-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Supreme Beings
A Constitution, if we can keep it from being just whatever the judges say it is.
“It’s constitutional, bitches.” That was the considered legal judgement of one Patrick Gaspard, executive director of the Democratic National Committee and former Obama aide, when the Supreme Court handed down its health care decision last week. (Cleaned up for capitalization and punctuation, but not for language.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took a different view. In response to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius he declared, “just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.”
“Make no mistake: Obamacare is not constitutional,” the senator wrote in a post-ruling column. “As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, Americans, whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product — health insurance — or pay a penalty.” (Note that Paul did not call it a “tax” like Chief Justice John Roberts.)
Even some conservatives find this a radical view. One complained to this author that Senator Paul had overstepped his bounds, because surely it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional or not.
That has indeed been the role of the courts in our system since at least Marbury v. Madison (though perhaps this should dim conservative enthusiasm analogies between Roberts and John Marshall). The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is as binding as any reversal would have been.
Accepting the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions, however, does not require us to believe that the Constitution means whatever five or more justices say it means. Such a belief leads not to the rule of law, but the rule of men — unelected men (and women) with lifetime appointments, at that.
Consider: there is increasing speculation that Roberts flipped at the last minute. He may have initially sided with the conservative dissenters, which would have instead made them part of a 5-4 majority. Had Roberts done so, would the Constitution suddenly have had a completely different meaning?
Justice Anthony Kennedy engaged in a similar late change of heart on Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992. He had initially been inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead he was the key vote to reaffirm its essence. Did the Constitution change with Kennedy?
Roe has stood for almost forty years, yet millions of Americans reject its conclusion. Numerous pro-choice legal scholars who agree with the ruling on policy grounds consider it shoddy constitutional law. On the other side of the political spectrum, liberals clamor for the reversal of Citizens United, which was decided by the same margin as the Obamacare ruling.
The Supreme Court has even overruled itself. Whatever the merits of the particular decisions, did the Constitution change between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education? Or between Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas, which are less than twenty years apart?
This is not simply an academic exercise. Members of all three branches of the federal government swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. But the executive and legislative branches have increasingly abdicated their duties to the judiciary. This is a major contributor to the erosion of constitutionally limited government.
Two examples, one implicating each party, stand out. In 2002, President George W. Bush expressed “serious constitutional concerns” about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law but he signed it anyway. Bush maintained that provisions violated the First Amendment from the time he started running the White House through the presidential signing statement he issued while making McCain-Feingold law of the land.
Seven years later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced constitutional questions about the sweeping health care reform legislation being considered by her chamber. She answered with a question of her own: “Are you serious?” She later said they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
In each case, the courts ultimately had their say on the legislation. But shouldn’t Congress and the president have considered the constitutional questions beforehand? The judiciary is a fickle master. There is no guarantee how judges will rule.
Moreover, the idea that the Constitution has no objective meaning gives those judges too much power. This is especially true now that the composition of the courts seems to matter more in many areas than even precedent. Nearly half the justices pay scarcely any attention to what the people thought they were ratifying when they delegated powers to the federal government. So why elevate the Supreme Court to a nine-member policymaking board?
In short, if the Constitution has no meaning apart from what the judges say it means, we have no written Constitution.
Not even the highest court in the land was ever intended to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution, nor the people’s only remedy for federal disobedience.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/02/supreme-beings
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 7.2.12 @ 6:14AM
TOO NARROW: The appellants set themselves up for this defeat by appealing on such narrow grounds. They focused exclusively on the mandate. Then, they argued before the Supreme Court that it was not a tax. Of course it is a tax.
They should have appealed on much broader grounds:
1) The Act is unconstitutional because it cannot be understood, or even read, by any normal human being.
It is tyrannical to impose laws which cannot be understood or read, even by legal scholars.
2) The Act violates the 10th Amendment because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to take over the nation's health-care system. Only powers specifically delegated to the federal government may be exercised.
3) The Act violates the Bill of Rights because it discriminates against Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and others by forcing them to pay for abortions and other practices which are contrary to their religious beliefs.
4) The Act violates the Equal Protection clause because favored groups are allowed to "opt out" of the law while others less favored are forced to comply with it.
5) The Act violates the Due Process clause because those who fail to follow its mandates will be deprived of property without due process of law.
6) The Act violates Article I, Section 1, which states that all legislative power is vested in Congress. This Act vests legislative power in unelected bureaucrats who will impose mandates upon citizens
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 7:00AM
Nail on the head.
There's also the parts about this piece of Bullshit, originating in the Senate, and Tax Legislation being handled through the Reconciliation Process.
"First, kill all the Lawyers".
Ah, Shakespeare. The Great Bard. Fine advice, in any Century, even if it does seem a little harsh.
"Kill all the Lawyers."
What about: SOME of the Lawyers?
Just enough to GET THEIR ATTENTION.
Don't mind me. I'm just thinking out loud, while it's still allowed. While we still have a 1st Amendment in a Document that has now, and forever more, been transformed in to an Etchasketch made of Silly Putty, with Invisible Ink, that can only be "interpreted" using the Secret Decoder Rings, found in the Pockets of some of the people in the Supreme Court, who have long since forgotten that their Sh*t Stinks, just like everybody else' and that our Founders put together a delicate Aparatus of Liberties and Rights and Freedoms, and that it needs to be SAFEGUARDED, on a Top Shelf, away from the hands of Children.
Ancient Greece was once a Republic, as was Ancient Rome. A list that seems destined to include The United States.
"If you can keep it."
Which, oddly enough, brings us back to the beginning.
"First kill all the Lawyers."
Indeed.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 12:16PM
The existence and abuses of lawyers are a symptom of our problems, not a cause. The problems originate with a liberal congress, which creates the legal framework that fosters the growth of participants (lawyers) who will play within that framework.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:20PM
"The problems originate with a Liberal Congress" which is teeming with Liberal Lawyers, more than willing, to Manipulate our Fragile form of Government, in to something that it was never meant to be.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 6:11PM
They had to be congresspeople before they could create work for themselves as lawyers. Get the chicken and egg right!
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 6:47PM
Once they became Congressmen, their Liberal Lawyer half, took over!
Get you head outta your ass, Dumbass!
And stuff your Chicken, AND your Egg, up your ass, while you're at it.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 7.2.12 @ 2:15PM
Mr. Pennell:
If you haven't read them, I'd HIGHLY recommend reading Cicero's Philippics. There are 14 of them, & the English translations are a hard slog to read, but they're PRICELESS! They are Cicero's orations against the power grabs of Caesar & Antony. I have a blog piece about them. All you need to do is click my handle & it'll take you to my blog. The post is called, "The Philippics of Cicero & Demosthenes: Voices of Liberty from the Past."
Brooksifier | 7.2.12 @ 2:53PM
#1 internal enemy of the Constitution so far has been the Rove-Cheney administration.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 2:54PM
How so?
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 7.2.12 @ 3:01PM
Care to elaborate, or can you only point to the same 2 people y'all have pointed to ad nauseum, with no proof of your pathetic assertions?
Brooksifier | 7.2.12 @ 4:19PM
Bush only deep down cared about his dynasty-- he is the JR Ewing of politics.
Brooksifier | 7.2.12 @ 4:22PM
There is one word that describes the Rove-Cheney (they ran the administration, not Bush) interregnum:
CABAL.
Drunken Sailor| 7.2.12 @ 4:48PM
You libs with BDS are a real hoot. First you guys spend 8 years screaming how stupid Bush administration was, now you claim they were a bunch of evil geniuses. Why, if they were black you would have to call youself racist.
Brooksifier | 7.2.12 @ 6:09PM
Bush himself was merely a figurehead, Cheney and Rove were the evil geniuses. Irony is, that administration was the most anti-conservative administration since Carter's.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.2.12 @ 7:48PM
"By John Derbyshire
I wish George W. Bush would shut up and go away. He keeps reminding me what a fool I was ever to think that the man has a conservative bone in his body..."
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:08AM
If you kill off all the lawyers, you'll find out you have to replace them in about a month. But for that month, you'll live with handshake justice; you'll find out how reliable that is in a hurry.
Mimi | 7.2.12 @ 7:33AM
Aristocat....Too bad, you were not Chief Justice...We could have used you last week.
The one we have now...Roberts, gave us a mess to clean up which he will come to regret and be ashamed of. knowing and believing in the GREATNESS of this country, this will be fixed.......by the VOTE!!!
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 8:21AM
Setting aside legal analysis for a moment, didn't Roberts throw this manure pile piece of legislation back into the faces of the people who threatened and bribed an entire industry to get it passed by a less than 1% margin?
Liberals love to characterize the Supreme Court as activist when a 5-4 decision goes against them. That's a margin of 11%. How about America when an arm-twisted vote with a 1% margin turns the entire country upside down? I guess that's okay.
God knows certain things are just too important to be left to judges. This is one of them. American must take a long look in the mirror and figure this thing out. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of those bribe-taking bastards who populate that cesspool called Congress and the voters who sent them there.
Roberts did the right thing.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 8:50AM
No, he didn't.
There's nothing "activist" about throwing out an unconstitutional law. In fact, that's in his job description
His rationale - "It's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their choices" is, simply put, STUPID.
To put it another way, if Congress passed a law reinstating slavery, would that be ok with Judge Roberts???
After all, Congress was elected, right?
Roberts is a disgrace, and his ruling lacks precedent, common sense, and coherence.
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 9:12AM
This is a really tough situation. From a legal standpoint, I believe you're right and Roberts is 100% wrong. From a save-the-republic standpoint, I believe he did the right thing.
Is it okay for our elected representatives to blatantly ignore the Constitution every day of the week and force Americans to wait years for the so-called Supreme Court to sort it out in their usual split-decision fashion?
Robert's decision is a message to America: "Straighten up and fly right. If you keep dumping your dirty laundry in our laps, you're not going to like the result. It's going to be 5 to 4 until the cows come home."
I believe this Obamacare mess is representative of how we've been doing things. The solution goes beyond legal analysis. It goes to the core of who we are and what we've become and it ain't pretty.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 9:27AM
Not sure I get your point about "saving the republic" when his decision tears down the fabric of the Constitution.
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 11:02AM
You're right about the Constitution. And I was as shocked and angry about this decision as anyone here. I'm just trying to glean some greater benefit from it. I think there is a chance the decision will do more good than harm in the intermediate and longer term, even though, as you correctly said, it's flat out wrong.
Bad Supreme Court decisions can be corrected over time. God knows we've had plenty of them. If Obama gets a second term, the court will be turned into a liberal rubber stamp for decades to come and become irrelevant as a check on the other two branches. How would the country recover from that world-class disaster? It wouldn't.
Already, the powers that be are trying to wiggle out of (see other TAS article) Obamacare now that Roberts has shoved it down their throats and turned it into an untenable tax situation. In a few months we may be darned glad Roberts wrote this legally-wrong decision.
This whole thing is a real big mess and symptomatic of a much larger problem than Robert's shocking vote.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 3:44PM
It would be nice if SCCJ Roberts was reminded that his is a LIFETIME appointment so that he would be immune to public criticism, not so that he could pander to it?
And while reminding Roberts of that fact, someone might explain, again, to the little ol' lady SCJ Bader-Ginsberg that it was the United States' Constitution that she swore to uphold! I am almost certain that that fact has escaped her...
Sheesh.
Bob Grant| 7.2.12 @ 10:10AM
That's all well and good in a society with vote integrity and an intelligent voting populous.
Thanks to corrupt Department of Justices, legislatures, a biased media, and a general breakdown culture.....WE DON'T!!!
Watch this bill become popular and the RINO's throw flyers about how "it's time to work with this president and address the healthcare crisis" B.S.
John Roberts dropped the ball and we will all suffer now. He was supposed to be a backstop to the tides of tyranny and the failed miserably!!!
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 11:34AM
There is more to this decision (4-1-4?) than meets the eye. If a new Congress and Administration do repeal, as we all pray they will, then the limits on the commerce clause and the opt out provision still remain. It may be some time before we see what this new construct in fact means. Still, we are left with this abhorant law so can we rely on Romney to repeal and not "remove and replace"?
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 12:05PM
Romney is always a risk. If he's smart, he'll see which way the wind is blowing and act accordingly. Hopefully, he also sees the pitchforks way back there.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:28PM
If it "Is not my Job, to save the people from the decisions of their Elected Representatives" then, by Definition, and from his own words, "It is not his Job To Save the Republic" either.
Hello?
Diefledermaus| 7.2.12 @ 5:45PM
Correct. Roberts' stupid ploy didn't render the ACA constitutional or unconstitutional at all.
He had to rewrite it to say it was workable.
Big difference.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 7.2.12 @ 2:16PM
His ruling LACKS precedent, while ESTABLISHING a very dangerous one.
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 8:22AM
Exactly... Nail on the head.
elephant4life| 7.2.12 @ 11:26AM
You should add to your list:
7) The Act is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax, assuming Justice Roberts' analysis of it being a tax is correct, and notwithstanding his high-handed dismissal without analysis or reasoning regarding it being a direct tax.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 3:56PM
Ponder this question:
Tax law allows companies to deduct taxes but not penalties. If a company decides not to insure its workers and pays the Congressionally-imposed penalty that Roberts had to call a tax to pretzel his logic into to justify his vote affirming the law, aren't they justified in deducting the penalty-tax?
Let's see now, 100,000,ooo US workers at $3,000 a head, means tax deductions totalling $300,000,000,000 @ 33% tax, is a $100,000,000,000 revenue loss to the
Treasury annually. Gee, Mr. Roberts, where you gonna find that cash? Obama's stash, maybe? Or does the SCOTUS have its own taxing authority now...
Hmmm.
Uh, Mr. Roberts, did you really think you weren't WRITING legislation. Is your IQ in DOUBLE digits or single?
Oh yeah - it is all Bush's fault!
It would be funny...except it's NOT. These idiots!
Don't Tread On Me!
This is going to be painfully funny....
Von Mises Jr| 7.2.12 @ 6:24AM
Marbury Madison was where the Supreme Court declared that it could determine if the Congressional legislation and Executive Powers were constitutional. In the ruling on last Thursday, Roberts basically said that the Bill is unconstitutional given the legislation and Executive approval of the Bill as presented, but that they were no longer responsible for determining if Bills are constitutional or not.
They found Constitutional a bill that was not presented to them or the public. So one may argue that the ruling on ObamaCare is the un-Marbury Madison ruling.
The only other interpretation is that every Bill in the future can be submitted to the Supremes as a Chinese Menu, and they will pick and choose your supper.
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 11:37AM
Jr:
Your analysis is right on. It will be some time before we see the full impact of the commerce clause decision and the opt out provision. Should a new administration indeed repeal, then those parts of the decision remain. It makes for an interesting future indeed.
Von Mises Jr| 7.2.12 @ 4:28PM
The Commerce Clause is unaffected by the ruling. A lawyer called Rush Friday and explained that it is dictum that means that it is not central to the decision, so it cannot be cited as precedent.
The talking heads in DC that cite this are apparently ill advised.
DRed| 7.2.12 @ 7:10PM
http://tinyurl.com/6vzeedu
It's more complicated than Rush's caller would have you believe.
Virtue| 7.2.12 @ 6:36AM
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure." Thos. Jefferson, 1823
Mimi | 7.2.12 @ 7:40AM
Our Thomas Jefferson....must be kicking up the dirt...wanting to get out, to fix this nutsy bill, for us MEN OF ORDINARY UNDERSTANDING !!
3000 pages of God knows what.....That even the SUPREMES probably didn't read.
c. j. acworth| 7.2.12 @ 8:19AM
I wonder if the Supremes haven't done us a favor in the end. This is as clear a wake-up call to the Country as you can get. WE have the final responsibility when it comes to protecting our liberty, you can't be an uninformed uninvolved chucklehead as so many Americans are today, and you can't trust the Ruling Class to do the right thing. I only wish the decision had been handed down closer to election day. Remember the assault weapon ban? The Dems pushed that through by one vote in the House, but the morons did it just a few weeks before the mid-terms. In my district (NH 2) we were represented by a Dem who would have easily won re-election, but he voted for the ban (after sending out letters saying he would not). The anger was white-hot, and Gingrich led the Stupid Party to a big win. Could we see something similar this year? I can hope.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:20AM
Thank you, c.j. Yes, the Obamacare decision has left it up to us, the ultimate source of governmental power, to decide what will be done about Obamacare. That's an overall good thing; it puts the power to call the shots were it belongs, with us.
I don't think Roberts was being brilliant and setting the stage for this, but I DO think he made it abundantly clear to all of us down here laboring in the pits that the way our government is going to be is up to us to decide.
I also don't agree that it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to defer as much as it does to Congressional acts. I think the Supreme Court has the obligation to call constitutionality as it sees it. I also agree that the Supreme Court can be, and frequently is, wrong. It lies with us to defer to or ignore their rulings.
I think Roberts made a dumb move this time because he's now opened the door to Congress to tax inactivity, and of course now that they know they can get away with that, it will not happen all the time. The feds need every penny they can get their grubby hands on. So now we need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them from taxing inactivity.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:21AM
"it will NOW happen all the time."
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 8:35AM
Arguing whether or not this is Constitutional is a waste-of-time.
It doesn't matter anymore; we live in a post-Constitutional era. The Constitution has been effectively neutralized. We are ruled by the whims of 9 people in black robes, and by whomever the temporary occupant of the White House happens to be.
If that occupant is a Democrat, he/she will stop at nothing to further their political agenda.
If that occupant is a Republican, he/she will pay lip-service to the Constitution, but will not have the guts to defend it properly, or take-on the disloyal opposition.
Look...in California, the legislature is wasting the people's time and money by banning Goose Liver Pâté. THAT'S how silly and irrelevant we've become as a society.
It's over...
Bob Grant| 7.2.12 @ 10:31AM
"We are ruled by the whims of 9 people in black robes..."
----
...and the damage they inflict not just by upholding obvious unconstitutional law (at least in a country the Founding Fathers originally conceived), but guarantee the continued wood rot of our constitutional framework via precedence.
Question: Is John Roberts no less a termite than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, Holder, or Frank?
Albertus Magnus| 7.2.12 @ 11:12AM
Answer: Yes. John Roberts is no less a termite than Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Holder, and Frank. John Roberts has consciously chosen to play politics with this ridiculous opinion. Had he chosen to do his job and apply the Law, he would have ruled otherwise. Now exactly why he chose to favor politics over the Law is open to speculation. Did he "grow" in office? Did he see a threat to the "integrity" of the Court from Democrats who promised to propagandize any result that was not to their liking? Was Roberts bribed? Was Roberts threatened "Chicago-style?" Was it any or all of these? We may never know but what we we do know is Roberts abandoned the Law and gave a political opinion that undermines the very concept of a written Law.
It has been said that Roberts, being a corporate lawyer in experience, was merely applying corporate lawyer logic in finding any possible loophole that favors his client. What he neglected to consider is that a lawyer is an advocate, but a Justice is an arbiter, NOT an advocate. As a Court Justice, Roberts has no client. His job is to apply the Law (the Constitution) to the case at hand. This he did not do, and elected instead to advocate for his chosen "client," the government. The People be damned.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 3:58PM
Yes he grew! He grew smaller and STUPIDER!
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 8:56AM
The Obamacare majority decision does contain one valuable holding: a federal statute, to pass constitutional muster, must have express Constitutional backing.
AllAmericanAmerican| 7.2.12 @ 9:01AM
I was hoping to read in this essay the role of the (alleged, supposedly) sovereign States. They also, as voluntary members of the union, have a say in the constitutionality of any federal law.
Hopefully a cadre of governors stand together and ignores and nullifies this decision by saying "No." No, we're not enforcing it on our States' citizens.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 11:31AM
In actuality, the people can for all intents and purposes nullify this law by refusing to purchase health insurance, then making sure their yearly refund is zero, or that they owe a little tax each year. Then the people can tell the the government where it can go stick it. Resistance is not futile in this case but will muck up the system and make it impossible to enforce Robertscare.
Also, if 38 states refuse to cooperate, we have a Constitutional quorum and legitimate nullification, and let Judge "Taney" Roberts try to enforce Robertscare.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 4:01PM
Even if your refund is zero you will still have a tax liability if you do not buy insurance! You just owe more. Don't pay and the IRS SWAT team will lien your property and seize your bank account!
Remember too, this bill provided that the Federal Government have direct access to all bank accounts - including yours.
Your point is hopeless.
Mimi | 7.2.12 @ 5:02PM
Vern has a point...What if ALL refuse....ALL?
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 7:56PM
At some, point people have to take the risk for liberty.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:26AM
Don't keep your money in banks. Deal in cash. What that will do to the credit system is unknown, since consumer credit has become central to our credit system.
If you refuse to purchase health insurance and you get taxed that penalty, declare the penalty as a deduction from your taxes. That will be interesting.
Continue voting for the candidates who will take real steps to bring all this to an end. It started out just as a misguided law that needed to be repealed; now it's a nightmare of interlocking disputes and problems. But we can get past this. Just keep voting. It can still be repealed. The Supreme Court can't stop that.
Louis Jenkins| 7.2.12 @ 9:08AM
By 2016 a family of four may well pay over $2,000 in fines, er taxes, er assessments, if they do not have health insurance. And this is Constitutional? A commodity that is now mandatory. The entire health care industry is now repaired and we need never worry about it again. The entire matter is plain BS. It will soon rear it ugly head and need more fixing. The only real fix will be to refute the entire act, and that will take true Conserative men and women. Do not re-elect those RINOs, those middle of the roaders who reach accross the isle, those who in the face of scorn back down. Roberts has pointed the way, we need only to follow it.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 11:33AM
We should follow our Revolutionary forefathers and simply refuse to pay this new "Stamp" act.
DTOM| 7.3.12 @ 8:43AM
No, let's throw Judge Roberts in the harbor! I like that better!
Don't Tread On Me!
Bill Carson| 7.2.12 @ 9:09AM
Our "Constitution" is a completely worthless document. I'd be embarrassed for anyone who spouted off that it means anything.
There is not a single word in that document that cannot be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what any common sense person thinks it means. We destroyed it over the course of many rulings. I think we should pitch out the so-called Supreme Court. We might be better off literally fighting out issues rather than kidding ourselves with a trash Constitution. If we did that, we would at least know what we're fighting for.
Trying to sell the idea that the commence clause really means something while at the same time saying that the taxing power can be used to force the citizens to do anything the government wants was the last straw for me.
No, I'm not leaving because I'm over 60. But I'm sorry I wore an officer's uniform for 8 years for such a ridiculous country as this one. I'll vote against obama, yes, but love of this country?, forget it!
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 10:58AM
My sympathies, Bill... my idealistic love of country took a hell of a blow when the Democrats pulled the rug out from under the Republic of South Viet Nam, a place I and several other patriotic Americans fought our hearts out in. Since then, I have come to realize "this is not your father's America" anymore. Not mine, either, at least, considering half the rotten population. Half, and growing... look at the adulterating demographics.
Wouldn't care for a time machine trip into the year 2200... Detroit, from sea to shining sea.
Ready to put on a gray uniform, in a heartbeat, to bring back Old America.
Mimi | 7.2.12 @ 5:11PM
Alej....The libs will eventually ABORT themselves out of existence..their numbers are decreasing all the time....WE could ask them to leave the country they say they hate...that would get a few more out of our way. By 2200 they will all be gone. Evil has a way of falling by the wayside.
For NOW we must fight like the dickens for our BLESSED COUNTRY!
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 11:45AM
No, the Constitution does mean something, and because of that it sits in judgment over the mountebank judges who undermine it by perverse "construction." Madison said the Constitution should be given its plain meaning and intention:
"That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, which are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
Mimi | 7.2.12 @ 5:14PM
Thanks VERN !
Nightwinger| 7.2.12 @ 11:19PM
We had a Civil War that settled that issue didn't we?
JD| 7.2.12 @ 1:32PM
It's not the Constitution's fault that the Left has spent so many years undermining language. Words must regain their meaning in the eyes of the electorate, or we will never recover from what they have done.
Kingofthenet| 7.2.12 @ 2:19PM
So your a STRICT Constructionist? So on the 2nd amendment do you believe, we should NOW be able to:
1. Own JUST Muskets (like an 18th Century Militia would)?
2. Own RPG's and heavy Machine-guns (Like an modern Militia would)?
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 2:46PM
Strict and loose are not the issue; but rather perverse construction.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:32PM
Don't waste your time arguing with the Kingofthe nuts.
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 4:30PM
Pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF and you CAN and MAY own cannons and machine guns.
Next inane question, please.
Albertus Magnus| 7.2.12 @ 4:36PM
kingo', this is a red herring. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says anything about muskets. It says arms, and in weapons. The meaning is the same whether muskets or AR-15's. What you are claiming is that the passage of time and the development of technology automatically change the Law, regardless of the lack of actual legislation, and that courts have the power to change the law at will and to their own judgements and prejudices. The courts do not have this power.
Kingofthenet| 7.3.12 @ 1:08AM
So ANY modern Militia weapons are OK than? I left out the 'nades & landmines...
Kitty | 7.2.12 @ 9:13AM
Mark Levin wrote a book on this subject called "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America."
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Blac.....Mark+Levin
mdwestern| 7.2.12 @ 9:50AM
We will always have a 2-tiered medical system: 1) the best for those who can pay for it, and 2) whatever society gives to those who can't. Since WWII, the workingman (and since 1965, the elderly) has had an insurance card that puts him in the room next to the richer man. Obamacare puts the workingman into the bed next to the charity patient. Only if Republicans can communicate this, will they win.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 4:05PM
And how is it that Moochelle is running around saying that healthcare is now "Free?"
The law says that you have to pay for and have insurance. Saying that healthcare is free is to believe that when the insurance company bought you a new car after you totaled the last one, that the new one was free!
HOW STUPID IS THAT?
Ever have an auto accident then look at your subsequent premiums? They don't go down. They go up. And under this incredibly non-sensical Obamacare, even if they say the premiums cannot go up, they will. Bet on it - the whole damn farm!
J.C.Eaton| 7.2.12 @ 10:06AM
I repeat myself and apologize for it but Isay that there is NO upside to this ruling. To those who think the meretricious Roberts "saved" the republic, I say: bulltweedle. What he did was contort congressional nonsense into jurisprudential nonsense. His work has reminded us that it is folly to trust the U.S.Suprme court to do the right thing: that is, rule Constitutionally or put another way, come to the correct constitutional conclusion. We really don't enjoy a tri-partite system anymore. Instead, we sport an Executive branch and two congresses. One of 535 elected by the people; and one of 5 that has morphed into an unelected oligarchy. Best,
MelvinNC| 7.2.12 @ 10:13AM
" A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective." Wikipedia
People we do not, and I repeat we do not as the right of free individuals have blind allegiance to five or a hundred robed individuals.
Those people are not Gods who sit upon a raised dais, issuing edicts that we must follow or risk persecution or loss of personal property through fines or oppressive taxation.
Why do so many lower their heads in solemn forfeit as free individuals, and collectively get in line to, "Take our Medicine," as phrased by the Liberal media. My fellow Americans we do have alternatives.
We can fight this scourge as free men, for the robed ones who do not follow the Constitution, so shall we not follow the robed ones edicts. They're just flesh and blood as you and I. They do not have divine preponderances of wealth and power.
I for one am not going to give up on myself, my neighbor, my town, my state, and least not, I will not give up on my Country because it is all I have, and all I shall ever want. For I have no place left to run or hide.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 11:47AM
IMO, secession from the Union would require the consent of 38 states, a constitutional quorum.
AllAmericanAmerican| 7.2.12 @ 3:50PM
Secession would require the consent of the citizens in the sovereign STATE. Who gives a flip what Maine or whatever thinks if my State wants to secede?
State Legislature meets, votes to secede, governor agrees, State secedes. You voluntarily join a union you can voluntarily leave it.
I'm a member of a hunt club. If they tripled my dues while slashing other members' in half, I would not pay the dues and instead I would quit---secede from--the club. I would not expect the other members to come to my house armed and try and force me to remain in the club (wow, I just described the "Civil" war).
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 4:01PM
There arises a legitimate question stemming from the administration actions following the AZ 1070 ruling as to whether or not the federal government itself has broken the compact by which the People, through their ratifying conventions, established the constitution. One of the express powers and obligations is for the federal government to protect the States from invasion. Article IV Sec. 4. With the new non-assistance directive the national government is refusing to assist AZ law enforcement in the performance of their duties. That also puts the president in violation of his obligation to see "that the laws be faithfully executed". The People ratified the Constitution, establishing the federal government for those purposes among others. The federal government is refusing to comply by its obligations under the compact and is opposing States attempting to act on their own behalf. It has therefore broken the compact by which it was established. The People and the States are no longer obligated to respect such a government.
Albertus Magnus| 7.2.12 @ 4:38PM
I agree and I have absolutely zero respect for the US government, which is exactly the amount it deserves. We have essentially a criminal government, operating outside of, and in direct contravention to, the Law.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 8:00PM
States cannot just secede from the Union. They have to leave the same way they came in, with the consent of the Constitutionally requisite number of States.
RichTex| 7.2.12 @ 10:38AM
The question the Chief Justice left unanswered is if the mandate is a tax, what kind of tax is it? The Constitution doesn’t allow Congress to impose just any tax it wishes. The 16th Amendment allows taxes on incomes, but this clearly isn’t a tax on incomes. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the broad power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”, which would seem adequate to include this mandate tax. However, Section 9 of Article I limits that power when it comes to direct taxes: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
If the mandate isn’t a tax, a majority of the Justices have held it to be unconstitutional. If it is a tax, it must be a direct tax, but one not apportioned among the states, so it is also unconstitutional. But what’s this little thing called a Constitution to stand in the way between the statists in power in Washington and their desire to control every aspect of the lives of their serfs?
This does give incoming President Romney the power to fulfill his promise to abolish Obamacare as the first order of business upon his inauguration. It certainly is within the power of the president to declare that the executive branch will not enforce any law which is so clearly unconstitutional. And, since there is no severability clause in the law, he will have to issue an executive order that no portions of it may be enforced.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.2.12 @ 11:50AM
It's not a tax, regardless of what the idiot Roberts claimed. As far as direct taxes on incomes, that is no longer relevant because of the 16th Amendment.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 12:14PM
Since the late 1930s, the Court has reversed all previous precedent and declared that any tax of any form IS constitutional, via misinterpretation of the General Welfare Clause.
This interpretation invalidated the entire rest of the Constitution, since taxes can now be used to require or penalize anything, and there is no constitutional restriction on the penalty for non-payment of taxes. Theoretically, the government could impose a trillion dollar tax on all forms of written or recorded private speech, apply the death penalty for non-payment, and none of this would violate the First Amendment unless the Court chooses to reverse this recent precedent.
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 4:09PM
Actually, wasn't it Stalin who asked the pivotal question that now applies to SCOTUS?
I believe when Uncle Joe was confronted with concerns that the Pope disapproved of his actions, Stalin asked, "How many Divisions does the Pope have?"
So how many divisions does SCCJ Roberts have, anyway?
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:29AM
Or, when the removal of the Cherokees to Indian Territory in Oklahoma was found to be unconstitutional, President Andrew Jackson said, "(The Supreme Court) has made its decision; now let it enforce it."
Petronius| 7.2.12 @ 10:58AM
Now the public knows the real court of last resort is the unelected beltway clique Roberts turned his coat to join. He should just change his name to lewinsky. The only remaining question is, did he swallow?
Bob Grant| 7.2.12 @ 11:18AM
Heh, very nice.
The upside is my respect for the four justices who maintained their integrity has never been greater.
Even Justice Kennedy who many feared wobbly, came through in the clutch at this crucial time; when Basic Individual Freedom was on the line.
Today, my gratitude is directed toward Justice Kennedy.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 2:56PM
Really?
I never feel as if I owe gratitude to people for doing the right thing...
Warrior| 7.2.12 @ 3:25PM
Good point. Kennedy should be held accountable for the multiple times he failed to uphold his oath. Now others want him praised for being a broken clock.
Who Knows?| 7.2.12 @ 11:16AM
Who benefits?
What’s in it for me?
Narcissus isn’t just a mythological character. Self interest is the essence of each separate human, so what can any self interested human expect from a seemingly august crew of nine separate individuals dressed up in black robes?
BLACK ROBES!
Think about that.
They are “special”, and “custom” demands that they are covered in BLACK ROBES. These uniforms, one forms, need updating---like, removing them, so that the old farts are naked, with only sparse cloth covering private parts.
Indeed, what’s in it for ME?
Why, whatever each new day brings in the form of words telling of the most recent actions of my “betters”, the most powerful elite people like Roberts, I get to---re-act, and spew my own Narcissistic opinion. You too.
Whereas, and wherefrom, and whereto, and wherever, and where about, and where-fill in your own word, apparently hidden and yet permeating and BEING you and it all, is vibratory Light.
Yes, even you! It’s like two twanging guitar strings are communicating, in and as Mystery. Hello you vibratory Light, you.
Besides, it’s NOT about knowing any, and all, ways.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 12:09PM
Are liberals, who frequently campaign to abolish the death penalty based on the thought that the wrongly convicted might be executed, now going to claim that the Court is infallible?
I suppose the police, who are charged with enforcing the law instead of the Constitution, never make mistakes either.
The Left is truly remarkable in its ability to find validation for itself in contradictory ways. The same Court they hated for Citizens' United is now the final say for all time on ObamaCare.
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 12:40PM
Right... and they have the press to help them shout down anyone who notices.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 12:42PM
And lest we forget, the Left is also fond of saying that nothing can trump the will of the majority WHEN the majority agrees with them. If the majority does NOT agree with them, then suddenly they start calling whatever they want a "right" and demanding their "right", accusing all who disagree of "bigotry".
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 12:46PM
I love it! Conservatives and others are wringing their hands and weeping and nashing their teeth over this decision. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! If taxpayers/voters had not been so, we would have now a President McCain [a Republican], and most probably would have not a Justice Kagan and a Justice Sotomayor [but instead possibly a Justice Bork II and a Justice Bork III]. As such we would not be enjoying a complete elimination/defeat by the SCOTUS of this piece of manure known affectionately as WELFARECARE. But we don't, because our unknown senator from Illinois [until the Kennedys began pushing his supremebeiness at their national convention and he thereafter exaulted to the heights of the second coming of JC] along with Pilosi, Reid, Schumer, Conyers, Durbin, Waters, Nelson, Landrieu and the rest of whats known as DEMOCRATS rammed through this socialistic garbage. Is Justice Roberts to blame? Nah! Who then is so? Three guesses and the first two don't count.........the stupid stooges aka American taxpayer-voters who enabled this legislation on 11/4/08!!!!!!!!!!!!
DTOM| 7.2.12 @ 4:16PM
OF,
There is absolutely no reason to believe that John McCain would not have nominated Kagan or Sotomayor in his perpetual quest for "Bi-partisanship!" None, not any, not one stinking drop.
Savvy this - where would be be if McCain had won, Pelosi and Reid passed this stupid alaw anyway, and McCain signed it?
In the basement of where we are now...
McCain and the GOP moderates believe they can compromise with Reid/Pelosi. Sure, just loike GHW Bush did when he buckled on the no new taxes pledge.
You cannot negotiate with people who want you dead. There is no middle ground with these people. None. Just ask the Egyptian Christians...any Christians in any Muslim controlled, or leaning country!
Wake the heck up, willya!
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 4:32PM
Wake up? Do you really believe that JM would nominate a Kagan or a Sotomayor? You can't be serious? If JM had won, then other Republicans naturally would have been elected instead of Democrats, and Republicans would have at least gained control of the House, maybe even the Senate. In 2008 Obama as POTUS had control of BOTH houses of congress and WALA, was able to ram through this crapola legislation due to same. IF [as exists now] the Republicans had had control of either or both congressional houses, the Democrats and Obama would not have had the political numbers needed to pass this excrement. Wake up? Duh! It's called a numbers game, and IF the Republicans gain two or three of the branches of government, then they can undue what the Democrats have done with this WELFARECARE, not to mention the other socialistic garbage they've legislated. Try to understand the differnece between Democrats and Republicans......the former spend money on governmental welfare, while the latter spend money on wars/military. The probelm that you describe will only become the necessity of forcing the Republicans elected hopefully NOT TO SPEND MONEY AT ALL, BUT INSTEAD TO STOP SPENDING MONEY TOTALLY [IN FACT TO SAVE MONEY BY ELIMINATING GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS/DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Diefledermaus| 7.2.12 @ 5:53PM
McCain's appointments would have been more like Souter or O'Conner.
RCV| 7.2.12 @ 6:01PM
...or Roberts
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 10:45PM
I'll take Roberts and Alito anyday any time over pigs like Sotomayor and Kagan [who wrote the GD welfarecare bill and then corruptly voted on it]!!!!
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 2:02PM
Please, Oldfarte, give us the source for your amazing fact that Justice Kagan "wrote" the health care reform act.
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 10:43PM
Or maybe like Robert Bork, since you'll never know for sure...will you?????
DTOM| 7.3.12 @ 8:50AM
Or Harriet Meiers or Alberto Gonzalez.
OF you miss my point! McCain is a 'go along to get along' guy. Do you think a 'reach across the aisle' type like John McCain would ever consider a Judge Bork? No, on his best day, John McCain could only muster half the conservatism that GW Bush ever could - and GW Bush was a moderate! Don't forget, he self-identified as a "compassionate" conservative by which he meant he was not really conservative.
P.S. I do revere John McCain for his fearless service of our country, that seemingly ended with his election to Congress. DTOM
Warrior| 7.2.12 @ 6:09PM
Souter, O'Connor, Roberts and Kennedy all appointed by Republcans. McCain would have pushed for a health care bill every bit as bad as Obamacare and he would also have pushed the Republicans (don't forget Reagan signed one and Bush tried for one) into some amnesty program.
Your belief that Republicans will fix this is delusional. Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, TARP, just to name a few all came about with a Republican President and most of it with Republicans in majority of both houses.
So you believe spending money you don't have is OK as long as it is for wars instead of domestic handouts? Name one program a Republican President in the last 40 years has eliminated?
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 10:41PM
You are obviously a DEMOCRAT or at least have voted for them and are now attempting to CYA. In your mind "Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, TARP" compares with the Great Society, the War on Poverty, the CRA of 1977, $800billion of non-stimulus to labor unions, welfarecare which will cost $trillions, ignoring the federal government responsibility for enforcing immigration, F&F, preventing oil drilling and coal mining permits, Justice's suing individual states over immigration, etc? No doubt you and yours facilitated 11/4/08 by your voting for Democrats; and don't believe Scott Walker is courageously eliminating unions stranglehold upon his state government's expenses and improving the economy of same. Apparently you believe no difference between Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Ford and the Bushes AND alternatively Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama; or the military efforts waged against Muslim terrorists by the Bush administration versus Clinton's. Nah, there's no difference......there's only Ron Paul and no other, right? Your thinking is the reason why 11/4/08 was asininely allowed to occur and why we're faced with the excrement-pot of destruction in thsis country now!!!!!!!!!!!
DTOM| 7.3.12 @ 9:00AM
OF,
We need to recognize degrees of evil (evil being non-conservative) here.
On a scale of evil of 1 - 10, here are some of my ratings.
FDR - 18
JFK - 10
LBJ - 16
Ronald Reagan - 1
GHW Bush - 5
GW Bush - 6
Mitt Romney -5.5
Nancy Pelosi - 18.5
Harry Reid - 18.55
Barack Hussein Obama - 21
So don't think that any Republican is the solution to every Democrat - the centrist Republicans are actually more destructive than the hard core liberal, socialist Democrats, because by pretending to be conservative, their liberal governance which usually yields bad results is always labeled, quite loudly and repeatedly, as failures of conservatism.
We need conservatives far more than we need mushy, muddled, centrist Republicans, especially to clean house after the Obama pigs have made such a mess of EVERYTHING!
That's what I'm talking about...
DTOM
Ronsch| 7.2.12 @ 1:07PM
The truly sad thing that sooo many critics of the NerObamaTax is missing is that this opens the door for any tax the filthy political hacks and animals in DC want to pass...What? You are not drinking water enough, tax your sorry ass in their playbook...What? you have the audacity to grow you own fruits and veggies, can them, and store them, tax your sorry ass...And so it goes...
Justice Roberts could have simply declared the entire abomination unconstitutional and been done with it...he is not being clever or smart as so many people allege...he was probably bought or bribed...Just like the filthy skank Kagan was, who BTW, should have legally recused herself from the vote.
Yes, that in-Justice Roberts, a super smart legal brain who cannot see the voter fraud and any other ploy the Demonrats will use to hold their power. the people will not be able to speak because of the shenanigans that come in November.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 1:43PM
Congress cannot ban free speech... but they can tax it to the extent that no one can afford to speak, and they can set "death" as the penalty for failure to pay the tax.
But they can't ban free speech. Aren't you glad for that?
RCV| 7.2.12 @ 6:01PM
No, they absolutely could not. The First Amendment, under existing well-established precedent, would prohibit it.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 6:09PM
Whether an undue burden on the right to free speech would be established by such a tax is exactly the type of subjective consideration that has allowed for so many absurd rulings to-date. The same logic that justifies cigarette taxes and ObamaCare could be used to justify the above.
RCV| 7.2.12 @ 7:58PM
The First Amendment doesn't protect the right to smoke. The situations are simply incomparable.
AllAmericanAmerican| 7.2.12 @ 1:53PM
Its not just opening the door to taxes you metion, but what if the Congress says you have to buy a Hybrid car or pay a $1000/year tax, which increases 100% every year you don't own one?
What if they say everyone needs one of those new "smart" thermostats in their house so Uncla Sam can monitor how hot/cool we keep it, and tax us for every kilowatt hour over 70 in winter and under 72 in summer? Oh, we can keep our old thermostats---just have to pay the $1000/year tax, which increases 100% every year.
And so on, and so on.
Petronius| 7.2.12 @ 1:28PM
Dygan raf!
Gary B| 7.2.12 @ 2:04PM
There are more important things than the law. Let's say you live in Chicago and you use an illegal gun to shoot a deranged, armed intruder, saving the lives of your wife and children. What's more important? Obeying the law or saving your family? In this case the family is our republic, the deranged, armed intruder is an Obama second term and the gun is Roberts.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it fouled itself a long time ago. The rule of law occasionally blows through the place, but not very often. One or two more liberal justices and the law of the land will rapidly diminish in our rear view mirror.
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 2:05PM
I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who opined that we would need to alter the government from the grass roots upward about every 70 or 80 years or so.
Seventy years from 1789 is 1859. Seventy years from 1861 is 1936.
Seventy years from 1936 is 2006.
I think Jefferson had it pretty much nailed.
Kingofthenet| 7.2.12 @ 2:12PM
"just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."
Oh Yes it does, unless they later reverse themselves
JD| 7.2.12 @ 2:16PM
Are liberals, who frequently campaign to abolish the death penalty based on the thought that the wrongly convicted might be executed, now going to claim that the Court is infallible?
I suppose the police, who are charged with enforcing the law instead of the Constitution, never make mistakes either.
The Left is truly remarkable in its ability to find validation for itself in contradictory ways. The same Court they hated for Citizens' United is now the final say for all time on ObamaCare.
Albertus Magnus| 7.2.12 @ 4:30PM
Oh no it doesn't. Unless you consider 9 people to be infallible, which is to deify them. But then that IS the leftist way, to deny God and to deify government, in essence deifying themselves and their egos.
The justices are people and they can and DO make mistakes. Nothing the court said changes one letter of the Constitution. It only grants political authority for government to act, albeit illegitimately. But the court is wrong nevertheless.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 7.2.12 @ 2:19PM
The Constitution has now become as worthless as a used piece of toilet paper, in the eyes of the Ruling Class. We have only one chance to get rid of this monstrosity. And that is to overturn it at the ballot box. And even IF and AFTER we do that, we still have to hold those whom we elect accountable for their actions or INactions.
Brooksifier | 7.2.12 @ 2:52PM
#1 internal enemy of the Constitution so far has been the Rove-Cheney administration.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 7.2.12 @ 3:02PM
Nice robopost, simpleton. Care to elaborate, or this this canned post all you've got?
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 4:15PM
No, I bet to disagree. The Number 1 enemy of the Constitution so far has been the Radical Republican Congress of the years immediately following the Civil War. They passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights into state law.
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 4:16PM
Not "bet," "beg."
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 4:18PM
Another Number 1 enemy of the Constitution is whoever came up with substantive due process. Roger B. Taney in Dred Scott?
JD| 7.2.12 @ 4:12PM
A challenge: Name any oppressive policy that our government might theoretically try to implement (pretend Hitler was elected president, if it helps you).
I will then explain how such a policy could be enacted and declared Constitutional, using the logic that defended ObamaCare.
See if you can stump me!
Nightwinger| 7.3.12 @ 12:32AM
How 'bout the Draft? (Involuntary servitude, forced labor conscription, etc.)
Or, if you can't handle that one----
How 'bout the internment of American citizens with Japanese ancestry into concentration camps during WWII ?
Nightwinger| 7.3.12 @ 12:36AM
OK, those examples are not "theoretical" but actual examples of government actions.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:32AM
Extermination of any one disliked group.
Nightwinger| 7.3.12 @ 12:23AM
It appears that the Supreme Court has upheld Romneycare.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:31AM
Yeah, except Romneycare was a state plan, not a federal one, and Romney has changed his mind even about that.
Nightwinger| 7.3.12 @ 12:59PM
State or Federal - same issue. Mandate with [tax] penalty for non-compliance.
I'm sure Mitt will flip/flob and cross-talk his way out of this like he always does when it's politically expedient.
Romney is a two-dimensional cardboard cutout who has taken acting lessons.
He says he has a "plan," but won't say what it is.
Unfortunately, without any positive agenda to offer, simply being Anti-Obama is not enough to win in November.
Osamas Pajamas| 7.3.12 @ 2:28AM
No worries, lads 'n' lasses.
When the Fallibles on the US Supreme Court lie about the meaning of the US Constitution or when they're just making dumb mistakes, we are under "no" obligation whatever to obey the faulty laws which the US Supreme Court erroneously authorizes and approves.
The slave alway has the right of armed rebellion and the use of deadly force, for example --- he has no obligation whatever to wait for a fkg vote to authorize his untrammeled liberty.
The Constitution, after all, is "the peoples' document" --- it doesn't belong to the US Government --- and it is written in English so that its rightful owners can read it as well as any other judge can.
Life in the constitutional republic is simple --- we must always err on the side of human rights.
What "human rights?"
I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
A slave is owned by someone other than himself --- but a free man owns himself.
The first article of private property is "the self" --- and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights.
These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Bill84728| 7.3.12 @ 9:33AM
Don't hold your breath waiting for that uprising of The People in their righteous indignation. Half of the population thinks things are just fine.
Nightwinger| 7.3.12 @ 1:41PM
"The Rights of Man?" But not, as some think, the Rights of Women who apparently don't "own" their selfs.
It's a reasonable assumption that Control of The Uterus was not something delegated to the government.
BTW, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.
And, there is not ONE WORD about "Gawd" in the Constitution.
Not one.
TenthAmendmentNetwork | 7.3.12 @ 4:53PM
The crux of this article is right: Supreme Court justices operate any way they choose, justify anything they choose, and will ultimately rule any way they choose without regard to what the Constitution actually says or what the original intent was. Hopefully this is a wake-up call to unengaged lovers of freedom to get involved and take their duties as citizens seriously.
The complete head-scratching SCOTUS decision analysis:
http://www.tenthamendment.net/.....?postid=15
Timely Renewed | 7.4.12 @ 10:58PM
The framers intended that the final say on the Constitution's meaning should rest with the People through the deliberative and democratic process of amendment, not the fiat of five unelected and unaccountable judges. Unfortunately the amendment process is now moribund. We need to reform the amendment process so that the People can make the final determination as to the meaning of our foundational document, not a tiny judicial elite. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.