Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah
....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.
Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open anew and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."
...Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scopethose who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individualmandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms,such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
Sorry.. Not buying it..
Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next? He’s going to side with in on AZ? Opps.
Can’t he (Roberts) just come up with a straight, non-nuanced decision based upon the principles of the US Constitution? All this triangulation is a headache. Wouldn’t we rather just have Scalia, Thomas or Alito write up the correct decision?
The only thing that matters is what they DO.
Just say NO to drugs!
EPIC FAIL!
THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE VOTE WITH THE LIBS?
Rationale of this article has a little merit but is of little comfort. Yes, the ruling did in fact make it clear that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to justify anything and everything that the government does - there is in fact a limit on it - that was a very good thing we have been waiting for...but that doesn’t do much good if you turn around and declare that Congress’ taxing powers can now be used as a replacement excuse to do anything and everything it wants.
The court majority also gave conservatives a major victory by giving states more rights to not participate in parts of the law as well.
That restricts federal power, as does the overwhelming victory on the Commerce Clause that will resonate for decades to come.
The overall outcome IS BAD....IT’S AWFUL THE BILL REMAINS.
But, in the long run, this very well could end up being good for us and the country so long as we can get the law repealed.
I can’t seem to find inthe Constitution where the chief unJustice of the subPreme court is licit in defining what is a tax when the Congress has passed a bill and it is signed into law wihtout being defined as a tax. Can you help me out here? If it is a tax, then little barry bastard commie (Roberts’ boss, obviously) cannot unilaterally exclude whole groups and industries from the lawfully passed tax, so little barry should ne impeached and removed for violating his oath to the Constitution. If it is not a tax then the fool pirate Roberts should have rejected the entire freakin’ monstrosity based upon what he opened with. The man is about as sound as gummy bears.
Roberts is a nuancing fool and tool. Only in spite of his ruling and if concerned citizens act to right this wrong will this be OK. Maybe.
Who cares? By opening the TAX clause he made it worse.
Even Pandora’s box isn’t this bad.
I don’t buy it either. John Roberts called fire in on his own position to save us.
Last ditch and legitimate strategy in some desperate circumstances... not this one, however.
Any court watcher would have said all the courts would have upheld the law if Congress had simply called it a tax.
The government’s huge taxing power has not exactly been at issue here....it’s not like the ruling expands it any more.
I think you are correct about that. I can't wait for the liberals to find out what happens to them when they try to wield it.
What if congress passes a bill that said if is a man you do not marry another man then you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that says if as a woman you do not marry another woman then you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that states that if you do not abort your second child you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that says if a white person does not abort their first child then they must pay a tax?
WHat John Roberts did was give the us federal government unlimited power.
They can make us do whatever the hell they want, and they are sick, twisted, evil people.
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.