Posted on 06/30/2012 11:52:15 AM PDT by Starman417
Once I got over the initial shock of the decision Thursday, it became apparent on further reflection that what Chief Justice Roberts had done was not only very patriotic, but personally one of the most courageous political actions I have witnessed in my more than seventy years, or have read about in my personal study of history.
His action in this case rank with those of our founding fathers, St. Paul’s voyage to Rome, and the signing of the MagnaCarta.
It is my fervent hope that before my ultimate passing, that I will see that this will be recognized, and his rightful place in the history of this country assured!
The bottom line is this. The United States now has a governing body that holds itself to be above the will of the American People, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
This governing body has declared war on the American People and our independence for all intents and purposes.
The only real question that remains is this: Are we going to allow this current Regime to stand?
On what possible grounds could you interpret this gigantic expansion of federal power as patriotic?
How is the government going to force people with no money buy insurance?
Robert’s first love is history.
I happen to also agree with your thinking on this. ;-)
One of the points the four dissenters made was to complain that the Court did not sufficiently deliberate the legality of Roberts’ tax analysis, in particular under the direct tax clause of the Constitution.
All of the examples you give, as well as the new Roberts Tax under Obamacare, are in fact a direct (or “capitation” tax) combined with a class exemption.
The tax is assessed on everyone for simply existing, for simply breathing in and out, and then there is an exemption for people who do the specified thing (buy an ipad, buy health insurance, etc). Such a tax is known as a direct or capitation tax, in this case with an exemption. Such a tax may only be imposed by Congress if it is apportioned under the census.
I don’t believe under established and proper canons of statutory construction that the government can lawfully assess a capitation tax that is otherwise unconstitutional simply by tacking on an exemption for a portion of the population from the capitation tax based on their behavior. They cannot transform an unlawful capitation tax into a lawful tax simply by attaching a category of exemption.
Roberts was too busy being too clever by half to do a proper legal analysis under the direct tax of the Constitution and the dissent was right to claim that the analysis was rushed out the door without sufficient deliberation.
I’d be interested in reading your explanation for your praise of Robert’s decision.
I was initially shocked and puzzled by Roberts’ decision also, but now wonder if it’s strategy.
Read here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/curl-roberts-to-the-rescue-for-romney/
This sounds like it was written by some party committee member...Or Communist block captain out of Chicago.
We continually get gang raped by government, then some roll in and tell us it's really love.
If Chief Justice Roberts thought the mandate was OK under the government’s taxing power he should have said so and told them to go back and rewrite it as tax law. But no..in a classic case of judicial activism, he rewrote the law himself. In the process he opened the door to unlimited taxes levied as punitive measures or in an attempt to coerce certain behaviors. One example that comes to mind is a “Natural Disaster Insurance”. The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on disaster relief in the wake of fires, floods, earthquakes,hurricaines, tornados, etc. Just think of the money they could save if every property owner was forced to buy “National Disaster Insurance” to cover any damage from such events. If an owner declined to participate in the program, he could simply be punished with a tax disguised as a fine. The insurance companies could even be directed to pay a portion of any claims to the government to help pay for cleanups that aren’t covered by an owners policy. Surely no one could object to such a policy; after all, it is all in the interest of the greater good of all Americans.
See here:
HURT: The silver lining? Now Obama owns his tax hikes
This 48-hours-plus old article somehow never got posted to FR. But it was near the top of Drudge's page for a long time.
You’re so right.
If Roberts just would have thrown the thing out as it was based on the commerce clause we wouldn’t have all this turd polishing going on.
I don’t think Roberts is any kind of hero, I think he’s a slacker that didn’t do his job, a man scared to take a stand.
One thing Roberts did was cause me to think the whole notion of a Supreme Court might be a dumb one. The system, as originally envisioned by the founders, might have been a good one. But over and over the SC’s been mis-used by the principles.
There’s some understanding that the people given this prestigious position would be honored and would do their job.
I get fired I don’t do my job.
We’re stuck with Roberts and that gang for Lord knows how long.
A start would be to have these so-called wise pundits STOP giving Roberts pretty names.
He’s a slacker.
Talk about the emperor wearing no clothes.
It’s on us, not those elite political pundits, to tell the emporer he’s naked.
CJR crying out: "Don't taze me Bro'!"
So the government seizing all kinds of new powers is a big victory for conservatism??????????????????????????????????
On what planet????????
We all lost on Thursday.
It’s only going to get worse.
There is NO silver lining here. There is NO victory here.
Yes, we’ve feared the liberal, activist judges & this mess is what we got from ours. While it might be to our benefit to call it a tax, in the near future, I fail to see how it will help in the long run. If he did this to just wake us up & get out the vote, it was a cynical, political move. It would be nice to believe he did us a favor but I just really can’t quite see it yet......
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
All the boards I’m on I’m arguing with people who don’t get it: the US Congress can now make us buy ******ANYTHING****** and it’s legal as long as they call it a “tax”.
I can’t BELIEVE the arguments I’m getting from “conservatives” who don’t understand how their government now has COMPLETELY LIMITLESS power!
I feel like I’m losing my mind!
Are there only 5 or 6 of us who get it?
The Republic (as most people understand it) is GONE. We are now a neo-feudal society living at the whims of our government.
So what if we win in Nov? In 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years the libs will be back and they’ll be able to use this ruling to do anything they want. :(
Well the only thing I think that may come of this now is that Obama’s call for a new tax hikes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts is a goner.
Send those morons my list and ask them how those are any different than Roberts’ tax ruling now.
and be so kind as to remind those jerks that the Big Drug Companies were the ones who lobbied the hardest for Obamacare in the first place.
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.