Posted on 06/28/2012 1:48:52 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.
The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.
The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:
“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”
If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“THIS is the worst piece that I have ever read by george will”
Mark Levin 6/28/12
I don’t know whether the bill has been introduced, but Eric Cantor says they’ll voye on July 11: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html
Souplines will flourish in the churches.
Roberts actually wrote in the opinion that it is not the court’s responsibility to fix policy if he can find it constitutional. That’s up to the voters in elections.
It’s like he invited people in the opinion to elect people to overturn it.
LOL. We got the Court to “think about” limited government. And the ruling class gets Obamacare.
“Does George Will live in the same dimension that I do?”
Yes. But in a galaxy long ago and far away.
What Roberts affirmed is that the congress has the power to tax - no surprise is there? But his ruling made it clear that if congress (the congress that WE THE PEOPLE elected) creates legislation that results in a tax - then by God we're going to call it a tax - not let them use deceptive weasel-words.
As much as we would have liked Roberts to simply strike it down, all that would have done would be to kick the can down the road until an election cycle comes around where the left has the congressional votes - and the Supreme Court numbers - to uphold another version of obabamcare - but under the commerce clause LIKE THEY WANTED.
By ruling the way he did - with a majority of the court - the precedent has been set that using the commerce clause in this fashion is NOT constitutional.
So your gripe is still going to be "so what - we still gotta pay the "tax" that Roberts said was constitutional".
Yep - this is why "we the people" have to do OUR job and make sure that another Obama-liking congress is not elected. We need to hold Congress' feet to the fire and make sure this monstrosity is killed.
And if we get another Obama congress, it is OUR fault - not Roberts.
We the people get the govt - and the taxes - that we the people deserve...
Seems to me that what Roberts did precisely is kick the can down the road....You think the Rats are done with Health Care? They're just getting warmed up. If Roberts sided with Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas, they would have had to go back to the starting point....now they have a base firmly in place to go for their ultimate goal, a completely goverment-run healthcare system.
Yep - and I already made the point in my previous comment.
If WE the people don't rise up and use what Roberts has handed us (the clarification that obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history); if we don't rise up against those who would destroy our economy by taxing us into oblivion - then WE DESERVE OBAMACARE.
And I'll state it again: the point that Roberts made is that a TAX is a TAX (and guess what? the congress that created this law was voted into office by WE the people). If you don't want the tax - then CHANGE YOUR REPRESENTATION.
Congress may levy specific taxes. What kind of tax is this? Is it allowed by the Constitution?
By ruling the way he did - with a majority of the court - the precedent has been set that using the commerce clause in this fashion is NOT constitutional.
THIS COURT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PRECIDENT. Besides, THE 4 JUSTICES IN THE MINORITY WERE WILLING TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
So your gripe is still going to be "so what - we still gotta pay the "tax" that Roberts said was constitutional".
No, my gripe is that TYRANNY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION ANYMORE.
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.