"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Posted on 06/30/2012 10:23:54 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, I have noticed a curious phenomenon in which some conservative commentators seem to be so desperate to find a silver lining to the ruling that they have abandoned all logic. Consider George Will, who wrote a column in the aftermath of the ruling that actually puts forward the argument that we conservatives should take the fact that Roberts didn’t rely upon the commerce clause as evidence that there might be some constitutional limitation on the federal government after all. That would be a wonderful aspect of this ruling, if they had overturned the law! Instead, what we have is a monstrous precedent set in which the court re-writes a law in order to make it constitutional by imputing into the act a tax that had not existed in fact. This is an unmitigated disaster. I have heard a few who have noted hopefully that this ruling will energize the conservative base, and while that’s probably the case, I’m not certain I am so concerned about the political fall-out as I am about the long-run constitutional implications. You see, the political situation may permit us to repair the law, but it doesn’t permit us to immediately repair the damage done to the body of case law upon which future courts will rely as precedents in their own rulings.
The other thing I have read is the bizarre notion put forward by the National Review that what Roberts did was more conservative because he exercised judicial restraint in not striking down the law. Balderdash! Once you realize the legal contortions through which Roberts arrived at this ruling, it makes no sense whatever to claim he hadn’t acted as an activist. The convoluted logic by which he found a tax in a law that plainly states it does not contain one is an onerous breech of any notion of strict construction. I cannot conceive of any intellectually rigorous examination of this ruling by which this can be seen as a positive by anybody who is in favor of strict construction. When it came to the Anti-Injunction section of the ruling, it was held not to have been a tax, but just a few pages later, as Roberts performed mental gymnastics, he declared it was a tax after all.
On Thursday evening, Mark Levin summarized the matter better than anybody I’ve heard speak to this matter, in part because he understands the legalities in question, his Landmark Legal Foundation having been a participant in this case, but also because he knew Justice Roberts years ago when they both worked in the Reagan administration. Levin’s critique of the decision mirrors most of my own, and indeed, there was one aspect I hadn’t considered until Levin led me to it. That premise led me to yet another that I don’t believe Levin has yet realized in full. What one must understand is that this ruling is an unmitigated disaster, and no search for some alleged silver lining can repair it.
What Justice Roberts actually did was to expand the definition of what constitutes a permissible tax . Congress is permitted to levy only certain forms of tax, and this one doesn’t fit the definition of any of them. In dispensing with that issue, Roberts held that it didn’t matter, and that words don’t matter, and that plain-written legislative language doesn’t matter. He also ignored the context of the law, and the intent of Congress. One version of this bill had an actual tax, but Congress could not pass it in that form, so Congress altered it to contain no tax. What John Roberts did was to ignore the actual text of the legislation, and to say that the labels didn’t matter: If it looks like a tax, it is one. The problem with this is that it does nothing to restrain Congress from levying new taxes, and ignores the definitions of what sort of taxes Congress may enact. This is a wholesale extension of Congressional taxing authority because what Roberts ruled with respect to the particular form of the tax, insofar as the question of whether Congress had met the constitutional limits on whether it could impose it was effectively: “Close enough.”
That is offered to us as evidence of John Roberts’ alleged strict construction? Close enough? What this means, effectively, is that if Congress enacts some tax that it has questionable constitutional authority to levy, smiling John will be there to tell us it’s “close enough,” with every leftist monster on the court standing behind him to uphold it.
Ladies and gentlemen, there exists no silver lining to this ruling. All of the crackpot, delusional happy-talk from some conservatives in media is designed to make you feel better. You’ve just lost both arms and legs in a brutal assault, but they tell you, you should consider this a happy opportunity to enjoy the comforts of a new wheelchair and mouth-controlled joystick. You’ve just lost your family to a violent home-invasion, but, they tell you, you should view this as a chance to start over. The intention here is to keep you calm. The intention now is to serve a political end, while your country is dying around you. Your most sacred law, the US Constitution, has been crumpled and tossed into the ash-bin of history, and you are told you should do a happy-dance to the calming sounds of “Oh Happy Days.”
I’d like you to inventory the whole of the conservatives to whom you listen, or whose columns and opinions you read, and I want you to take care to note which of them are imploring you to consider some silver lining. They are lying. They have good intentions, many of them, and they have contorted themselves into a formless spaghetti of reasoning in order to find some good in this awful plate of refuse you’ve been handed. Don’t surrender your minds by sprinkling Parmesan on it and wolfing it down. Are there some limited political opportunities as a result of this decision? Yes, but they require the fulfillment of a whole laundry-list of “if-then” statements.
IF Mitt Romney is elected, and IF he doesn’t sell us out, and IF we hold the House, and IF we recapture the Senate(and at least 60 votes) and IF the moderates in either house don’t screw us, and IF Boehner and McConnell have the guts to do in repealing what the villains Reid and Pelosi did in passing the ACA, and IF they can deliver a bill to President Romney’s desk, and IF John Roberts and the other liberals on the court can be replaced, and IF Mitt Romney can replace them with actual strict constructionists, THEN you might have a chance to undo this damage. IF any of these don’t happen, your constitution is effectively dead as a restraint on government.
The danger of self-imposed delusions is that you come to believe them, like a pathological liar. It is by this form of self-delusion that we’ve permitted our country to lose its roots in reverence for the Constitution. We cannot defeat the statists by pretending this isn’t the disaster that it is, if we can defeat them at all. I believe some talking heads know this, but do not want to yield to what will come in the wake of such a monstrosity. They’re hanging on, stubbornly telling us that the stench of smoke reaching our nostrils is merely an air freshener of a novel scent. Rather than screaming “Fire,” and warning conservative Americans that the house is ablaze, the barn is wiped out, the surviving farm animals running loose in a frantic bid to stay ahead of the flames licking at their heels, many are now telling you that it’s all okay. It will be fine.
Yes, for many, many, many, years I said the same...almost word for word.
You all will come around eventually.
Why don’t you show us where the author said, or even inferred, what you’re saying. Because I just read through it again and can’t see it.
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Yet, true is true. The SCOTUS has completely eliminated any semblance of Federal restraint. Now we must hope that every election goes our way, because one bad election, and IT'S ON.
I'll join you in voting against Obama, but I'm not going to help you replace him with a liberal you like better. I'm voting against both liberals.
Win or lose, I'm voting for Tom Hoefling this year.
Thx Jim, but I fear/know that there just are not enough real men left in this country.
Janice Rogers Brown once talked about a book called “The Decline of Men”, she noted we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which she labeled “bureaugamy.” A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat.
Amazing how many men sit by and wait for Rinos to help them in the next election, how many men have sat by and let the gov steal their income, property, and now their private healthcare.
Amazing, isn’t it? They’d rather whine about the loss than do something to win.
I think this is part of the grief process for some. And some just seem to prefer being losers. It’s easier than doing the hard work of winning elections, which is the only answer.
The people who aren’t just losers will burn themselves out on whining soon and get back to work. The rest never change and must be ignored. No candidate or judge is ever good enough, blah blah blah. It makes life so easy. You just sit back and proclaim that it’s all over, because the Man is holding you down! Wahh!
Been hearing their rah rah GOP cheer leading garbage for too many years now. I figured most people would see right through it.
Cult is perfect description...Others I assume are party insiders who have no desire to lose their lofty positions and still others who are just not capable of critical thought.
I believe this whole two party system production, is one big rigged con job..Good cop bad cop....All setup to appease the easily led morons, as they're incrementally led down the path.
So Free Republic is now to be a site predicated on hopelessness and despair?
This is to be solely a home for those who think only fools continue to believe that our divinely-inspired institutions of over two centuries' standing can meet the test of our time?
Well, to what end will this site of defeat be dedicated? Prepping for societal collapse? Praying for the return of the King?
Our command has always been to have faith, to be not afraid, to carry on with our mission, and to know that the time of His return is known only to Him.
Did any of that change this week?
oops
Standing with you on this.
No I actually hope my state starts the secession process. Obama or Romney either way takes this country down the path of socialism.
Its definitely up to us. For my part I’m working to keep my congressman in office and will be voting to remove Debbie Stabenow.
Pete Hoekstra is already running ads reminding us that Lil Debbie supported Obamatax. He’s got some RINO tendencies of his own but if he wins the nomination I can make the compromise there.
Where do you guys get this stuff?
Facing the obvious facts about the utter uselessness and corruption of the Republican Party could only be interpreted as "hopelessness and despair" by those whose hope and faith were in the Republican Party in the first place.
Great post.....the modern GOP’s first instinct is FEAR.
Always.
I don't know about that, but those who love America as set forth in the Constitution are being forced to engage in politics by other means.
The real delusion is thinking you will destroy the GOP by supporting obama via a no hope 3rd party candidate.
Consider the below examples I came up with now totally legitimate under Roberts’ treasonous decision. This does not even scratch the surface of the congress’ new powers:
Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad as part of an “education law” or face a tax penalty - legal
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms and take self defense classes under ‘anti-Crime” law or face a tax - legal
Chevy wants to recoup its losses from the bailout by lobbying congress to force us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels under new “Environmental Law” or face a tax - legal
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships under new “Anti-Obesity” law or face a tax - legal
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc under new “Safe Food” law or face a tax - legal
Trek lobbies the congress and president to force people to by a mountain bike as part of “anti-obesity” law or face a tax - legal
Valvoline lobbies president and congress to mandate proof of oil changes in your car every 4,000 miles as part of “transportation law” or face a tax - legal
American Standard lobbies president and congress to by new toilet bowl w new tech as part of “safe water” act or face a tax - legal
Johnson and Johnson lobbies congress to force women to use “green tampons” as part of a “environmental law” or face a tax, legal
National Assoc. of Realtors lobbies Romney and the Congress as part of a “Economic Growth Law” to force Homeowners to purchase mandatory home warranty for 5 years - Legal
See where this is going folks? Roberts is a traitor as he almost single handidly made us slaves this week to literally anything these thugs in the congress want to compel us into.
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.