Posted on 05/22/2016 8:56:21 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In 2013 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Bond vs the United States. Posted on the Coach is Right website that year, the following piece made it clear that a ruling in favor of arguments presented by Obama Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli would have a disastrous effect on liberty.
In 2012, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) vs Sebelius (ObamaCare) was considered by many to be among the most significant cases heard by the Supreme Court in decades. On its outcome would depend the continued liberty of the American people. For if our elected officials can force the public to purchase health insurance, what can they NOT demand the American people acquire! The full effects of the unconscionable betrayal of the Constitution and the American public by Chief Justice John Roberts have only begun to be realized.
If the NFIB decision pronounced an effective end to our liberty, the Court's ruling in Bond vs U.S. had the potential to literally end the 240 year history of the United States. For at issue in this case was the following question: When the United States joins an international treaty, may Congress pass laws toward its implementation which violate the Constitution? That is, “When the United States joins a treaty, does the Constitution allow Congress to pass laws to implement that treaty that would normally be unconstitutional?” A “YES” ruling and the Constitution of the United States would effectively cease to exist.
Representing the Obama Regime, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Court that "...once a treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the Senate...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
This may be news to some, but this ruling only affirms rulings from the 70s and 80s which said in effect that the “rights” found in the US Constitution only apply to Treaty Tribes ... while all other enjoy mere privileges which can be revoked at any given time ... Further, Treaty Tribes are designated Special Masters to whatever they chose to enjoy despite any prior claims by others.
Links to some of the basic cases which set this precedent in chronological order can still be found here: http://thepoliticallyincorrectfish.com/pif2/?p=553
With the ACA came the most recent whiffs of the scope of the plan to dissolve the Constitution and implement direct rule, which was implicit and clear to all those effected in the PacNW Salmon Wars of the 70s and 80s. It’s your turn now.
Effectively, they’re suggesting the Constitution has a self-destruct button built into it. I don’t think that was the intent of the Founders when they established the Courts.
I dislike it when people attack Chief Justice Roberts over his Obamacare vote. He did it because of Justice Kennedy’s duplicity, which *made* him do it.
That is, Kennedy wanted to be the swing vote which would make Obamacare the law of the land, giving the left *everything* it wanted, and making Obamacare impossible to repeal.
It would be a 5-4 decision with Roberts on the losing side.
So, by instead voting *for* Obamacare, two things happened. First of all, Kennedy was thwarted (and reportedly was enraged at Roberts for denying him, Kennedy, the “glory” of being the vote that made socialized medicine in America.) But that is unimportant in the scheme of things.
What really mattered was that, by voting *for* Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts could lay the groundwork for its destruction. And he did.
If Obamacare was just ordinary legislation, repeal would be next to impossible, needing in practical terms, a 2/3rds vote of both the House and the Senate, *and* a presidential signature. Bottom line, we would be stuck with it forever, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
But in one of the very few powers of the Chief Justice, Roberts put in the decision that it was a “tax”. In the constitution, it clearly states that taxes must be decided by *simple majority vote*. This means that just 51% of the House and the Senate, with a presidential signature, can *KILL* Obamacare.
So Chief Justice Roberts had a simple choice: vote against Obamacare, and lose, condemning America to socialized medicine; or vote *for* Obamacare, then insert a “poison pill” into it, almost guaranteeing that *eventually* Obamacare will be torn apart and ended.
So, those who criticize Roberts for voting for Obamacare are being stupidly arrogant: that they would rather lose the war than a single battle in it.
A treaty is “primarily a compact between independent nations.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” And the Supremacy Clause provides that “treaties,” like statutes, count as “the supreme law of the land.”
Interesting.
I’ve not seen this interpretation of the Obamacare ruling before.
Food for thought.
> “If Obamacare was just ordinary legislation, repeal would be next to impossible, needing in practical terms, a 2/3rds vote of both the House and the Senate, *and* a presidential signature. “
Uh ...no. That’s not how it works. It takes only a simple majority to pass legislation to repeal and a presidential signature to make the repeal a law.
Legislation passed recently by simple majority vote to repeal Obamacare:
But of course a VETO was expected, so McConnell’s passage to repeal was only a ‘show’ vote.
Where the 2/3’s majority is needed is in OVERRIDING A VETO, but in that case, a presidential signature is NOT needed.
Roberts did nothing heroic. He had another shot recently to scuttle Obamacare but he failed to do so. So he has upheld Obamacare not once but TWICE.
The democrats used the 1934 FDR playbook for ACA where they argued that it was a social benefit for all while arguing in courts that it was a tax. Roberts carried their argument willingly even though arguments of the Commerce Clause were upheld.
Trump has openly pinned Roberts with culpability for Obamacare pointing out that Roberts upheld Obamacare not once but twice. Further, Trump’s SCOTUS picks show that Roberts will become in effect a seat warmer for major decisions in the future.
Made ME think a bit harder.
Much obliged...
That is certainly a novel way to spin what happened, but while I’m not a lawyer, I’m not sure I’m buying it. Since the central question in the case was whether the mandate was a tax or not, it seems that if Kennedy or any other Justice voted for it being a tax, then it was considered a tax. I don’t think that this is under the sole purview of the Chief Justice. I must have missed “the very few powers of the Chief Justice” part of the constitution. Please enlighten us further. Thanks.
But does Roberts saying that it's a tax actually make it so for the purpose of repeal?
PPACA is atrocious (compulsion to contract is illegal) and Obergefell illicit.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts have disgraced themselves and brought disrepute on the Court. They must be impeached.
Very interesting, hope that is why Roberts acted as he did.
Nailed it yefrag...
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.