And thus Chief Justice Roberts drew the limit to Congressional exercise of its powers under the Commerce Clause. In short, Congress now must acknowledge the free decisions of individuals WRT whether they want to participate in any "market," in this case the "healthcare market." It cannot just lump all citizens into some abstract "market" and then compel their participation in that market. This is a huge recognition and defense of individual liberty against encroachment by the federal government. This is now a SCOTUS precedent that must be followed by all lower courts, and also by all members of the Executive and Congressional branches of government.
The Obama Administration's main defense of the ACA was appeal to the Commerce Clause. It argued that all human beings, simply by breathing, were already participants in the "healthcare market," and thus their behavior in that market was subject to legislation and regulation.
Roberts drove a stake into the very heart of this line of thinking. In the process, he upheld the idea of individual liberty under law that is the very heart of our constitutional order; and he snuffed any concept of the American body politic that sees human individuals as anonymous, inconsequential "'atoms" in some abstract Mass Man....
In short, the whole idea of the "General Will" takes a big setback, and the Will of the People, successfully defended here, steps out into the full light of day....
[Anyone wanting a "backgrounder" on the General Will vs. Will of the People issue — representing the basic, mutually-opposed ideologies of the French and American Revolutions respectively — can perhaps find a helpful retrospective here.]
Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts for this pivotal ruling. And thank you for turning up the heat on His Satanic Majesty by forcing him to "call a spade a spade" — the individual mandate is, pure and simple, a relentlessly regressive TAX, one that largely will be paid by middle-income and poor individuals and families.
And thus the Chief Justice comes about as close as good manners and protocol can allow to calling out the POTUS as a LIAR.
On the other hand, somehow I get the sense that Roberts was implying that he'd just as soon leave "political disputes" to the "political branches" of the government — that is to We the People themselves, and their representatives in Congress.
Of course, the political Left wants all policy disputes resolved in the courts, because they can't otherwise get what they want out of We the People and their representatives in Congress.
What Roberts may have suggested is that SCOTUS' mission is to construe and apply constitutional law, not to resolve political disputes. For that's what elections are all about....
Thank you so very much, dear Servant of the Cross, for the ping to this outstanding article.
I am afraid you are very very wrong. The ruling did not really kill the abuse of the Commerce Clause - moreover - the tax based ruling did not have to be part of that ruling. Sorry, Antonin Scalia, Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh - oh, C Edmund - just a bit weightier than whoever this little Townhall chick is.
My dissent.
Roberts did no such thing as uphold "individual" liberty.
He said that the Fed can tax you and not your neighbor for what you are not doing. That, Sister, is insane.
Betty, you don't like cars, so we’re taxing you, but not your neighbor, for being a transportation deadbeat who makes it necessary for us to run trains. That doesn’t seem to pass the equal treatment requirement to me. Contrary to the argument in this article, it says that you are NOT free to abstain from behavior based on your personal preference. The government isn't ordering you to buy a car under a mandate; it's persecuting you until you do. Some Liberty.
Betty, I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should ask for a refund on your tuition. Roberts' commerce clause diatribe sets NO LEGAL PRECENDENT whatsoever. It was all dicta and will not be followed by anyone. It is his tax clause statements that have set the legal precedent and what he basically said in his tax clause argument was that whatever Congress may not due under the Commerce Clause they can do under the Tax Clause. In other words, Congress has unlimited power to regulate every aspect of our lives through the imposition of tax penalties for failure to follow the dictates of congress. And failure to pay taxes can lead to jail if you deliberately avoid paying the tax or you try to evade the tax.
Roberts stripped every American of all the liberty they had left before Obama took office. The precendent has been set that there is NOTHING that Congress can't regulate as long as they do it by imposing tax penalties instead of non-monetary sanctions.
Roberts drove a stake into the very heart of this line of thinking.
No he drove a stake through the heart of the Constitution. The Constitution is dead thanks to John Roberts.
Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts for this pivotal ruling.
You have got to be kidding me. Betty, did someone steal your Freeper account? I can't believe the stuff you are writing. Betty, where are you?
I find it ironic that while Roberts basically said the court shouldn't touch political matters, his actions have a profound impact on this general election.
For one thing, Romney is lackluster and Goode/Johnson are mostly unknown. None seem to have the charisma to get people enthusiastic about voting. But Roberts now has the Tea Party and Republican conservative base angry and fired up, ready to vote - today if they could - and not just them but more Independents want it gone than want it to survive which is a plus for all non-Democrats running.
For another, Roberts effectively smeared Obama as the worst tax-and-spend president ever and a liar to boot.
As for the rest of it, I don't think that Roberts has "stripped every American of all the liberty they had left before Obama took office." Or that the Constitution is now dead.
Of course I feel hurt and betrayed the way it came down. But it is not the end. We now have to kill the beastly law the old-fashioned way.