Replies

“According to Ben, then if Obamacare is a tax as per the USSC, then the bill had to originate in the house.”

All of these articles decrying the legality of ObamaCare, or attacking it on procedural grounds, assume that Obama gives a rat’s *ss about the customary rules and regulations of the American legislative process - or even the constitution.

Clearly, he does not.

And all of the opinions rendered about how the Republicans are going to nullify it later ignore the twin facts that: 1. RomneyCare preceded ObamaCare by several years, and it is therefore highly unlikely that Romney - assuming he’s elected - will do anything at all about this new law; and, 2. The Republicans are a fighting bunch - they’re most certainly not; they’re all out to pasture baaaing while the democrats shear them or simply asleep and serving time while they collect enormous salaries, gigantic benefits, and generous pensions for doing absolutely nothing but posturing for cameras and writing fictional letters home, mailed with their franking privileges, telling everyone what a big job they’re doing.

Hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but when Roberts blew it, it was thereupon destined to stay blown.

Romney might have a difficult time ignoring a Republican-dominated Congress in 2013. If this scenario pans out, there will be a mandate that Obamacare be repealed and since Romney’s not black he’ll be held accountable for inaction. The repeal would have to take place if the Repubs sweep Congress.. No two ways about it. It’s the ‘replace’ part that’ll get ugly because we’ll end up with government intrusion of health care no matter what, to appease the news media. MUST answer to the news media, right?

Why can no one understand the difference between what a State government is allowed to do and what the Federal government is allowed to do?

There is a BIG difference. It is entirely legal for State governments to have this kind of law for it’s citizens. But it is NOT legal for the federal government to have this kind of law for ALL STATES. Not in the same manner as the Massachusetts law was set up, anyway.

The decision by Roberts was poorly thought out and drafted. I wrote a similar article prior to this one concerning the way this bill was drafted in the Senate, though I did not know it was rewrote legislation that was taken from the House.

Here is the article I wrote earlier today about this same matter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900990/posts