Replies

Thank you for referencing that Forbes article maggief. Please bear in mind that the following critique about the article is directed against Avik Roy, the author of that article, and not you.

Given the length of Mr. Roy's article, I was surprised that it didn't at least mention Gibbons v. Ogden. In fact, in stark contrast to the "he said, she said" material presented by the article, I think that several freepers could reference two sentences from Gibbons as evidence that Justice Roberts wrongly ignored that Obamacare is constitutionally indefensible.

More specifically, regardless that misguided Justice Roberts actually referenced Gibbons v. Ogden in the Obamacare opinion in order to help justify giving the green light to Obamacare, the Gibbons opinion contains the following statements which reasonably clarify the opposite of what Roberts was trying to do. In the first statement, not only does it clarify that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate any aspect of intrastate commerce regardless what FDR's activist justices later wanted everybody to think, but the same statement references healthcare, of all things, as an example of a state issue which Congress has no power to regulate!

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 .

Regarding Justice Marshall's clarification in Gibbons of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, Justice Roberts also "overlooked" that neither can Congress lay taxes in the name of state power issues like healthcare, "rookie" Chief Justice Roberts' game-saving Obamacare tax therefore constitutionally indefensible imo.