6th!
I now see not one but two positive aspects of this debacle. Maybe even three.
All the conservative heat that was directed at McCain in ’08 and was possibly poised at Romney now has a much better target in Roberts. Positive #1.
IF (big if)conservative anger reaches a boiling point this could morph into a call to remove Roberts after the election. It ought, IMNSHO. IF(nuther big if) we can get Romeny to glom onto the idea it’ll create nuclear heat for the election. Positive #2.
It is all to clear to me that this ruling highlighting a tax power the government has always had but never knew until Roberts is the straw that broke the camel’s back. We’re ruined. Yes, we are. All you have between you and complete government control via coercion by taxation is the benevolence of government. Are you laughing yet?
Its time for a constitutional convention. That route is fraught with danger. The route we are on is a suicide ride. I’ll take danger.
that smile of his forever frozen on his face, and when he can’t hold it anymore, it’ll be all over for him.
for those of us still so worked up about it, that’s all over with now, so let’s get right down to business.
Until people realize that BOTH PARTIES are compromised by the globalists this type of disbelief over unconstitutional acts will continue. You have to take this to the state and local level. You do realize that the Constitution was a treaty, that was only suppose to deal with interstate and international commerce and military defences, between the sovereign united States of America, and that it did not create a separate country of the United States of America, don’t you? It was suppose to be something akin to the European Union or, at the time, the Swiss Cantons which were themselves a group of individual States joined in confederation. Each State was to retain it’s OWN military comprised of all the male citizens 18-36, the militia, and there was to be no standing army for the federal government, and the President could only call them up after a declaration of war from Congress was issued. After all Jefferson said,
“There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
because
“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
“Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North’s Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
This is just one Founding Father’s comments on the issue, there is much more to read about it. The federal government was to be subservient to the People and the States.
It is time to put the 10th Amendment to good use. When there is an illegal usurpation of power by the feral, I mean federal, government, it is up to the people of each State to push their representatives at the state level to nullify the illegal “law”. There is an organisation, the Tenth Amendment Center (which you can google), that has model legislation to pass to your state legislature. Oklahoma has already introduced it, and a few others are soon to follow. Pass it on, this is really our ONLY hope in these circumstances. The agents of the feral government will be brought up on grand theft and kidnapping charges for illegally taking your property or arresting you, respectably, in enforcing this and other “laws”.