Posted on 06/29/2012 4:55:10 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Oh, how far we’ve deviated from our Founders in just over 200 years.
The entire country is pouring over an incoherent, internally contradictory, ill-conceived and politically motivated decision by Chief Justice Roberts, which grants Congress the power to regulate anything that moves and the power to tax anything that moves and anything that doesn’t move.
Amidst the garrulous analysis from the conservative pundit class on the Roberts decision, there is a one-page dissent from Justice Thomas (in addition to his joint dissent with the other 3 conservatives) that has been overlooked. The joint dissent with Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy focuses primarily on taking down Roberts’s tax powers jurisprudence and Ginsburg’s opinion on the unlimited power of the Commerce Clause. Thomas felt there was a need to add one point. Not only was Roberts way off the reservation by rewriting this law as a tax and concurrently expanding the tax power of Congress, he was also wrong about the Commerce Clause.
Take a look at this paragraph from Thomas’s dissent (last two-pages of pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
"I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545"
As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity...
Here’s what James Madison had to say about the Commerce Clause in a letter to Joseph C. Cabell in 1829:
" For a like reason, I made no reference to the “power to regulate commerce among the several States.” I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and
was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government "
Madison is bemoaning the expansion and misconstruing of the Commerce Clause circa 1829! One can only imagine what he would say about our entire domestic policy in 2012.
The reality is that not only is Obamacare unconstitutional, almost every discretionary department, welfare program, and entitlement program is unconstitutional. Obviously, we cannot repeal each one overnight and must deal with them prudently, but we must not buy into the notion that the prevailing view of federal power over the past 80 years is sacrosanct. It’s not. We get our rights from God, not from the government, and not even from the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government a few enumerated powers. We must not let the views of one unprincipled man in a black robe – or even decades’ worth of misguided court decisions – abrogate our founding documents.
James Madison would be proud of Clarence Thomas.
eat, drink and be merry, baby.
I 'spose dems unconsteetoshunals too?
Justice Thomas fails to see the “silver lining” of the Chief Kangaroo’s ruling. He is clearly too dense to understand that Roberts gave conservatives a “major victory”. It’s time that george Will offered Mr. Thomas a spot in his pasture reserved for conservatives who haven’t “grown”. Bob
How can Thomas and Scalia even talk to the commie now? I don’t see how they can even have one iota of respect for his complete sellout of America.
If you haven’t gone to www.zerohedge.com and read the editorial about Guest Post: The Supreme Court And Natural Law, do it now; it’s a good read, but definitely sad and maddening. It’s akin to what Rush said today.
The KardashianCare premise is that there will be no commerce “among the various states”. They specifically prevented crossing state lines to buy insurance in the free market commerce. Each state in mandated to have a system within each state, so the commerce clause (state-to-state or crossing state lines) doesn’t even seem to apply here at all....but I may be wrong.
Madison BUMP
How can Thomas and Scalia even talk to the commie now? I don’t see how they can even have one iota of respect for his complete sellout of America.
If you haven’t gone to www.zerohedge.com and read the editorial about Guest Post: The Supreme Court And Natural Law, do it now; it’s a good read, but definitely sad and maddening. It’s akin to what Rush said today.
Commerce is not economic activity
Public use is not public purpose
A penalty is not a tax.
Taxes must be either uniform or apportioned. The fact that Roberts acknowledges some people are exempt from the tax means it is not uniform.
They couldn’t care less.
The USSC has become a complete joke, they are now nothing more then tools of the coummunist/fascists/progressives.
I hold the court in complete distain, I have no respect for them...
Meaning no disrespect of the other three conservatives on the SCOTUS, I’ll note that Clarence Thomas looks, listens, thinks, and then speaks plainly and wisely. He uses two eyes, two ears, and one mouth in the proportions God intended.
ping for later
Isn't that Thomas' point? It's been that way for a long time - each decision adding another cut to the Constitution.
It's not the 1000th cut on its own that kills, but that doesn't much matter once you've died.
An outstanding article.
A breath of fresh air in the midst of the foul stench of so much Romney Republican propaganda.
Well stated.
The Supreme Court’s gutting of the Constitution in the Obamacare case was the bad fruit of the GW Bush administration, no doubt about it. But it was also the first-fruits of Romney Republicanism.
This is the latest in a very long series of unconstitutional laws passed over the past 100+ years.
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.