Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

http://whitehouse12.com ^ | 6.28.12 | I.M. Citizen

[Whenifhow]

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

[jaydee770]

Who is this author “I.M. Citizen” and what mental defect does he suffer from? It must be a doozy of a handicap because Roberts just set the single worst precedent since Wickard v. Filburn — that the govt can now *COMPEL* you to engage in commerce when you have no need or desire to under penalty of an additional tax.

[jaydee770]

So Congress can tax, no news there

The wealthy will be more free than you are. That is what this precedent has wrought. Roberts precedent says congress can lay & collect taxes to compel compliance simply for you doing nothing but minding your own business. Roberts indicated no limitations on the power to lay and collect those taxes, nor how excessively high those taxes may be. It is limited only by the imagination of congress. When some future ""do-gooder" lib-majority congress decides to micro-manage your existence further (because *they* know what's best for you), the only way to regain your freedom is to buy your way out of it by paying whatever additional-penalty-tax. If you can't afford it, then you risk suffering the full weight & force of the IRS for your rebellion.

Roberts ruling could also bless the imposition of a %10,000 tax on firearms purchases. It's not "infringing" on the 2nd Amendment because you can still buy a gun (if you can afford it). It's just congress "laying & collecting taxes". Roberts *clearly* said it was NOT the SCOTUS' job to protect us from the consequences of the ass-hats we might vote into office -- apparently, even if those consequences are patently unconstitutional. Following that logic, could some future congress (insert some infringing legislation here) if you paid an additional penalty-tax?

Now, we *could* trust our fellow citizens not to elect jack-ass, do-gooder libs to congress and we'll have no worries, right? Except, how do you explain Kucinich, Pelosi, Grayson, Jackson-lee, etc. etc. etc... Dems and Repubs seem to take turns as the majority party in congress. How big of a pair of dice are you willing to roll with that next majority dem congress? And I'm not so sure about the establishment GOP 's propensity for dreaming up meddling ideas either.

You may not be all that worried by the ruling, but I'm reasonably and prudently concerned.