Here is my take (keep in mind I have only read the first few pages of the decision, more goodies are probably located within)
The libs have been using the commerce clause since roosevelt to push their agenda through... the courts have backed them up.
They have also used the Necessary and General clause to push through their agenda... the courts have backed them up.
They have also slowly eroded states rights... the courts have backed them up.
All 3 of these items were the “sledgehammer” that the commies and socialists used to force their agenda through.
No more. Roberts took that sledgehammer away and gave them back a one ounce tack hammer.
The states were not allowed to opt out of fubocare without incurring a large financial penalty. Roberts tood that penalty away, allowing the individual states the opportunity to opt out. Victory for states rights.
The commerce clause cannot be used to create commerce in order to regulate it. Victory for conservatives and reaffirms the power of the court to rule out legislation that uses this clause ( most if not all the libs premier social programs were passed this way, no more ).
The Necessary and general clause can no longer be interpreted to include any damn social program the libs see fit to pass. Victory once again for conservatives and constitution loving people everywhere.
As for the tax thing, the congress has ALWAYS had this power. They got nothing extra or added because of this ruling.
All this means is that anything they pass from this point forward has to be called a tax. The genie is out of the bottle, and clarity in government will be the result.
Roberts hoodwinked the shit out of the libs, and has restored more constitutional limits on government than any other justice before him.
My guess ( and this is only a guess ) is that the libs wanted this thing so badly that they were willing to do ANYTHING to have it upheld. Roberts saw the opportunity and took it. The disgust of the old bag ginsberg regarding his majority opinion is enough to satisfy me that this was the case.
I firmly believe that you get the government you elect. With a lousy 50% turnout getting called heavy, it turns my stomach. Roberts took the opportunity to slap down the voting public, rightfully telling US that it is our responsibility to elect people that represent our views. He is 100% correct on this count.
In order to change the way this government functions will take at least 80 to 90% turnout at the polls.
Roberts struck a major blow for constitutionalism yesterday. Now, it is our turn.
I don't see how this is possible. When have they been able to tax anyone/everyone just for living and breathing? I agree with the other assessments, but this one (and you're not the only one who's said this) makes no sense to me.
You brought some clarity I had not seen. Thank you very much. The only thing you mentioned that I had seen, and I really appreciated, was this statement by you:
“Roberts took the opportunity to slap down the voting public, rightfully telling US that it is our responsibility to elect people that represent our views. He is 100% correct on this count.”
And his statements to that effect within the decision itself was the truly sweet part of this.
I very much enjoyed reading your post and your reasoning. I am trying to find some positives in Roberts’ ruling. Sometimes I wish some of the wiser legal beagle Freepers could do a point-counterpoint.
For example, Freeper Buckwheat surely does not see your sliver (I meant sliver not silver) of linings, and I’d like to hear your point counterpoint to his argument which is also substantial regarding limitations on the commerce clause.
I agree with his point that you just can’t tax everything. Doesn’t it have to have some constitutional basis otherwise we are just paying 9 black robes to sit in black robes ?
Taxing power or commerce clause - does it really make any difference if we still wind up screwed and constitutionally violated?
Here is Buckwheat’s argument to be digested and compared to your equally astute observations.
“The Roberts opinion is the Wickard of our generation.
You will recall that Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) “vividly re-imagined” the Commerce Clause so that it covered a farmer growing a crop for his private use on his own land. In this case the fact that he was growing grain to feed to his own livestock and because he was not going to put that grain on the market, he was somehow possibly going to have an effect on interestate commerce and that gave the federal government the nexus for regulating the crop.
Wickard plagues us today. Most recently in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where a the Court ruled that a person, growing marijuana on her own property with her own soil somehow was engaged in interestate commerce.
In Raich, the court said, “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial,’ in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”
Now we have an expansion of this treasonous logic, for if government can wrap anything in an activity that can be taxed, then it too is legitimate, no matter how extreme.
I would point out that taxes must only be levied for legitimate government functions, and those come from the enumerated powers. In this ruling, the Court stated that ObamaCare could not be justified under the ever-elastic Commerce Clause. In doing so, they admitted it was not found in the enumerated powers. But since it was suddenly a tax, the tax could be levied and the law could stand.
So, in my opinion, this ruling is treasonous because it devises an end run around the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”
“As for the tax thing, the congress has ALWAYS had this power.”
Wrong. They have never been able to tax INACTIVITY. They have had the power to tax the states (fair aportionment or whatever), implement excise taxes (tax activity) and tax income of any sort (16th ammendment.)
By instituting a new ability to tax INACTIVITY, we have just removed any remaining limits on the Federal Government. In addition, we have no legal remedy to fix this Constitutinal Crisis!
America died yesterday...she was already severely wounded, but we now have no legal recourse to “re-limit” the federal government’s reach.
You are delusional. Roberts usurped congressional authority to write tax code. He called a penalty ( a fijne if you will) a tax. A fine is imposed as punishment. The government MUST prove that I broke the law before they can fine me (impose a penalty). I get a day in court. Ruleas of law apply. A tax is levied and if I believe it is unfair or unjust I MUST prove that I am innocent. I may or may not get a day in court. Moreover I have to pay the tax before I can appeal the tax. What the court has done is to allow the government to force you to do whatever they want or they wil impose a fine that can now by called a tax. The Constitution is very specific about taxing authority and what can and cannot be taxed. This violates that portion of the Constitution which apparently does not to bother Roberts.
We are so screwed. Do not delude yourself there is NOTHING good from this. With Roberts implied taxation ability the government no longer needs anything else to force compliance. Roberts has over turned 200 years of SCOTUS doctrine. The Marshall court settled this early on. The power to tax....etc
Roberts is a liberal/marxist.Roberts rewrote this unconstitutional,socialist, big government, monstrosity of a law to justify it. Roberts should be impeached. This moron ended freedom .And people are looking for silver linings. Enjoy paying 22 new huge taxes, turning a huge part of the economy over to the government, becoming slaves of government, losing our individual liberty? Nothing is worth that.Now we have to pay $3000 per year in new taxes.
Roberts could have done all that and struck the bill down.
So, why did he give the bill Constitutional approval?
As you have done consistently, you overlook the vastly larger issue that historically has done far more damage - the willingness of Supreme Court justices to re-write the meaning of words to get the ruling they want. Interstate commerce is extended to include activities that involve neither commerce nor interstate movement. A right to abortion is found where none exists. And now this.
Obamacare is not a tax. It is a combination of mandate and penalty, under any sane reading of the law and the dictionary.
Roberts could only uphold Obamacare by engaging in judicial alchemy and making something into a tax that is not such. And if you have the power to change the meaning of words, then power is unlimited, because you can twist any section of the Constitution to fit the usurpation at hand.
To be a conservative...to be a FReeper...doesn’t mean one HAS to be pessimistic about this Supreme Court decision. I am choosing to agree with your post and believe it to be a fair assessment from a glass-half-full perspective.
I prefer that we channel our energy into correcting wrongs rather than lamenting every turn of events, especially when we really do not know the ends of the matters yet.
Doom and gloom may be headed our way fast enough; do we really need to hasten the end of American freedom, as so many FR posters seemed resigned to do? What if this really is an opportunity for conservatives to make a difference for the good cause?
Again, thank you for your encouraging post.