Posted on 07/08/2012 12:38:20 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...... Just as Justice Owen Roberts' switch was attributed to the political storm of Democrat opposition to the Court's reversal of New Deal legislation, there is a widely cited report....that Chief Justice John Roberts had originally sided with the conservative dissenters in the ObamaCare decision, but changed his vote because of concerns about the political prestige of the Court in the eyes of the media and Washington elites.
Owen Roberts destroyed his judicial papers. However..... He acknowledged that the Supreme Court's pro-New Deal decisions "reduce the states to administrative districts rather than coordinate sovereigns" and that his switch reached "a result never contemplated when the Constitution was adopted, was a subterfuge." However, he justified the switch as necessary to avoid "even more radical changes" in the constitutional structure. He did not specify what "radical changes" he feared, but in the aftermath of FDR's landslide re-election in 1936, many might have seemed possible.
Again, we do not know now if John Roberts changed his vote, and why he did if he did. However, there was clearly a storm of Democrat vituperation brewing and set to break loose in the event that the Court overturned ObamaCare. Just as Owen Roberts started voting pro-New Deal in order to preserve the Court from FDR's machinations, so John Roberts may have voted to save the Court from the fury of a left and leftist president who would have forever after invoked an anti-ObamaCare decision in rejecting the legitimacy of every other Supreme Court decision they did not like. And, just as Owen Roberts' switch to preserve the Court unleashed our modern massive and pervasive federal regulatory state, so John Roberts' effort to save the Court's prestige will allow that regulatory state to grow ever more massive and pervasive.....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I disagree with the author’s contention that a convention of the states would be an “unworkable” way to consider Amendments.
Article V gives us TWO ways to Amend the Constitution. And if Congress won’t do what we demand, then the states have to step up and do the job. With half the states filing suit against the Obummercare mess, aren’t we already half the distance to a state convention?
Now, before everybody starts howling about the incredible damage that could be done to the Constitution by a states’ convention, please remember that any proposed Amendments MUST be ratified by three-fourths of the several States, same as if Congress approved the Amendment.
No, the calling of a convention would NOT erase the existing Constitution. (The Confederation was not erased when the Constitution was proposed, hence the Federalist Papers to sell the new system.) And no, I do NOT think 3/4ths of the states want the Second Amendment deleted, though it might be close. Each state would choose its delegates to the convention, so I do not believe it would become a Liberal circus full of howling Progressives. We would certainly have a say in the choice of delegates.
We could declare, right from the outset, that the purpose of the convention is to debate and decide “X” Amendment and nothing else. We could declare the convention immediately adjourned if any other business is taken up or Amendments proposed, should we so desire.
Term limits, a state override provision for Supreme Court decisions, replace the word “regulate” with “promote” in the Commerce Clause, clarify the 14th to eliminate anchor babies, re-empower the states by repealing the 17th ... the list of possible Amendments is long.
With all the damage done to Constitution in our lifetimes, and the egegious damage done recently, how could the states do worse?
About 90% of the document is correct. The 10% that is wrong comes from making unwarranted assumptions based on how the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and how it operated. These assumptions are wrong because the original Convention was conducted under the rules of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. The author also failed to read the American Bar Association's seminal 1973 document exploring how such a convention would work, how its members would be chosen, and how its purview would be limited by the state legislatures. Still, 90% isn't bad, and it's a good document to work from.
The Left, as always, was ready to shut down cities.
And this is why the Right loses.
Those sort of impressions can be true. There appears to be no rationale but later we find that our first impresions were correct. I never noticed it but I am one who is unlikely to be mesmerized by anyone.
It is truly sickening.
Thank you for a very informative post. Gives hope but I’m still confused
I dunno, there seem to be quite a number of Roberts Republicans, even here on FR.
I was wondering the effects of the ruling myself.
Plainly, it’s not as cut and dried as most believe. In fact, I think the fat lady ain’t sung yet, heck, she’s not even on stage!
My summary would be:
Medicaid expansion is out. Let’s not even worry about that part.
Individual mandate.
OK.
Roberts basically said, and I will paraphrase “You can’t do that under the commerce law, so forget about that. You COULD do that under the taxing powers. Court is adjourned, I’m outa here.”
BUT!!!!.....
AFAIK, the legislation that was passed by Congress DOES NOT CALL IT A TAX, IT CALLS IT A PENALTY!!
SO!
THAT LEGISLATION, OBAMACARE AS IT WAS WRITTEN AND PASSED, IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!
THEY MUST, repeat that last word, MUST, take it back to Congress and rewrite it so that IT CLEARLY IS DEFINED AS A TAX!
My take, anyways.
And hopefully we KNOW what will happen if it goes back to Congress.
Could be they’re just trying to see elusive silver lining . . .
The Roberts decision made no limitation of the Commerce Clause.
There is no silver lining in his opinion.
"Inside every silver lining, there's a dark cloud."
Personally, I believe that John Roberts is the Benedict Arnold of todays liberal right wing rino judges and really has hurt a lot of Americans with his unjust decision; explaining it away does nothing to repeal it and the man is pond scum 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.