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.
Nice historical knowledge there. Ruby Ridge was 92. Was that the old man's second term?
LOL No apology needed! Bob
It was at the end of Bush41's only term.
Vicki Weaver was murdered by the sadistic, Lon Horiuchi. This FBI sadist knowingly and gleefully murdered her right in front of children.
He and his team should have been brought up on 1st degree murder charges.
Sadistic Lon also gleefully likely murdered American children and adults at Waco. Lon and his FBI pals like killing innocents. There was a coverup of his murders at Waco.
Clarence Thomas is STILL my favorite member of the Supreme Court.
It’s time for a military coup d’état.
Agree - the question would be; who to begin it and to serve as valid rallying points. I believe that Republican Governors, who have contested Obama Care in the Courts and who even now are talking about not jumping to subjagative obedience with SCOTUS atrocious "ruling", might be the nexus of the People returning the Constitution to its proper standing...
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...
Nice historical knowledge there. Ruby Ridge was 92. Was that the old man’s second term?
****************************
Thanks for the compliment.
The actual government homicides at Ruby Ridge were executed in August of 1992. You may not know, but the original Voodoo Republican only won a single term which spanned from January 20, 1989 until he was replaced by cigar aficianado Democrat on January 20, 1993. If you squint real hard, you can see that Ruby Ridge fall between the first - and final - GHW Bush inauguration and the inauguration of WJB Clinton. This proud hour for the FBI took place on a Republican watch.
Of course, in service to the New World Order it really doesn’t matter which party is taking its turn at the wheel, as we are all on the same road trip, and it is all a bipartisan effort.
Also, all revenue bills must originate in the House. This began in the Senate. However, as Rush said, where are you going to go with that argument? Back to this same Supreme Court?
Our best bet is to put pressure on our state to ignore it and to not implement it.
Well past the Rubicon.
At this point the USA may need their own Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte only because the Beast system is so big it could never be dismantled brick by brick. It would require a Lockean style of intervention:
” Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.
And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject
But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel, what they lie under, and whither they are going, ‘tis not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands, which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first enacted.
The legislature acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties or fortunes of the people”
Locke felt people are slow to act and pointed out that “rebellion” meant a RETURN to lawful government. It was the government that first rebelled against the people and it was the people putting down this rebellion.
It was, as Locke contended, the Right of the people to put down unlawful government in rebellion, unlawful in that it has violated the trust and the law of nature, leading to Statism, rebellion and dissolution.
Could you address the issue of Barry unilaterally exempting groupds from this ‘taxing bill’?
Beautiful post, sir.
Nice historical knowledge on my part. You were way to kind in your reply.
It is all a continuum, so it is easy to get confused.
Pax, brother.
This bunch simply ignores the law. Obama makes illegal recess appoints when there is no recess. Holder refuses to enforce the law and exempts himself from them.
I don’t expect them to leave office even if they fail to steal the election through election fraud. We are at the point of fighting, actually physically fighting, for our freedom or facing the gulags and firing squads.
Have you noticed that we have posters working FR who are advocating that folks not vote for Rominy in opposition to little barry bastard fascist so Milt will not have a mandate? ... That is classic DNC strategery since only in close elections can the democrats win by cheating, and Soros’s Spanish vote counting company does not have ALL preceincts for clients yet so the democrats ability to throw the election via vote fraud is narrowed a bit and needs a close, extremely close election to make their cheating methodologies seem legit. I hate democrats, really hate them. They hate America and that makes me hate them.
They are now out-in-the-open Marxists. Marxists are Evil Incarnate. They honor and encourage lying to achieve their totalitarian goals.
No matter the subject being discussed and no matter what they say their real goal is power. Once they gain it, there are no rules. They will imprison and murder us by the millions.
This is not a cocktail party debate. This is life and death.
I think he was being sarcastic.........
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.