Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
Slate Scocca ^ | 28 June 2012 | Tom

Posted on 06/28/2012 12:15:09 PM PDT by Lorianne

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last
To: BlatherNaut

His personal “legacy” is The Roberts Tax.


51 posted on 06/28/2012 12:54:30 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

“The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to ‘regulate Commerce.’”

Okay, so it’s sustained under some other power. What have we gained? Nothing. The commerce clause has been a thorn in our side ever since McCulloch v. Maryland, and especially since Wickard v. Filburn, but its not as if its the only thing we care about. So the commerce power does have a limit. So what, if the feds can do whatever the hell they want through other means? The commerce power is limited and the taxing power is unlimited. We’ve gained nothing.


52 posted on 06/28/2012 12:54:34 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
It isn't Bush's fault or Robert's fault, it is OUR fault for continuing to elect this trash and then putting up with it when we don't like what they are doing.

Well, I am increasingly agreeing with your above characterization of the Bush family.

53 posted on 06/28/2012 12:54:46 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Publius
You bring up an interesting point. Congess would be within its rights to levy a $10,000 tax on any abortion. It wouldn't be a fine, it would be a tax.

There you go.

In a very real sense, Roberts has thrown down the gauntlet to liberals.

"You will no longer find sanctuary within the court because we have given you the power to pass any tax you desire. Just put it to a vote"

We have always said that liberals take it to the courts because their ideas are wrong and unpopular.

The ball is now in our court.

54 posted on 06/28/2012 12:58:58 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Publius
You bring up an interesting point. Congess would be within its rights to levy a $10,000 tax on any abortion. It wouldn't be a fine, it would be a tax.

There you go.

In a very real sense, Roberts has thrown down the gauntlet to liberals.

"You will no longer find sanctuary within the court because we have given you the power to pass any tax you desire. Just put it to a vote"

We have always said that liberals take it to the courts because their ideas are wrong and unpopular.

The ball is now in our court.

55 posted on 06/28/2012 12:58:58 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

This is one of the reasons that I will only be a down-ticket in Nov. This particular day had it’s conception and birth in Mass. Furthermore, the tactic of using SCOTUS appointees in order to change my decision has been debunked with this ruling.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”


56 posted on 06/28/2012 12:58:58 PM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Publius

“You bring up an interesting point. Congess would be within its rights to levy a $10,000 tax on any abortion. It wouldn’t be a fine, it would be a tax.”

It could also tax you $10,000 for NOT having an abortion.


57 posted on 06/28/2012 12:59:25 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

This is all nonsense. If a political hack in a black robe wants to find a rationale to justify a particular outcome, then the political hack will find the rationale. It is a fantasy that activist judges are, or ever will be constrained by precedent, or the constitution, or anything else.

All Roberts did with this ruling was join the ranks of activist judges, or the ranks of the other four political hacks in black robes.


58 posted on 06/28/2012 1:01:22 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

All you people under 60 in this country? Sucks to be you...


59 posted on 06/28/2012 1:01:58 PM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old republic
At this rate, the Taxation Clause will be the new Commerce Clause, and using that clause the government won't even need to prove that their legislation substantially affects interstate commerce...only that the government's power to penalize--I mean tax--is legal.

Bottom line, and well said.

One weapon (Commerce Clause) has simply been upgraded for another MORE LETHAL weapon (Taxation).

60 posted on 06/28/2012 1:02:18 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

We will need 61 CONSERVATIVE senators to do anything about this. I don’t know how old you are but that won’t happen in my lifetime.


61 posted on 06/28/2012 1:02:39 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
We will need 61 CONSERVATIVE senators to do anything about this.

I say we need 51. And then destroy the filibuster like they did. Screw it.
62 posted on 06/28/2012 1:04:40 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

Yikes!

I’ve never double posted in my life.

Truly an unprecedented day.


63 posted on 06/28/2012 1:04:52 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
You're absolutely right, that's the most terrifying part of this whole decision. We can now not only be taxed on what we do, but on what we don't do. Imagine a reverse sales tax. You're being taxed on what products you are not buying (which is what the Individual mandate is). Imagine how the government can control you, if it can punish you for refusing to do something that you do not want to do. Imagine being taxed, not for buying a Big Gulp, but for NOT buying a Big Gulp?

What if the government attempts to use this power to force people to do things against their health or conscience? If you don't behave the way the government wants in every sphere of life, you get taxed. If you don't support, if you don't buy cuban cigars, or don't support abortion, then you get taxed because some lobbyists in Congress have persuaded Congress to put a tax on these behaviors. Already under Obamacare we see a moral difficulty being presented to many Americans, since all Americans are being forced to buy insurance, and insurance companies are being required to provide abortions or Contraceptives to all of their customers by the government, this then forces all Americans to subsidize abortion under the HHS mandate which is a violation of many Americans moral and religious beliefs.

64 posted on 06/28/2012 1:06:28 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All

I’m not sure Roberts even read the law. He read the newspapers and ruled based on what the NY Times said.


65 posted on 06/28/2012 1:08:16 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"taxing power is unlimited"

Congressional taxing power has always been unlimited - that's the point Roberts is making. Congress has always had the power to pass taxes - including those on non-activity.

And yet, for 225 years, they never thought to do so, because it would mean certain loss. But now, inadvertently, and over loud protestations to the contrary, Congress has been deemed to have passed on a tax on non-activity.

Even better, it's horribly non-progressive. Rich, middle, poor & homeless are all liable for the same tax. Wait until the 20% who are currently on SNAP and/or receiving EBT cards are on the hook for thousands $ each year. Or the millions of illegals who get away scot free in the cash economy.

But wait, it's gets even better: the DHS cannot unilaterally issue waivers on taxes to favored groups like unions, churches, etc. Nope, this baby is now in the hands of the IRS - the most oppressive TLA besides the TSA.

Roberts just did us a favor by making every person, even the most egregious member of the FSA, now on the hook for an enormous personal tax. How are they gonna react?

66 posted on 06/28/2012 1:08:52 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; steve8714
Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials. Vote ‘em out. Insist upon repeal. Get a majority, and then Senate rules be damned.

So what you are both saying is the SCOTUS has no purpose.

67 posted on 06/28/2012 1:10:37 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Legislators name their own acts. It wasn’t the media that dubbed it the “Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act” that was the name it was passed and signed under.

But I agree with the point your are making. That is why I called “the Patriot Act” the “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel Act”. Who doesn’t like the name? Who is against patriotism?

I imagine some time in the future there might well be a “Defense of Motherhood and Apple Pie for America Act” or some such idiocy.

What is in a name? An Act by any other name would smell just as putrid.


68 posted on 06/28/2012 1:14:11 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Because he took the court out of it and gave it back to the people.>

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Roberts decided firmly with the Statists against Liberty and against our Constitution.

You need to think about the administrative state. It is vast and growing daily. There are nearly 300,000 people who's sole job is to implement this monstrosity.

They aren't going away. Their power and size will only increase over time. It is the nature of States to grow and consume the wealth of others.

Any rationalization of Robert's position is naive.

The power no longer lies with the people. That is now a fiction. True power lies in a growing sadistic bureaucracy that infest all local, state and federal governments.

The only thing to stop the growing soft tyranny is a total collapse of our civilization. There is no longer a way to "legislate" our way back to Liberty.

69 posted on 06/28/2012 1:17:10 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: old republic

Well said! Thanks for your voice of reason.


70 posted on 06/28/2012 1:18:11 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Darteaus94025
Romney won't overturn it. He will weasel out of his statements today, or blame it on Congress.

To many power brokers want socialized medicine.

71 posted on 06/28/2012 1:20:14 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Well, if we are going to live in a “any and all taxes are fair game” system, then I’m going to have to go stealth and defend my personal finances against the thieves. I used to have a moral objection to tax cheating; I now no longer feel that way.


72 posted on 06/28/2012 1:21:17 PM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Roberts did not rule in favor of the law, only that it was not unconstitutional. Laws can be overturned, constitutional or not and this one should be. He did, however, restrict the authority of the legislature under the commerce clause. Obamacare has an unknown future. It is a bad law and should be repealed and this congress and future ones will see their powers somewhat restricted under commerce.

Well said.

From Roberts ruling:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

In other words, you (the people) elected the fools who passed this travesty of a tax/notatax/healthcare bill. You fix the mess by voting them out!

In the meantime, he protected the sovereign rights of the people by limiting the expansion of the commerce clause.

73 posted on 06/28/2012 1:23:58 PM PDT by tentmaker (vote for John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va
So what you are both saying is the SCOTUS has no purpose.

If you really want to be Originalist, you have to go back before Marbury. And before Marbury, SCOTUS had little purpose.

Would you prefer a stronger SCOTUS....or a weaker one?

74 posted on 06/28/2012 1:26:13 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

“WHO put them in Congress? .... it wasn’t Roberts. If folks who respected the Constitution & truly had America’s best interests (not their own i.e. re-election for power & goodies) were elected to Congress, Obamacare would not have seen the light of day & we never would have gotten to this point. It isn’t Bush’s fault or Robert’s fault, it is OUR fault for continuing to elect this trash and then putting up with it when we don’t like what they are doing.”

Well said! I’m so tired of hearing people say I’m going to vote for him because his dad was such a good rep or senator or whatever, they don’t look at what the person really stands for and how they handle the job. I guess I’m po’d and running everything together. I don’t care if it’s my brother, elected office like welfare was not intended to be a profession, just a short term job with no benefits.


75 posted on 06/28/2012 1:30:45 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (We're an Oligrachy...Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: semantic

You and I are in agreement.

Let us suffer the slings and arrows together.


76 posted on 06/28/2012 1:32:35 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Complete utter BS! He could have kille dthe entire thing, but chose not to. Period. We are screwed.


77 posted on 06/28/2012 1:32:48 PM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Correct me if I’m wrong, but having defined it as a tax, Roberts ensured conservatives would not need a supermajority to overturn it.

Plus, Just think of all of the useful soundbites of OMinions swearing up and down it is not a tax.


78 posted on 06/28/2012 1:34:04 PM PDT by Katydidnt ("...the greatest of these is love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick
I have long felt that it is the patriotic duty of every American to pay as little in taxes as the law allows.

But I think the Constitutionality of such a tax is still subject to debate - but via the law - one must first PAY the tax to have standing to challenge the tax.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Is the 0bamacare tax a tax on income? If a business or individual lost money that year - can they be taxed via a “fine” on income they didn't earn?

79 posted on 06/28/2012 1:34:55 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
Ha! Ha!...and all those Conservatives thought I would walk the line...
80 posted on 06/28/2012 1:36:25 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Under 50.

Or anyone who has no debt and can live on a modest income will take the federal subsidy for their health insurance cost and will retire, work part-time or off the books.


81 posted on 06/28/2012 1:39:05 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker

Absolutely right.

But you see, many here don’t really like the rule of law much when it goes against their ideology. If a liberal judge “makes law” we rant and rail against “judicial activism”, but when they obey the constitutionally-defined mandate of the court system as Justice Roberts succinctly describes, they get mad and call him nasty names.

The source of laws, good and bad, is the legislature, and legislators are chosen at the ballot box. We should feel fortunate to have judges like Justice Roberts who resist the urge to overstep the boundary, even when the result is that we must turn our efforts toward repealing this horrible law in Congress.


82 posted on 06/28/2012 1:42:19 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

Or they could levy a tax on NOT purchasing an abortion.

The precedent is set more for the latter (as tax on not doing something).

This is more the direction we are heading in with all the globull warming stuff.


83 posted on 06/28/2012 1:42:54 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Roberts = another screw-up by Bush 43.


84 posted on 06/28/2012 1:43:39 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Chief Justice Roberts is brilliant! He considers individual mandate and penalty is the form of a tax, therefore, it requires Congress to pass a new law to abolish it.

There is no need for Supreme Court decision on this issue in the future.

We need to elect a new Congress and we only need simple majority in both houses when it comes to tax.


85 posted on 06/28/2012 1:45:16 PM PDT by God-fear-republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob; tentmaker
I agree with you two.

Too many here are in the "Let's throw their rascals out so we can put our rascals in" camp.

Roberts has said, "Put on your Big Boy Pants and vote for the government you want".

86 posted on 06/28/2012 1:46:16 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Roberts has made a very sly ruling that will definitely help in defeating the Left. This ruling has emboldened the Tea Party, the Catholics and the Libertarians. I predict after everyone calms down this will be apparent.


87 posted on 06/28/2012 1:46:56 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
The right thing to do would be to rule against the commerce clause and this particular law. He should have done both.

My only thought requires a tin foil hat, this is so against his judicial philosophy in the past, the man has either flipped or he was blackmailed.

88 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:30 PM PDT by Lakeshark (I don't care for Mitt, the alternative is unthinkable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Would you prefer a stronger SCOTUS....or a weaker one?

A stronger court that would shoot down all the progressive crap. The SCOTUS has let all this crap go on for centuries, it should be called the supreme disappointment.

89 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:20 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
We are now their slaves.

Obamacare is the American equivalent of a certain enabling act of Germany in 1933. Since the rats know what to do with power, it marks the end of our republic and beginning of a totalitarian state.

90 posted on 06/28/2012 2:08:40 PM PDT by Jacquerie (The American Revolution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
The right thing to do would be to rule against the commerce clause and this particular law. He should have done both.

Doing both blunts the effect of the first because then the charge of "right wing judicial activism" holds teeth.

By doing this, Roberts is held as a non-partisan, wiser than a Latina woman judge, all while knocking out the underpinnings of the usual liberal refuge.

Whether a devious clever scheme or a blunder, I believe that Roberts has delivered a Trojan Horse that the liberals have to walk into their camp.

91 posted on 06/28/2012 2:14:27 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: central_va
A stronger court that would shoot down all the progressive crap

I'll put you down in the "Its not wrong if WE do it" camp.

92 posted on 06/28/2012 2:19:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: old republic

What I learned today is, just like you said, that Congress can pass any law under any guise and the Supreme Court will allow it and call it a tax for them.

So, what is the point of judicial review if the only review by the Supreme Court is the admonition to throw the bums out ?

Fix it yourself. We are just being paid to sit here in our black robes.


93 posted on 06/28/2012 2:49:41 PM PDT by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

“It could also tax you $10,000 for NOT having an abortion.”

It could also tax you $10,000 to be a Baptist, $5000 to be a Methodist, and free if you’re Muslim. You still have the constitutional right to practice your religion - but at a cost.

There is nothing or no “Right” to which this could not apply.

This court has not limited Congress. It has only bent over and declared itself obsolete.


94 posted on 06/28/2012 2:57:58 PM PDT by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

If his job is not to protect us from a Congress that ignores the Constitution, then he has no job at all.


95 posted on 06/28/2012 3:13:53 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
We will need 61 CONSERVATIVE senators to do anything about this. I don’t know how old you are but that won’t happen in my lifetime

nope, because it is now a tax issue, 51 is all it takes!!!

96 posted on 06/28/2012 8:05:53 PM PDT by terycarl (lurking, but well informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No, I think his purpose was political, to get Obama out of office as fast as possible and perhaps restore the primacy of Congress.
Now let’s see if any of these executive orders come to the Court.


97 posted on 06/29/2012 5:19:09 AM PDT by steve8714 (Who didn't already know Obama was our first gay President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: semantic

“Congressional taxing power has always been unlimited”

No, it hasn’t. If you’ll remember it used to be that they could only raise them for the purposes of carrying out their enumerated powers. Before the Helvering decision, that is. Then they could only tax to promote the “general welfare.” But of course SCOTUS never struck down a law thereafter for promoting the welfare of some particular group as opposed to the nation as a whole. They left it up to Congress.

It also used to be that they couldn’t lay direct taxes, and that taxes had to be apportioned among the states. That is, until the 16th amendment. But that amendment only empowered them to tax income. Poll taxes, so far as I know, are still illegal. Since when can the feds lay a tax on the head of a man who has no insurance coverage?

Beyond that, there is a difference between engineering certain behavior via taxes/penalties and mandating behavior which is to be enforced via taxes/penalties. This may be a slight point, but I don’t see how they justify the mandate. To my mind it must at most be implied.


98 posted on 06/29/2012 10:40:50 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; Jack Black; Alberta's Child
It also used to be that they couldn’t lay direct taxes, and that taxes had to be apportioned among the states. That is, until the 16th amendment. But that amendment only empowered them to tax income. Poll taxes, so far as I know, are still illegal. Since when can the feds lay a tax on the head of a man who has no insurance coverage?

Exactly. Roberts only said that Congress has the power to tax; he didn't rule on the constitutionality of this particular, undefined tax. So what kind of tax is it? Oh, you say it isn't actually stipulated? For example, if it's not an income tax, then how can income levels be used to apportion the tax? Do they do this for property or sales taxes? How can Congress excuse itself from any tax?

The exemptions & waivers that were being granted by the DHHS were applicable only if the mandate had standing under the broad discretion of the commerce clause. Now it's been placed back in its proper context, which is nothing more than Congressional taxing power. But calling a tax a "penalty" is not just an exercise in semantics. Taxes have a real, legal meaning & basis. Obama wasn't just playing around for political points - his team knows what the real stakes are.

If the tax itself is ruled to be unconstitutional, Congress has the power to go back and amend it so as to conform to either the XVI or some other underlying principle (eg property taxes, tariffs, etc). So what if Congress doesn't amend, but lets a decision stand? That's right, it dies right there & then.

Is there anyone out there that gets what's happening yet?

99 posted on 06/29/2012 11:19:44 AM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: semantic

I should add also, if it isn’t clear, that just because the taxing procedure is proper does not mean it’s constitutional. Let’s assume somehow the mandate penalty is not an illegal direct head tax. Let’s assume it’s an income tax, or whatever. Does that mean Obamacare is constitutional? no, because you can’t raise taxes for any old reason. And the spending that follows taxes cannot be justified by the power to tax without reference to what the taxes are spent on.

Taxing has to be constitutionally justified on the basis of how you’re going to spend it, too, not just on the procedure. You can only use the means of taxation for constitutionally allowable ends. That means the tax has to be in pursuance of the enumerated powers. The federal government taking over the healthcare industry is definitely NOT justified by the taxing power alone.

Of course, all of this is true for the Old Constitution. You know, the one that limited government and promoted liberty more than power. Since the “switch in time that saved nine” that Constitution is dead. See in particular the Helvering decision, which justified Social Security taxes on the basis of the “general welfare” clause, and Social Security spending on the basis of Social Security taxes. Helvering, needless to say, is up there with Dred Scott, Korematsu, Wickard, Kelo, etc. as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever.


100 posted on 06/29/2012 11:34:06 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson