Posted on 07/01/2012 12:19:22 PM PDT by IbJensen
Three months ago, I quoted George Jonas on the 30th anniversary of Canada's ghastly "Charter of Rights and Freedoms":
"There seems to be an inverse relationship between written instruments of freedom, such as a Charter, and freedom itself," he wrote. "It's as if freedom were too fragile to be put into words: If you write down your rights and freedoms, you lose them."
For longer than one might have expected, the U.S. Constitution was a happy exception to that general rule — until, that is, the contortions required to reconcile a republic of limited government with the ambitions of statism rendered U.S. constitutionalism increasingly absurd.
As I also wrote three months ago:
"The United States is the only western nation in which our rulers invoke the Constitution for the purpose of overriding it — or, at any rate, torturing its language beyond repair."
Thus, the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision. No one could seriously argue that the Framers' vision of the Constitution intended to provide philosophical license for a national government ("federal" hardly seems le mot juste) whose treasury could fine you for declining to make provision for a chest infection that meets the approval of the Commissar of Ailments.
Yet on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts did just that. And conservatives are supposed to be encouraged that he did so by appeal to the Constitution's taxing authority rather than by a massive expansion of the commerce clause. Indeed, several respected commentators portrayed the chief justice's majority vote as a finely calibrated act of constitutional seemliness.
Great. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf macchiato in the Supreme Court snack bar.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Thanks, Roberts for lighting what's left of the Constitution!
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/commerce-361220-mandate-court.html
Cheer down . . . There’s no good news in Robert’s decision. Read Steyn’s column.
I love this quote, in a sick kind of way that is......
“The U.S. Supreme Court is starting to look like Britain’s National Health Service — you wait two years to get in, and then they tell you there’s nothing wrong. And you can’t get a second opinion.”
George Will is full of RINO $h!t
Whether you're a tax & spend socialist, a commerce clause collectivist or a 10th amendment totalitarian...you're all an enemy of the individual and of freedom.
Pick a chamber. The powers that be are always playing russian roulette. The gun is always pointed at us. (R.I.P. Brian Terry)
The Law Defends Plunder
Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
RINOS - Republicans Implementing Nuances Of Socialism
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic. Organize the infantry. Bring forth the slingshooters. C'mon November!
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
O.K., Mitt Romney is nobody's idea of a political savior but I have little doubt that he'll move to repeal Obamacare, as he's promised. Ironically, Justice Roberts' made the comment (in his opinion on the constitutionally of Obamacare) to wit: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices” which, in effect, says that Americans who voted for Obama and liberal Democrats in congress gave us this mess and that the Supreme Court is not going to save them (or, apparently, the rest of us) from the consequences of electing Mister 'Hope and Change'. That's up to us, the American voter, and we'll have our opportunity on November 6th, 2012. I can hardly wait.
You’re right. Even Mark Levin said there was nothing good about the Robert’s decision.
I agree and I would point to Mark Levin as my source , there is NOTHING good about this decision.
There were no real limits placed on the commerce clause and now they can force you to buy anything OR TAX you if you don’t comply. Plus Roberts is clearly NOT a constitutionalist or originalist but a judicial activist since he effectively re-wrote the law. We don’t have the conservative majority we thought we had and Roberts is clearly too weak to go up against Obama and the statists on major issues.
The author, Richard Bolen, Esq., gave permission to share this with other blogs. His analysis is below.
I post it in hopes it reaches you BEFORE you thrust your head into the oven or eat your pistol from depression over the Roberts decision.
We’ll probably have to wait a bit to learn if Roberts has outsmarted the community disorganizer and his merry band or Chicago thugs who are probably still hung over from all that taxpayer supplied champagne.
db
Dear Friends,
Attached is my optimist’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision today. Please let me know what you think. Also please feel free to post this on your website or blog if you are so inclined. I have also pasted it below.
Very Truly Yours,
Richard Bolen
The Bolen Law Firm
600 Columbia Avenue, Suite 7
Lexington, SC 29072
(803) 951-2230
(803) 951-2328 (fax)
@RichBolen -Twitter
June 28, 2012
Lexington, South Carolina
To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.
First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.
The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.
Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.
Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.
Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.
Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.
So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.
That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.
Roberts did as much damage to our constitution as Helvering v Davis, Wickard v Filburn, and Roe v Wade.
Obamacare is the rat's Enabling Act. All of our remaining liberties will soon be swept into its vortex.
The problem I believe is that have so many voting freeloaders in our society that we have lost control.
Charity used to be for orphans and widows, now it is for anybody that would rather not work.
Political correctness dictates that we dare not question anyone who demands to live a middle class life on the dole lest we be accused of being heartless, greedy and cruel.
Which means . . . (drum roll) . . . Obamacare is unconstitutional!
According to Levin, those commerce and necessary and proper notes were the opinion of Roberts, not of the court and do not establish precedence.
Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.
Tortured is right, because it is not an excise tax, nor direct tax, impost, nor income tax. Since it is none of these, it is not Constitutional.
So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: blown the lid off limited government.
I guarantee Commissar Sebelius will not rescind her diktat which forces the Catholic Church to provide abortion services to employees. This bold infringement of religious freedom is unaffected by Robert's ruling.
Which brings up the issue of the usurper and the ongoing debate of what the definition 'natural born citizen' means. Perfectly clear to me that Obummer doesn't meet the criteria, his father was a foreign national. That's exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. No divided loyalties.
Thanks for your post. Excellent thoughts from someone looking at it clearly from a LEGAL POV.
I guarantee Commissar Sebelius will not rescind her diktat which forces the Catholic Church to provide abortion services to employees.
You are probably right.
The next problem for the Obamabots in Washington is “What do we do about those 6 million pissed off torch and pitchfork carrying Catholics on the Mall?”
anyone who demands to live a middle class life on the dole lest we be accused of being heartless, greedy and cruel.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You know, someone ‘suggested’ “WE” just admit we are racists so it takes that move away from ‘them’.
Now it we were to admit we are racists, heartless, greedy, cruel and YES, we want dirty air and water the LIBS would have absolutely nothing to ‘throw at us’ as they definitely can not run on their collective record.
When we want to spend money for foreign citizens in war and nation building and want to cut money for American citizens. Yep, we are already in decline.
I believe that based on this ruling, the government can now implement a coercive speech mandate that would require television and newspaper reporters to speak favorably about all government programs or be subject to a “tax” disguised as a penalty. People would argue that it is a violation of their first amendment right. The court would agree, but allow it anyway based on the expansive taxing power of Congress.
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.