As levien is correctly pointing out- sure, we can ‘fix obummercare’ by voting out htose who voted it in (provided there are neouygh peopel who still value our constitution in this country to vote to do so- but how are we goign to fix the constitution that was broken by roberts when he allowed our governemnt to conduct a direct assajult o nthe american peopel for simply existing- the same way our pres is goign after the rich to penalize them simpy,l for beign rich?
Roberts told the country that while congress or a president can’t regulate incativity- they could tax it- but what levine didn’t mention is that the governmet is not simply taxing inactivity, they are fininf and penalizing peopel for inactivity- Last I looked, it was illegal to blackmail someone- yet that is exactly what our govenrment is now allowed to do “You will either buy insurance from us, or we will penalize you until you do”- and last I checked, it was illegal to threaten someone- and that is exactly what our government is doing- they are threatening us with arrest aNd or fien if we choose not to buy insurance and refusign to pay hte fine for not buying it
The governmet tried desperately to get obummercare through by calling it a penalty isntead of a tax- roberts knew that the government could not impose a penalty on someoen for inactivity- so he ‘fixed’ it so that obummercare could now be called ‘legal’ by calling it a tax and declarign that governemnt has the right to tax- which we all knew it does have the right to do (for activity- but NOT for inactivity)- but the plain truth of the matter is that this is STILL a penalty and NOT a tax- it’s a coercive penalty- meant to bully people into purchasing somethign agaisnt hteir will
Our governemnt has the right to impose activity taxes and penalties if those those taxes are not paid- however, our government does NOT have the right constitutionally, to impose inactivty taxes or rather penalties on us- in other words, If I so choose NOT to purchase sunblock for htose tiems when I’m out doors, that up until the roberts decision, was my right to do- howerver, now that roberts has butchered the constitution, our governet does have the right to penalize us and try to coerce us to purchase somethign we don’t want- under the guise of it beign finacially ‘good for everyoen i nthe logn run because soemthign ‘might happen’ unless everyone is forced to purchase’ said products
with a last minute- subjective wave of the magic wand, roberts singlehandedly changed the ‘penalty provision’ to a ‘tax provision’ label so that obummercare could ‘be legal’- i nthe many days of arguments o nthe case, the tax issue was never brought up- roberts, at the last minute, decided on his own, that obummercare could stand because he subjectively thought he could could change the wording to now include tax isntead of penalty- That is akin to me or csomeone else declaring that sky diving is no logner to be called sky diving, but rather it is now to be called underwater scuba diving- simply because we say so- or that prostitution is to no longer be called prostitution (because prostitution is illegal in most states), but is to now be called counselling in order that the prostitutes may avoid goign to jail for practicing hteir illegal profession- but, just because we change the word, doesn’t mean that the true meaning and results of an action is also changed- however, that is preciselty what roberts did- he changed the word- willy nilly- at whim- just so that the pres and the left can avoid being held accoutnable for mandating somethign that is both illegal and unconstitutional
Roberts dfeclared that obummercare is not a tax in order to prevent a challenge to obummercare under the anti injunction act, but then turns aroudn and declares that it is a tax in order that obummercare can be deemed legal- He actually said that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the anti injunction act because congress didn’t call it a tax, but that it really is a tax for the purposes of the individual mandate
And this is our supreme court judge? Wow- Just wow!
This is important, roberts said “Every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconsitutionality” (Even if a statute is unconsitutional apprently) and he even goes on to decalre that his reading is ‘not the most natural interpretation’ or ‘even the msopt straight forward interpretation of the statute’, yet he bases his decision entirely on this jumbled thought process and explanation that even he admits is a little ‘off’?
This the absurd reasoning by roberts- ‘even if congress did not mean or know that the individual mandate was a tax, the court must treat it as a tax if that is the opnly way that the law can be foudn to be consitutional’?
Really? Really Roberts?
Even after the court just got doen saying the mandate was NOT a tax, for the purposes of the anti injunction act, You now declare that it really is a tax just so that the court can save obummercare and impose the penalty for inaction?
Oh, it gets even more bizarre- roberts then goes on to say ‘it is of course true that the act describes the payment as a PENALTY, and NOT A TAX, but while the label is fatal to the application in the case of the anti injunction act, it does not determien whether the payment may be viewed as an excersize of congress’ taxing power’
as levien said, roberts took it upon himself to rewrite =the statute to make it somethign it was NOT in order to save it from defeat becasue that was the ONLY way he could determien that the statute coudl be viewed as constitutional in order to save it becasue roberts felt it is the supreme courts duty to save any statute put forth by any means necessary? Even apparently, igf that means changing words to mean somethign it doesn’t actually mean-
And it gets even better- our governemnt is now goign to use coersion to get the states to ‘accept’ governemt run health care by threatenign to withhold federal funding if the states do not require individuals to purchase the healthcare or if the states don’t dramatically icnrease medicare payments
And as levien points out- all those peopel crowing aqbotu how this was a ‘huge victory for the riught becasue roberts ‘denied the healthcare law from beign enacted udner the commerce clause’ are simply ignoring hte FACT that it would have been doen ANYWAYS had roberts decided along with the other s that the whole law was unconstitutional and left it at that- but nope- he had to step in and save obummercare above and beyond the commerce clause by singlehandedly changing hte word to now mean tax when INFACT it is STILL a penalty!
The real problem here is- for all those saying that all we have to do is vote out democrats in order to repeal the law- is that now the damage is done and it’;s irreversible be3cause it sets a precedence