Regarding the SCOTUS vote that will probably be announced today (deciding on two issues - the Obamacare mandate and Obamacare itself):
4 in favor: the four Socialist amigos will have decided as a block (kind of like a SCOTUS stronghold).
3 against: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (our freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Justices).
Unfortunately, that means only one of the remaining two is needed to decide in favor of Obamacare.
2 uncertain: Kennedy (as usual) and Roberts (suprisingly).
The Kennedy vote depends which side of the bed he rose up the day of the decision. If for some reason Kennedy has voted against both issues, then we still may have a Roberts problem, because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
However, if SCOTUS blows it, the game isn’t over. The states can and must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates.
What would justify nullifying Obamacare? It’s about what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
[T]he Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60.
I think in KISS, keep it silly simple.
Obama failed to qualify as POTUS, everything he thought he had power to do is constitutionally illegal.
Obama care was an illegal act upon America by a fraudster.
Scotus should NOT enforce an illegal act or even support any part of it.
If they do it will further create an image of NO CONFIDENCE of the American society.
——This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself,...-—
My BIL was the dean of a Catholic law school. He told me that law students aren’t taught Natural Law theory explicitly. He seemed ambivalent about it.
I wanted to puke. If the law doesn’t rest on eternal moral principles, then it rests on nothing at all.
Odumbo’s too ignorant and arrogant to realize that option 2 can bite the hand that feeds it.
I found this website last night after watching the “Patriot” with my husband and browing around to find more information. Thus is not advocating individual lawlessness, but advocating state governments, duly elected, to push back against federal tyranny and unconstitutional law.
http://nullifynow.net/ An important way to seek constitutional compliance is to organize widespread civil refusal to comply with unlawful official actions. A precedent for this was the 1783 Pennsylvania Council of Censors, discussed by James Madison in Federalist #48. The objective is to avoid having to launch separate legislation for every usurpation, but to provide a process by which resistance may be mobilized quickly as usurpations occur. The items below concern doing this at the state level for federal actions.
More Details:
State Nullification of Federal Action: http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/nullification/nullcomm.htm
Do we still have enough local citizens and elected representatives with courage in this country to push through something like this? I’m afraid if Obamacare is upheld, that the vise of Federal tyranny will be tightened so quickly we won’t even have time to regroup. I pray that is not the case. If a state did “nullify” a federal law, what would be the feds immediate reaction? The Feds would do something to intimidate both the “council” and the state. Again, do we have enough people with righteous anger and courage to stand up against this?
That’s exactly how I see this going down as well, and it scares me. After the AZ decision it seems like Roberts may be willing to hold Kennedy’s hand whichever direction Kennedy wobbles.
I don’t trust them. There should be no question about this law’s unconstitutionality. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is America’s weakest link at this point. It’s no wonder we’re all sitting on pins and needles. The very rule of law is a crap-shoot, like Russian roulette.
I hope the justices do right.