Posted on 06/29/2012 4:55:10 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Oh, how far we’ve deviated from our Founders in just over 200 years.
The entire country is pouring over an incoherent, internally contradictory, ill-conceived and politically motivated decision by Chief Justice Roberts, which grants Congress the power to regulate anything that moves and the power to tax anything that moves and anything that doesn’t move.
Amidst the garrulous analysis from the conservative pundit class on the Roberts decision, there is a one-page dissent from Justice Thomas (in addition to his joint dissent with the other 3 conservatives) that has been overlooked. The joint dissent with Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy focuses primarily on taking down Roberts’s tax powers jurisprudence and Ginsburg’s opinion on the unlimited power of the Commerce Clause. Thomas felt there was a need to add one point. Not only was Roberts way off the reservation by rewriting this law as a tax and concurrently expanding the tax power of Congress, he was also wrong about the Commerce Clause.
Take a look at this paragraph from Thomas’s dissent (last two-pages of pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )
"I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545"
As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity...
Here’s what James Madison had to say about the Commerce Clause in a letter to Joseph C. Cabell in 1829:
" For a like reason, I made no reference to the “power to regulate commerce among the several States.” I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and
was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government "
Madison is bemoaning the expansion and misconstruing of the Commerce Clause circa 1829! One can only imagine what he would say about our entire domestic policy in 2012.
The reality is that not only is Obamacare unconstitutional, almost every discretionary department, welfare program, and entitlement program is unconstitutional. Obviously, we cannot repeal each one overnight and must deal with them prudently, but we must not buy into the notion that the prevailing view of federal power over the past 80 years is sacrosanct. It’s not. We get our rights from God, not from the government, and not even from the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government a few enumerated powers. We must not let the views of one unprincipled man in a black robe – or even decades’ worth of misguided court decisions – abrogate our founding documents.
James Madison would be proud of Clarence Thomas.
One of the last sane men standing. May God bless him.
Bookmark.
Nothing short of a revolution will resolve this.
I wonder who the guest is. An excellent essay -thanks for pointing it out.
After reading some of the original case law, I always thought the Founders intention was for the federal government to “make regular” or standardize the rules and methods of commerce between the states. That applied to currency, weights and measures, forms and vehicles of trade (stocks, banking operations.) It also applied to prohibitions on exactions, regulations etc. that hit disproportionately on out of state residents.
It did not give the federal government the General legislative jurisdiction of the “police powers” to regulate actions to prevent substantial harm to general public health and safety. That is reserved to the states - with the exception of federal enclaves and D.C. where the federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
“The USSC has become a complete joke, they are now nothing more then tools of the coummunist/fascists/progressives.
I hold the court in complete distain, I have no respect for them...”
They’ve always been like that. In the 1880’s every ruling favors railroad companies in a case which involves railroad companies. In the 1980’s every case favors Japanese corporations in a case which involves Japanese corporations. Ever since “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” George H. W. Bush raised taxes, hailed the New World Order, and loosed snipers on a small reclusive family at Ruby Ridge, the Supreme Court has approved and expanded the federal Imperium.
As Reagan pointed out, the problem IS the government.
Alter or abolish it, lock, stock and barrel.
Clarence Thomas has more integrity in his baby finger than you undoubtedly have in your entire being.
He’s a fine justice and a fine man. We are very lucky to have him on the court.
Why don’t you go clean your toilet or something instead of tearing down good people whom you don’t know anything about?
Thomas is RIGHT ON!
One would think we could do better than one out of nine.
I have been asked which Supreme Court justice would I most like to hang out with for an evening with the understanding that we can't talk "shop." Justice Thomas is my first choice: Breakfast at my house; fly fishing in my back yard in the morning; sporting clays at the club in the afternoon; a few pints of Harp at the Irish Pub down the street from my house; and then back to my house for a home cooked dinner where our wives have been getting to know each other over a martini or two. (Please note that several years ago, I had the piviledge of spending the evening with Justice Scalia at a very private event and he is truely the "most interesting man in the world."
If this thing is founded upon a tax or taxes to be accurate, is it Constitutionally allowed that little barry bastard commie can unilaterally exempt groups from this legally passed tax? Has the Oval Office stinker just given himself unenumerated powers? And what the hell can the Congress do about it?
I’d ask you to go clean an outhouse up there on the mountain, for not getting the obvious irony and sarcasm, but I’m not an Al Stewart fan so I won’t!
It could go like Social Security, and that’s what the Left is counting on. We’ll bitch a little and then get used to it.
Just another government program to ensure the electability of the RAT Party. Whadya think has been the ultimate purpose of it?!
Mary, before you send me off with a scrub brush, please re-read my posting. I thought that my sarcasm was dripping, but I guess not. Bob
Oh sorry. I’m not right in the head since yesterday.
Wow. That sounds like a smack down of Roberts to me.
Looking through the PDF, I don’t see Thomas writing that sentence. Must be written by the author of the article not Thomas.
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.