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

To: SJackson
"the limitations on the Commerce Clause that Chief Justice Roberts used his opinion to clearly articulate will endure and may serve as a brake on future progressive initiatives that go too far."

This argument is a complete fail. The commerce clause doesn't matter anymore - the left doesn't need it to establish jurisdiction. After this ruling congress can pass any law it wants, add a "tax" for non-compliance and then rely on Federal taxing authority for jurisdiction. This ruling has removed all restaint on the Federal exercise of power and control. Limiting principal my a**.

2 posted on 06/29/2012 4:45:54 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


bump


4 posted on 06/29/2012 4:51:21 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity
This argument is a complete fail. The commerce clause doesn't matter anymore - the left doesn't need it to establish jurisdiction. After this ruling congress can pass any law it wants, add a "tax" for non-compliance and then rely on Federal taxing authority for jurisdiction. This ruling has removed all restaint on the Federal exercise of power and control. Limiting principal my a**.

Exactly. This decision took a shotgun away from the federal government and gave them a rocket launcher instead.

5 posted on 06/29/2012 4:51:27 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

But as with any “tax”, it can be repealed with 51 Senators in the budget Reconciliation process. No filibuster possible.

Elect a Republican House, President, and Senate (even a tied one), and repeal is possible.

While I would have preferred it be struck down, Roberts just energized the Right and made it much less difficult for repeal.


6 posted on 06/29/2012 4:52:53 AM PDT by RangerM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

Anyone who believes that a liberal supreme court, or any liberal court for that matter, will give any attention to Robert’s limits on the Commerce Clause is a fool.

Their side sticks together on the big issues and shreds, shreds, shreds any conservative precedent.


8 posted on 06/29/2012 4:56:36 AM PDT by Jake8898
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity
The commerce clause doesn't matter anymore

Commerce clause? Hell, the whole Constitution doesn't matter to the Government any more. The very compact by which they were granted power by We the People has been broken. No branch is enforcing it, all branches seem to be in a race to see who can defecate hardest and highest on original intent and the letter of the Supreme Law of the Land.

This government run amok is rendering itself illegitimate.

10 posted on 06/29/2012 4:59:10 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

“the limitations on the Commerce Clause that Chief Justice Roberts used his opinion to clearly articulate will endure and may serve as a brake on future progressive initiatives that go too far.”

This argument is a complete fail.

I agree. First, Roberts has actually made it EASIER for liberals to propose legislation without having to rely on the false commerce clause to get what they want. Now, all they have to do is call the legislation a tax, and voila, it’s a good one. They can do it in baby steps. You want to make tooth paste available to poor people? Simple, just put a tax on every candy bar sold. You want to provide funding for Head Start? Simple, just create a tuition tax on every private day school, etc. You can’t reason with Democrats. If you put up one barrier, they find a way around it, so you have to put up another. Roberts has put up another, out of whole cloth. His fellow conservative judges must be aghast at this acrobatic logic.

Second, Roberts has ignored the language of the original bill and rewrote that language.

Third, why would it have been controversial for a 5-4 vote one way, but not a 5-4 vote the other way? He is just admitting he was afraid of the liberal elite.


19 posted on 06/29/2012 5:19:48 AM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

I agree...there is no constitutional law ..why not dump the supremes..instead of paying them to fill themselves with self importance. I think they had dirt on roberts or made him a deal he could not refuse.


27 posted on 06/29/2012 5:50:21 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

Yes, the ability of Congress to levy a tax on anything they want is *very* recent: When the last state required ratified the Constitution in 1792. In geologic terms, that’s yesterday.


37 posted on 06/29/2012 4:08:53 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: circlecity

>> . After this ruling congress can pass any law it wants, add a “tax” for non-compliance and then rely on Federal taxing authority for jurisdiction <<

but voting to raise taxes is not a popular thing for a congressman to do.

If Romney vetoes this mess, there is no way it can ever be revived without people wanting a tax increase.


45 posted on 06/30/2012 4:51:26 AM PDT by zeebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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