FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open anew and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."
...Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scopethose who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individualmandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms,such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
Right! And Hitler and Togo won World War 2.
Denniston told Yahoo News. "I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court."
He's concerned about public perception! That's a fine way to make a ruling. If he's going to rule based an outside opinion rather than the Constitution, why didn't he look at what the public WANTED, which was NO Obamacare?
The main point is...
Romney +51 Senators and this thing is repealed.
The other main point...
If Obama is reelected, Obamatax would have been the law anyway under “it’s the right thing to do” powers of the executive branch. #SCOTUS be damned.
Since Obama and the rest of his band of thieves had argued it was not a tax, he could have used the same argunent regarding the Commerece Clause in striking it down and accomplished that result. Instead he claimed it was a tax and allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislature to stand based on an argument that wasn't even there.
This "there's a pony in there somewhere" reaction to one of the most dastardly acts against our Constitution in our history is just pure nonsense. Unless we understand the long term impact of this judicial outrage, we will continue to lose our freedom to the statists. Roberts had to come up with some rationale for ruling Obamacare constitutional so he created this monstrosity of a decision--a tax that really isn't a tax.
JUST SAY NO TO OBLOW |
Actually by saying it ia a Tax it makes it easier to overturn since it will only take 51 votes in the Senate to overturn. Only 51 votes required to carry a bill on taxes. So the next election with controlling the presidency, the house and the Senate, its gone.
All the above, but with the caveate:
“you stupid ba$+4rd$ elected this scumbag and the congress that passed this pile of $h1+, so you’re gonna have to deal with the consequences of it yourself... Don’t expect me to clean it up for you.”
The United States of America is soooooooooooooooooooooo screwed.
If he did, he was too cute, by half.
There is nothing positive there. We have been placed on notice that we can and will be taxed for both an action or an inaction, whichever the government deems fit at the time. They just can’t use the Commerce Clause as justification.
The right thing to do was nullify the entire thing, kick it back to the legislature and have them re-vote on the mandate as a tax. But instead, he dispensed with the messy legislative process and wrote and approved it for them..
No Mr Roberts, we don’t need to be save from ourselves, we need to be saved from black robed idiots that forget why the constitution provided the power of making law and levying taxes to the representatives of the people, not yourself.
I hope to read in your memoirs some day that you issued your atrocious Obamacare ruling in order to revitalize the 2010 groundswell of voter disgust with Obama, Obamacare, and Democrats in general.
If this is why you issued your ruling, then I salute you for putting your own reputation in the toilet in order to save the country from another disastrous Obama term. I hope it works.
On its face, however, your ruling will go down as a modern day equivalent of the Dred Scott ruling.
Sincerely,
rustbucket
Roberts revealed himself to be a weak minded liberal who believes in multi-culturism and that to deny Obama his signature legislation would have been an act of racism. As Jonah Goldberg explained it in his book, Liberal Fascism, to be race neutral is to be a racist. Roberts did not want to be seen as a racist.
I guess, it is possible to intelligent and weak at the same time. Without the belief in God given rights, we are caught in the void, where power decides all the questions of the day. Is Roberts an atheist? Was he easily convinced that there is no such thing as God given rights because he was afraid to stand up and say that he believes in God?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
After a little shaking out, the assessment may be correct. Roberts kept the Constitution out of play. A tax levied by Congress has been settled long ago. Now Obama is in a spot that will be very hard to get away from. This is a very interesting ruling to say the least. It would seem that Roberts could have just as easily denied taking the case based on the same grounds.
BTTT!
Right! And under that logic, the Japs and Germans won World II.