This is suppose to make me happy? If they wanted to limit the commerce clause strike down this terrible act AND overturn all the nonsense hung out on it.
posted on 06/28/2012 12:21:57 PM PDT
(If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
The logic of this article seems to be somewhat in denial of what actually happened in this SCOTUS decision today. As I have mentioned on another thread, Roberts has just said that there are essentially no serious limits on federal power, and that the individual mandate--which is clearly a penalty and not a tax--is a tax. Roberts also said that the government could tax things which don't even relate to federal enumerated powers. The Congress no longer needs the Commerce Clause but can now "regulate" (and in this case that means penalize) activity over which it has no authority to directly regulate. Roberts argued this is allowed under the Taxation clause in Art I Sec 8. Congress and the President can penalize any behavior and have the Court construe it as a tax.
Besides, from a pragmatic point of view, does it matter whether the court uses the Commerce Clause or the taxation clause to justify its expansion of power beyond the Constitution's enumerated powers? The result is the same either way, increasingly unrestricted authority is centralized in the federal government, and ultimately in the president. 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. (This will probably not be too hard to do with the SCOTUS redefinition of a penalty into a tax.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson