Without original intent, there are NO real limitations on what the federal government can do.
The problem for us it that R’s have also supported unconstitutional, big-government legislation for decades. And we continue to nominate candidates who do not believe in limited constitutional government nor their oath of office.
Thursday will end up being as big a Historical event as the German attack on Pearl Harbor.
John Belushi will be spinning in his grave.
Obamacare is an unjust law, and as such is not really a valid law. More on that below.
My take on the SCOTUS vote that will probably be announced today (deciding on two issues - the Obamacare mandate and Obamacare itself):
4 in favor: the four Socialist amigos will have decided as a block (kind of like a SCOTUS stronghold).
3 against: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (our freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Justices).
Unfortunately, that means only one of the remaining two is needed to decide in favor of Obamacare.
2 uncertain: Kennedy (as usual) and Roberts (suprisingly).
The Kennedy vote depends which side of the bed he rose up the day of the decision. If for some reason Kennedy has voted against both issues, then we still may have a Roberts problem, because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
However, if SCOTUS blows it, the game isn’t over. The states can and must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates.
Back to what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
[T]he Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60
The decision is made. Bobocare is going down.
Forcing me to purchase government products sounds like plantation living to me.
Roger Taney was a Democrat!
Maybe because Taney knew the Fugitive Slave Act had already been upheld as Constitutional by an Appeals Court for the US Supreme Court in 1835.
------
In my fantasies, Prissy Crissy's 'living Constitution' actually comes to life and strangles his stupid ass.