This man is a dip-shit of epic proportions. Just because he occasionally gets the obvious, does not denote brilliance.
Since Marbury finding the constitutionality of law has been the province of SCOTUS. Jefferson and Madison sought earlier to declare that power as belonging to the states, but it was clear any state might find a law it disapproved of and create a constitutional issue to nullify it. That course would lead to disunion. SCOTUS has been accepted as the arbiter of the Constitution even though decisions like Scott and Plessy have not been just. Roberts reasoning in the current matter may be faulty and convoluted but under our current procedures for determining constitutionality his decision is the final word unless or until SCOTUS revisits the issue.
I like your dissection of the ‘law of the land’ legality. I just wish some constitutional lawyers would put it in action and get this mess thrown out before its too late.
As to Krauthammer, he is not a lawyer and suffers the same ignorance of the application of the constitution as most of us. Scott in Florida stated it is the law of the land....and caved.
I fear it is already too late to do anything, especially with the nanny gov’t mentality that the majority seem to adore.
A large segment of the American people who now have health insurance come next year will be standing in long line at free clinics.
Obama must have promised Kraut a souped up wheelchair if he started supporting ObamaCare
Liberal GOP love ObamaCare....do not be fooled folks. Note that the GOP is doing nothing to overturn ObamaCare
Since "pursuance" can mean simply "the execution of something", this can be read to say "laws brought about by congress as it executes the law-making authority found in the constitution."
Now, as to whether or not John Roberts is wrong, I would agree with you. No way in the world is a penalty a tax any more than an imprisonment is a tax.
Therefore, on the point about the legality of Obamacare as the "law of the land", it is true that the law-making process was followed. Approved by House and Senate and signed by the president.
As to whether the law is constitutional, I continue to believe it is not, and 4 Supreme Court justices agree.
The complete shi! has not hit the fan yet. Maybe soon.
The origination clause of the constitution also provides entirely sufficient grounds to strike the law down, assuming we ever get enough members of the SCOTUS with the spine to endure the scathing editorials which would appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times. (I'm not holding my breath.) If, as Roberts pretzel-twisting logic found, the mandate is a tax, and not a penalty, then the constitution mandates that the bill must originate in the House of Representatives. Instead, it originated in the Senate.
Boy, I caught him last night and watched the total cave of Kraut...
He reminds us so often of the chipping away of our God-given rights yet seems to be the first one who caves...for an ex-shrink, he needs some analysis....
First in with WDDIM?
JWK, I wish you were there when Medicare came in. That was certainly no more constitutional than Obamacare, but only Barry Goldwater stood up against it. Government control of seniors’ healthcare is one of the things that got us into this mess.