Posted on 02/14/2016 3:29:03 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
There is much digital ink being spewed this morning about Trump being "out of control" at the debate last night.
Well, guess what -- there's a point where righteous anger reaches its boiling point, and perhaps Trump got there last evening. It wasn't just stacked audiences and "enhanced" audio sound effects. It was also the other candidates, including Cruz in particular, who flat-out lied about his position when it came to Chief Justice Roberts.
He said he'd "never nominate him", but in point of fact he wrote an op-ed strongly supporting and praising him for a magazine of national circulation, National Review, when Roberts was up for confirmation!
I'll just quote the punchline:
But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.
He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he’s earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton Solicitors General Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman, and Carter and Clinton Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the latter two of whom both described Roberts as a man of “unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”
As Professor Tribe observed Tuesday night, “It is clear that in the absence of some serious objection that is not now visible . . . he is very likely to be confirmed.”
The Senate should confirm him swiftly.
–Ted Cruz is the solicitor general of Texas.
Of course said "careful, faithful application of the Constitution and legal precedent" then led Justice Roberts to rewrite Obamacare from the bench not once but twice, and further, he re-wrote it the first time into a blatantly-unconstitutional direct tax as it was the only way for him to reach the decision he desired.
Bluntly, "Justice" Roberts not only ignored his oath of office he ignored the very existence of The Constitution in penning that decision. His decision is factually void irrespective of any further lawsuit because, as the Supreme Court itself ruled (and has never been overturned):
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Roberts' original Obamacare decision said, in part:
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”
Note: The individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those (that is, persons) who do not have health insurance. That is the definition of a direct tax.
But The Constitution says (Article 1 Section 2, emphasis mine):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
In other words The United States Government is prohibited from laying a tax on persons except in direct proportion to their population among the states. That is, the government could impose a tax of $20 per person and that's constitutional. But the government cannot vary the amount of tax levied on a person from one person to another; it cannot advantage some and disadvantage others.
There is no such restriction on an excise, that is, a tax levied on an act. But as the court found inaction is not action, in fact it is the polar opposite and thus that attempt was unconstitutional, thus forcing the court to consider the "alternative argument."
But the Constitution leaves no wiggle room for this sort of malarkey; just to make damn sure nobody tried to twist the wording in Section 2 we find Article 1 Section 9 that further amplifies the statement above and leaves no wiggle room for any such "interpretation" (again, emphasis mine):
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Amendment 16 (Income tax) was passed because several other attempts to lay a direct tax on persons of varying amounts (predicated on how much they made) were found unconstitutional. Therefore, post Amendment 16's passage Congress may lay a tax predicated on one's income, and has.
But Obamacare's "penalty", rewritten as a tax, is not levied on income, it is levied on people and their actions other than income and that is black-letter unconstitutional. It is thus, absent a further Constitutional Amendment, void irrespective of what Justice Roberts (or anyone else) says.
Trump had every reason to be off-the-charts*****ed at Cruz attempting to claim that which was blatantly false, especially in the wake of Justice Scalia passing away. That unfortunate event thew the Supreme Court into the center of the debate. Even I remember the OpEd that Cruz wrote back in 2005.
The real outrage is that the moderators didn't immediately stomp on Cruz's neck in this regard. It is one thing to say you changed your mind (ok, the people can judge whether you will again and whether the reason was valid) or even to "misremember." But you don't write an OpEd for a major national publication like National Review and forget about having done so.
Nor has Cruz said one word about how Obamacare was upheld and that it is black-letter unconstitutional irrespective of anyone else's claims otherwise.
Note that there are options available to the Executive in this regard, should we elect a President with the stones to use them. The Executive takes the same oath of office to the Constitution as does the rest of the Federal Government and it could refuse to enforce a black-letter unconstitutional act.
Such a decision is most-certainly not one to take lightly, as it has the potential to rip the nation apart. Nonetheless when one's oath of office is in direct conflict with the actions of a different branch of the government you eventually have to make a decision -- if you have the balls to do so.
Enhanced sound effects in the debate? Hadn’t heard that.
Canned applause and booing, unless microphones were placed in the back. Video and audio of audience reaction didn’t always align.
I noticed that too. Must have been a vocal back row or balconies.
Cruz appears ready to lie when he has a good enough reason.
..Cruz appears ready to lie when he has a good enough reason...
Politics as usual with Ted. Trump was out of control...out of control of the Media, the moderators, the others on stage, the RINOS, the GOPe, and the donor/lobbyist audience,
Karl is off his meds again. Cruz admitted supporting Roberts AFTER he was nominated, but would have wanted his former boss Ledbetter. So falsely accusing Cruz of lying is itself a lie.
Cruz is smart, no question about that, so he’s been running the long con by preparing everyone to believe that he has a photgraphic memory and thus not to question anything he says. Then, when he needs to make something up at need, he’d be able do so without getting called on it - or so he thought.
Cruz is a good lawyer and can stretch the truth as well as any lawyer can. This is not the only thing people think he may be less than honest about. Ted lied about losing his health insurance recently. He lied in FEC filings about loans. Some people think he lied about Carson dropping out in Iowa. I would guess there are other things but I don’t care enough to go look very hard. Cruz is a professional politician. He has been in politics most of his post school life. Professional politicians lie. I do not think it is very surprising when they do.
To say you would have “never” nominated Roberts (even if it’s just because you favored Mike Luttig), but then - after the nomination of Roberts is done, just awaiting confirmation - wrote a glowing op-ed praising Roberts...well, most people would question your definition of “never”.
“most people would question your definition of “neverâ€.”
Were you ever ‘for’ GW Bush. If so you are the most evil person in the universe and should be flayed alive.
I’m just saying, I hope you can live up to the same standards you set for Cruz. I know I for one am always perfect in rendering hindsight judgments.
I was. But I wouldn’t say I would never have supported him either, given that I did.
It’s fine for Cruz to say that, in hindsight, Roberts’ nomination was a mistake. But to give the impression that he would have never nominated him is disingenuous, at best.
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.