Jun 282012
 
justice_roberts

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

If You Need More On The Topic: Charles Krauthammer / Joshua Hawley

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Tweet

  62 Responses to “Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius”

  1. I wrote a friend, who took your request to heart and sent me an email of this column. We’ll call my friend: Roy.

    Hey Roy,

    Not directed at you, personally, Roy, good friend, but that is all a load of COW PIES, pure and simple.

    Write your other friend and ask him just one question, “When was the last time an entitlement program (law) was removed from the books?”

    ANSWER: There is no last time as no entitlement program has ever been removed.

    Obamacare will never be removed, now; it might be modified, but it will never be removed.

    Judge Roberts betrayed his oath of office. He continued the betrayal of the Constitution that began with Wilson’s administration and his Supreme stacking of the Court, and advanced by Roosevelt and LBJ, in particular. Roberts saddled or strangled us with 2700 pages of “law” that he never read, but even if he did read it Roy, that only serves to intensify his true guilt in the matter.

    No one who consciously loves the Constitution in any seriously dedicated way, could fail to throw that law out, PERIOD.

    And the Chief Justice is a purveyor of lies through and through if he thinks for one second that anyone who knows the Constitution and the Framers, actually would agree that any of the Framers would uphold this convoluted and false representation of what they gave us. There is no way to accommodate Roberts reasoning (as presented by your friend) as anything the Framers would have intended.

    You see, Roy, not only have we been saddled with the lie of “lessor of two evils” in every Presidential race since George Bush Sr., but we have been lied to since the early days of Nixon, “got to have a Republican to save the Supreme Court via nominees.” LIES, LIES, AND LIES.

    I fully and passionately believe, with all of my mind, that, along with a lot of people in Congress, and most everyone at the State Department, and a lot more, too, from other branches of the federal tyranny –that Judge Roberts and at least 4 other current sitting Justices, should be lined up against a brick wall (perhaps one side of the Congressional building) and executed –shot to death– (with full TV coverage) and then, –and this is incredibly important– their bodies hung at major highway and street entrances to Washington, D.C. with signs around their necks declaring,

    “BEWARE ALL WHO CHOOSE TO ENTER U.S. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT:

    THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO BETRAY THEIR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION
    -no exceptions, no pardons.

    You want to change this Country, use the proper constitutional means provided every patriot.

    Subvert and betray the Constitution, and you will pay dearly and swiftly.”

    I am not writing this for fun, or in comic relief, and I am not employing hyperbole. I believe such action is our only hope and the only course left to us to have even a slim fighting chance to save our country.

    -Eric

    p.s.= Another way to easily sum this up is to ask this simple question:
    What, in practical terms, can the Federal Government not do?

    ANSWER: According to the Supreme Court, there is nothing the Federal Government cannot do, in one way or another, under one pretense or another..

    Treason, pure and simple.

    • And if you (I. M. Citizen) desire a precise legal refutiation of you defenseless propositons, here it is from Nathaniel Darnell, posted at AMERICAN VISION:

      Here are the Top Ten Reasons Why Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong:

      10. Roberts said Obamacare was not a tax before he said it was a tax.

      The federal government, like any smart organization, likes to protect its cashflow. Cashflow for civil governments primarily comes from taxes. In order to prevent the flow of this tax cash from halting, Congress passed a law called the Anti-Injunction Act which makes it so that a person has to first pay a new tax before they can bring a lawsuit saying the tax is unconstitutional. Since Obamacare doesn’t go into effect until 2014, it was argued that the Court could not yet rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare until after someone had actually paid the so-called “tax.”

      Chief Justice Roberts argued in the first part of his opinion that Obamacare was not tax. If he had concluded otherwise, the Supreme Court would not have been able to issue any decision on the constitutionality of the law. But since he wanted to rule on the constitutionality now, he argued that it was not a tax.

      Then a few paragraphs later, he contradicted himself and wrote that Obamacare was a tax. Can you say schizophrenic?

      9. Roberts is not allowed to make a “political” decision — as he says himself!

      Some have risen to Chief Justice Roberts defense, calling his ruling “an act of great cunning”[4] or a smart political move[5] that exposes the Democrats’ hidden tax-increase or something like that.

      If Chief Justice Roberts intended to make a shrewd political decision in how he parted from the other conservatives on the bench (Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) to uphold the President’s health care legislation, it does appear at this point to have back-fired. The immediate reaction seems to have been that the focal point of animosity over Obamacare has shifted from Democrat President Obama to Republican-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts. It does not seem to strengthen the case for “choosing the lesser of two evils” in voting for Romney over Obama when one of the few supposedly conservative Justices from the last Republican President cast the deciding vote to uphold President Obama’s biggest socialist claim-to-fame a few months before the presidential election.

      Besides all that, however, Justice Roberts stated rather plainly in his own opinion that his decision could not be bent by political considerations. He is oath-bound to support the U.S. Constitution over whatever political objectives he might like to see accomplished as a Republican. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise not the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”[6]

      So by the Chief Justice’s own words, he did not have the right to make a ruling to obtain a particular political objective — no matter how “cunning” or “shrewd” it may have been.

      8. Congress overwhelmingly declared its intent for Obamacare to be a mandate with “a penalty,” not a tax.

      One of the earliest lessons I learned in law school was that good lawyers and judges should look to see the intent behind a statute in order to determine how the legislature wanted it enforced. One of the ways a legislative body like Congress reveals its intent is in how it describes the purpose of its statute in the very statute itself. The Obamacare legislation[7] states that, “[i]f … an applicable individual … fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) … there is hereby imposed … a penalty.” §5000A(b) (emphasis added).

      As Dr. R.J. Rushdoony used to say, a law without sanctions is no law at all.

      As the conservative dissenters pointed out in their opinion, Congress made it overwhelmingly clear that the surcharge associated with the mandate was intended to be penalty rather than a tax. “Eighteen times in §5000A [of Obamacare] itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction [the taking of money] in §5000A(b) a ‘penalty’ ”[8]

      Obamacare even has two lists of types of people who can get out of the mandate. The first list is a list of exclusions to the mandate, including those who have “religious objections or who participate in a ‘health care sharing ministry,’ §5000A(d)(2).”[9] Christians who use Samaritan Ministries would be one example of those who fit this exclusion.

      Then there is another list of exceptions for people who are included in the mandate. The exceptions include people such as those who can’t afford coverage or who experience a short gap in coverage. If the penalty were really a tax, as Roberts alleges, having two lists — one of exclusions and another of exceptions — would “make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone.”[10]

      7. The penalty in Obamacare does not fit the definition of a tax.

      At no point in Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion does he give a definition for a tax. In fact, he deliberately avoids doing so, citing a couple other bad decisions where the Court refused to define what a tax is. Without a legal definition for a tax, how does Roberts determine that the penalty is a tax? The closest he comes in providing an objective way to evaluate whether something is a tax is when he writes: “[T]he essential feature of any tax [is] it produces at least some revenue for the Government.”[11] That’s like saying the essential feature of a cow is that it produces milk. But other things produce milk, such as goats. In civil affairs, fines, fees, and surcharges all produce revenue for the government, but we don’t call them taxes. At least, that’s not how the government sold the idea of these fine, fees, and surcharges to the voters.

      What would happen, though, if everyone complied with Obamacare and no one was subject to the penalty? That would mean that the federal government would not be receiving any revenue. So would that make it not a tax? Shouldn’t a tax involve inescapable revenue from the members of the nation?

      The dissenting conservative Justices quote from a 1996 case to provide a definition of a tax and a distinguishing definition for a penalty in their opinion. “[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty … is an exaction imposed by statute as a punishment for an unlawful act.’ ”[12] The Obamacare exaction does not appear to fit this definition of a tax because it can be avoided by simply complying with the mandate, but it does fit the definition of a penalty pretty well because it comes into force when a citizen does not do something the federal government wanted him to do. Otherwise, the distinction between a penalty and a tax becomes meaningless.

      Political Christianity: A Call to Action
      Only $14.95 Roberts, in his opinion, says that an exaction can be both a tax and a penalty. In the biblical Law, there are many different types of tithes that families were responsible to give to the Lord for different things, but a very few number of taxes enforceable by the civil government. A flat, poll tax is described in Exodus 30:11-16. Other taxes under the Romans Empire, for example, are likewise described as poll taxes. We note that in Matthew 17:24-26 Jesus says that kings of the earth only required “tribute” of strangers or non-citizens living in their nation. This was not a penalty, but a payment for the use of the benefits of the land. There is no evidence in the Bible of a lawful tax ever serving as a penalty.

      There is also nothing in Scripture, nor very much in American history, that supports the idea of a tax on inactivity. Great Britain at least imposed a tax on the activity of consuming tea. But Roberts doesn’t see this tax as being all that radical. He writes,

      “[T]he mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” (emphasis added)[13]
      Thing? Inactivity is not a “thing.” It is the absence of a thing. It would be like taxing the amount of darkness a person uses, since darkness is not a thing but rather the absence of light. Or it would be like taxing a person’s poverty (the absence of wealth) or taxing hunger (the absence of nourishment). It is that ridiculous.

      Through the Commerce Clause the federal government has postured to regulate nearly every activity, and now from this decision the potential is that the federal government may posture to regulate nearly every inactivity. Such an outrageous expanse of power can be nothing else than a wake-up call from God.

      6. SCOTUS has never before upheld the levying of a “tax” to support private business.

      The penalty in Obamacare is unique in that it operates to finance private businesses as much as it does the federal government. You either pay a private healthcare business to give you healthcare protection, or you pay the federal government what amounts to a fine or surcharge. It’s a choice between Communism and Fascism. Take your pick. As Dr. Gary North observed, this is the first time Fascism has been upheld in our country by the U.S. Supreme Court:

      “Economic fascism is the doctrine that there is a government-business alliance that makes the nation wealthy or strong militarily. This idea has never had a judicial basis before. Now it does.

      “A tax in America prior to last week was a payment by the citizen or legal entity to an agency of civil government. Not so in the new, improved American fascism, as articulated by Chief Justice Roberts. In fascism, a compulsory payment to a private, profit-seeking entity is considered a tax. You can pay it to an insurance company, or you can pay a fine to the federal government. Take your pick. They are both taxes.”[14]
      Some people incorrectly believe that Communism and Fascism are two extremes in the political spectrum — the extremes of the far left and the far right, respectively. But in Obamacare we see the two married together. This is because both Communism and Fascism are simply statism. They propose replacing the sovereign holy God with the sovereign, fallible state.

      5. Roberts’ opinion would allow Congress to break its own rules.

      Chief Justice Roberts makes a very convoluted rationalization to try to characterize Obamacare a “tax” for the mandate but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. Essentially, he says that Congress can use current laws that it passes to demonstrate how it wanted previous laws to be followed. He seems to not consider the possibility that a newer Congress may simply have forgotten or not like what a previous Congress legislated and intentionally or accidentally break its own rules. So many Congresspeople cycle in and out with each election every two years that this occurrence is very likely. But Chief Justice Roberts refuses, as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, to hold Congress accountable to its own rules. He gives Congress a new level of autonomy in this regard.

      Roberts thus writes: “It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction [taking money] is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. … The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare], however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress.”[15]

      He thus makes a previous statute subject to Congress’s re-interpretation in a new law rather than making Congress subject to its own rules even for itself.

      4. Any “Substantial Effects” vehicle for regulating commerce is unconstitutional.

      Justice Clarence Thomas, in addition to joining with the other conservatives and Justice Kennedy in the primary dissent over the tax justification, also wrote his own separate dissent. In his dissent, he perceptively pointed out that the court’s twentieth-century concoction of a “substantial effects” test for allowing the federal government to micro-manage intra-state commerce under the guise of interstate commerce, opened a slippery-slope that has taken us to this notorious decision.

      The “substantial effects” test has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court over the second half of the twentieth century in particular to effectively undermine the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which specifies that the federal government only has powers that are specifically given to it, and all other powers are reserved to the people or the states. At the beginning of his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts paid lip service to the idea of only enumerated powers, but his conclusions serve to undermine that principle.

      Although the “substantial effects” test is usually associated with the Commerce Clause, and Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the other conservatives that the Commerce Clause did not apply, Justice Thomas argued that the reasoning behind the “substantial effects” test is still very much behind the notion of the federal government enforcing an individual mandate. Justice Thomas wrote: “The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case” of “inconsisten[cy] with the original understanding of Congress’ powers.”[16]

      3. The Medicaid Expansion in Obamacare is not separable from the mandate.

      In responding to Chief Justice Roberts’ rationalization that he must preserve whatever portions of Obamacare are savable, the dissenting Justices say, “But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.” They argue, “The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Acts’ other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”[17]

      2. Only the House of Representatives may introduce a money law — not the Senate!

      The U.S. Constitution makes it unequivocally clear that all money legislation such as budgets or tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.[18] If a money bill does not, it is on its face unconstitutional. Period. However, Obamacare originated in the Senate. “Taxes have never been popular,” write the dissenting conservative Justices, “and it is in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives … That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”[19]

      So even if Chief Justice Roberts had been right in determining that Obamacare was a tax bill, he would have had to hold it unconstitutional for this single fact alone.[20] But he doesn’t even address this embarrassing fact in his opinion at all.

      For this reason the conservative dissenters condemn Chief Justice Roberts of ”[i]mposing a tax through judicial legislation [that] inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.”[21]

      1. The code section Congress used in Obamacare for the penalty pertains to penalties—not taxes!

      The dissenting conservative Justices wrap-up their critical remarks of the majority opinion by pointing out: “[T]he nail on the coffin is that the [Obamacare] mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s ‘Revenue Provisions.’ In sum, ‘the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford [] (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.”[22]

      These conservative Justices do not mince words in condemning Chief Justice Roberts’ position. They conclude: “[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it.”[23]

      Those who blindly follow the Republican Party ahead of the Bible and the Constitution will have to ask themselves who they side with: the lone Republican-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts or the other four Republican-appointed conservative Justices who charge him with re-writing law. As the old man says in Fiddler on the Roof, “They can’t both be right.”

      Article by Nathaniel Darnell

      Nathaniel Darnell holds his juris doctorate from Oak Brook College of Law and serves as the Director of Ministry Advancement at American Vision. He is the author of the novel “Glory, Duty, & Gold Dome” and the producer of over 100 commercial videos. Before working as the Director of the Video Department at Vision Forum Ministries for five years, he served for eight years as a legislative aide at the Georgia State Capitol.

      • Thanks Eric – clearly you’re upset with the ruling. As are lots of folks. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was promoting the idea that we still had a shot at removing Obama-care by tax repeal and/or by voting Obama out of office (additional motivation for independents to vote against Obama is a tax hike) and that it will be difficult to continue “national healthcare” if states opt out. The wisdom and soundness of his ruling, from a judicial perspective, are not mine to make.

  2. What about the insurance exchanges required to be set up by the States, are they not lucrative? If the State opt out and the federal government step in and sets up the exchanges, woud the States loose money? Will this force the State to participate in the program?

  3. The author of this article is one of the angriest, most immature, most ill informed “writers” I’ve ever read. If you actually take time to read Roberts’ opinion itself (now there’s a concept), you’d see that he was pursuing two overall goals, each of which was far more important than Obamacare itself. The first is, his swing vote helped establish reasonable and defensible limits on the reach of the federal government using the commerce clause as justification. Second, he rightly steered the Court clear of interfering with the responsibility of Congress to make policy and of the electorate to hold Congress accountable for making it. As he himself put it on page 12 of the decision, “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” He wasn’t exacting revenge or helping Romney win. He was voting to limit federal power and maintain the balance of power and responsibility that the Constitution established.

    • Tiredof…Thank you for your comments. I’m going to agree with you that I’m angry. I feel a President should conduct himself with more dignity than Obama has when representing this country. I feel a President should make decisions based upon what is best for America and/or American citizens, not what is best for liberals or Democrats or small voter-packets or those promoting one world government. Did I insert some conservative emotion into the piece (the payback concept / setting up Romney for a win…)? Yes, guilty as charged. That’s why it’s called an opinion/commentary piece. As for ill informed that may be true, also, depending on who you rate me against. But as for the ruling and getting a piece out there for the public’s benefit, I will take pride in the fact that I avoided the classic “bitch/complain piece” that was predominate from the right and the “take that” angle from the left. You point out the ruling was “two overall goals” 1) commerce clause limits and 2) voters need to fix their own mess — I agree as the commerce clause was mentioned in my piece and voters solving their own problem was “the point” of the piece (converting obama-care into a tax that can be repealed was part of the stroke of genious). However, as ill informed as I am, I also made mention of Roberts knocking down the spending clause part of obama-care as coersive. Your criticism of my ill informed work didn’t mention this concept as an important part of his ruling. But, as you will see, there will be lawsuits brought by the states challenging the federal government’s “string-attached” way of doing business. In fact, as of this reply, both Politco and the Nation have run articles about the ripple effects of the ‘state’s rights’ part of his ruling. But, hey, what do I know – I’m angry, immature and ill informed.

  4. It is just wishful thinking, someone just trying to put a spin on it. The facts do not support the idea that there can never be a mandate; Social Security, Medicare and civil rights are mandates in one form or another. Roberts did what many, many Supreme Courts Justices have done over the years found a way to uphold something. I study a case in law school where the Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction. It was clear the Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction over the case, but to keep a woman from being screwed over by her two sisters, the court had to find jurisdiction and they did find jurisdiction. I took them 35 pages to do so but they found it and ruled for the woman being screwed. I know of several cases like that, this is what the Court did in 2000 with the election of Bush, they didn’t have jurisdiction, it was clear they didn’t have jurisdiction, but the conservatives on the Court want Bush to win so they found jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Bush. It was not right but the Supreme Court has that power. That is why it is so scary to make the Court political, because it is suppose be unbiased and neutral. The standard in picking a Supreme Court Justice should not be are they right or left, but do they have good character and high intelligence and a lot of good old common sense.

  5. This is total bull and is a worthless opinion. This commentator states “His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.”.
    The commentator is trying to draw a distinction between the enforcement powers Congress has under the Congress clause and the enforcement powers detailed by Chief Justice Roberts with respect to the tax power. He is trying to make this opinion seem like it did something for the American people because Roberts limited the Commerce power. However, his statement that “His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever” is a distinction without merit. Even legitimate exercises o the commerce clause, Congress can’t ever truly compel Americans to do anything. They pass laws and tell you to do it or they will punish you with either a fine or jail. Congress essentially applies pressure on you until you are willing to do something; they can’t physically make you do it. They threaten you with prison or massive fines to “compel” you to do it. So even under established commerce clause authority, Congress really cannot “compel” you to do something.
    So what the ruling said is that the commerce clause does not provide authority for Congress to require you to purchase health care or go to prison or pay a big fine, but the taxing authority of Congress allows them to require you to purchase health care or pay a big fine. This is barely any different than what they could do if the individual mandate was constitutional under the commerce clause. The interesting thing is that the Supreme Court in recent years (in a case called Lopez dealing with guns around schools), had started walking the commerce clause powers back from its all time high of the mid-40s. What this ruling did is eviscerate all of that progress and tell Congress that if you want to require the people to do something, you can require them to do ANYTHING, whether or not you would have the authority under the Constitution to do it otherwise, and threaten Americans with a large tax if they don’t comply. In fact, in Justice Roberts actual opinion he says that Congress could require all Americans to install green energy windows in their homes and if they don’t they have to pay a tax. This is an incredible expansion of federal power. Even if Obamacare is repealed, this expansion of federal power will remain as precedent in the Supreme Court.
    This commentator is simply making a distinction that is irrelevant. The threat of financial loss is significant enough to most Americans as to “compel” them to do something.

    • Expansion of — What is relevant is that Congress claimed they can force Obama-care upon everyone under the commerce clause. If they can, then there is no way to get rid of Obama-care (in a practical way) without big-time and unlikely legislation. Roberts said they can’t use it to hide behind. He said for it to be Constitutional, Obama-care is a tax. If it is a tax, then there is a way out of it as taxes can be changed, altered or repealed. As for your claim my piece is a “worthless opinion”, perhaps, but there was more to this ruling than just the commerce clause. Refer to my reply to Tiredof…Frankly, I don’t really understand half of what you wrote. I wonder if you do.

      • I think you should check the WSJ in depth editorial of July 2 2012, which contains an in depth analysis of the taxing power under the Constitution. The Chief Justice himself rules that “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.”

        The editorial goes on:

        “But if not a direct tax, then what kind of tax is it? It is not an indirect tax because it applies to a failure to purchase something, what the Chief Justice calls “an omission,” not an optional transaction. It is not a tax on income because that merely hits “accessions to wealth,” not what people choose or choose not to do with those accessions.

        The result is that Chief Justice Roberts has created the only tax in U.S. history that exceeds its own constitutional limits and is meant to execute powers that the Court otherwise ruled were invalid. His discovery erases the limiting principle—apportionment—that constrains the taxing power for everything besides income and excises.

        In the process, Chief Justice Roberts has hollowed out dual federal-state sovereignty and eviscerated the very limit on the Commerce Clause that he posits elsewhere in his opinion and that has some conservatives singing his praises. From now on, Congress can simply regulate interstate commerce by imposing “taxes” whenever someone does or does not do something contrary to its desires.”

        An unlimited taxing power in the hands of the Executive and Legislative branches of government puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

  6. Barry is *extraordinary*!

    It’s been both funny and sad to watch the masses of (D)-rats allow Barry to brainwash them into supporting a Republican law.

    If Barry told them all to run off the nearest cliff they would ask how fast to run.

    What does it say about a people that glom on to some recent arrival and treat him like their daddy?

    Pathetic. Enjoy sending your proof of insurance to the IRS Suckers!

  7. Thank you Chief Justice for looking out for the Greatest Nation On this Earth.Alvin Roy,Langley Retired Senior Pastor. “And May God’s Blessings Be Upon You Forever More.” Amen.

  8. I agree totally. Justice Roberts left many avenues available for repeal of the ACA. Now it is up to the American citizens to vote in Republicans who are smart enough to figure it out.

  9. I’m not arguing here — I’m asking: From what I’m reading, a state (say, VA, where I live) can decline the funding for “national” healthcare, but I’m not seeing that this relieves me, the individual in VA, from being “coerced” into paying for it anyway. Also, it may have been politically savvy, but it’s a shame that we’ve come to the point of the SCOTUS having to be political at all.

  10. It’s the Constitution stupid!!!
    Principle versus agent. WE THE PEOPLE (sovereign states) are The Principle and federal is the agent including people in black dresses.
    Over 70% of federal activities are unconstitutional including obumacare.
    So what can WE THE PEOPLE do?…what is the “RIGHTFUL REMEDY”.
    What any 3 year old can do…
    JUST SAY NO!!!…NULLIFY NOW!!!
    Unleash the power of the Constitution to restore Liberty in America…
    the Tenth Amendment is the Gateway To Liberty. We must teach all Americans
    about Nullification and Interposition as vested in the Tenth Amendment.
    Finally we have the perfect tool to help educate and empower America.
    Order 1 or more copies of the stunning documentary-
    “NULLIFICATION; The Rightful Remedy” DVD from http://www.nullificationmovie.com
    Share with all within your circle especially your representatives and churches.
    Our cause is just, duty is ours, results are GOD’S,
    Richard David Hayes
    Executive Producer http://www.nullificationmovie.com
    SOAR Project
    Save Our American Republic
    PSALM 11:3

  11. Roberts is a RAT. He sold all US Military Veterans down the river when he decided the wearing of unauthorized federal medals is an act of “free speach”. I can now wear a cop’s or marshal’s badge without impnity & pump my resume with a Purple Heart, Navy Cross w Valor, or a couple of Silver Stars. G.W.Bush’s choice of this RAT is disgusting. He decided his vote during Obama’s diatribe just prior to the announcement. We no longer have 3 equal divisions of our government. He has politicalized the SCOTUS. A real BONEFIDE RAT.

  12. I know many of the readers think obama will be defeated in November. He and his crooks are planning the biggest voter fraud scheme in the history of mankind. David Axelrod has already identified the 5 states that will suffer the most fraud because they are the swing states. Wake up people, African dictators, the Russians, North Korea and Chinese elections will look like cub scouts to the fraud the democraps are planning for 2012. Remember the vote counting will be handled by a company from another country, Spain, chosen by obama. In addition obama has ordered the IRS to go after GOP PACS to shut them down. Do you feel safe with that???? Stand by for the final destruction of AMERICA.

  13. Are you saying that the four liberal justices plus roberts were the only ones on the court that wanted to protect America and the constitution? Meaning that they went against everything they believe in and sold America to the Islamioc communist president obama. That means the other four justices, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia hate America and think that obama does not have to follow the constitution???? Are you NUTS????

  14. Listen to Mark Levin’s show today (June 29) and yesterday (June 28) and you won’t even believe for another minute that Roberts outfoxed anyone but instead put a dagger in the heart of the Constitution. It is a disastrous opinion. Listen to the whole two shows in their entirety. Mark Levin is on the mark with his opinion of Roberts opinion. http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

  15. Obama is such an incompetent, inept, fool that he can’t see defeat when it slaps him in the face. This is an across-the-board tax increase on the MIDDLE CLASS. Hopefully, everyone who voted for him because he’s Black will refuse to vote for him in November because he’s an idiot.

  16. Maybe all true but what stops the Congress from structuring any purchase or requiring an action that is not EXPLICILY prohibited by the constitution in the same form with penilties, sorry I mean taxes, collected by IRS? You can be required to buy a refrigurator to keep you from getting food poisining or required to attend a patriotic pep rally or be taxed $10000.

  17. Justice Roberts did exactly what he should have done… upheld the Constitution AND put the President in his place! This virtually guarantees Obama will lose reelection, thank God.

  18. Problem I see, over and over, is the waste of time committed to the wasting of time. This problem could have been solved with Repeal, saving time, effort and money, for the needed actions of State.

  19. The author is blatantly lying. Saying “Obama-care is funded by tax dollars” is, in fact, incorrect. I’ll narrow the scope of my reaction to *JUST* the pentalty/tax that the author is talking about: A small tax will be levied against you as a penalty for not carrying insurance (just like a small tax penalty was levied against me for not paying quarterly taxes in 2009 and I paid a small penalty in the form of tax for not paying my 2010 taxes on time without requesting an extension – double oops!).

    The Act isn’t insuring the 46 million uninsured by using a tax. It is insuring the 46 million uninsured by making insurance so affordable that there is no excuse not to have it and by preventing insurance companies from denying you. Yet, it leaves intact your right to refuse to purchase insurance (and states’ rights to come up with an equivalent or better system after 2017/01/01). If you exercise your right to remain uninsured, congress will exercise its right to tax you a tiny bit more. The tax (for individuals) starts at the greater of $95 or 1% of income in 2014 and reaches $695 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. Most of us are already paying at least $650 – $800 (or more!) for insurance through our employers so this tax is actually a pretty good bargain for individual insurance.

    Honestly, if the government asked us to directly pay for universal healthcare with a tax THAT affordable, I’d have gone nuts with joy. Only $695 or 2.5% of my income to have myself and all of my country covered? Awesome (and a lot more like what I had hoped for).

    I cannot excuse conservatives for acting willfully dense just to claim a “victory” for their team. No team won on this because ALL AMERICANS WON. Trying to rewrite the results is petty and below all of us.

    Yesterday morning, I woke up braced for an astounding defeat. Before the day was done, I had my hope for our country strengthened and my faith in our nation’s highest court restored.

    • Actually, isn’t is a bit more nuanced than that? The tax/penalty in only one part of the picture. With a minimum of an additional 1000 tax-funded IRS agents needed for audits and overseeing tax-credits, along with all the other tax-funded administrative issues and bureaucratic layers that will be needed to implement and keep it going. Not hard to see the tax implications far greater than you paint. Not to mention all the administrative costs for businesses and health care providers to comply.

      • Those figures are so wrong!! Really IamAJD…..did you get that $95 from the guy drilling Sen. Marco Rubio yesterday? So untrue….it will cost you much more to buy into health insurance now….plus……your health care will have to be rationed. That’s right…..too many people, not enough doctors/hospitals. I’m looking forward to seeing the end of true healthcare. After all….that’s what you all have voted for.

      • Agreed. initial reports are there are some 20 taxes in the works…it’s going to be expensive.

    • Your view is quite limited to the tree; can’t see the forest, can you?
      Sad.

    • The money we’ll be paying is the money most of us are already paying to corporations as premiums for health insurance. When the law is fully active, most of us will *still* only be paying in the form of premiums to corporations for health insurance. To keep the health insurance companies profitable (because they now have to cover people their accountants would rather they didn’t) the risk has to be spread over more people. This will only work if people are forced to carry insurance. The threat of an added tax (a “penalty” if you will) only comes into play for the people who refuse to get insurance.

      To help keep the cost of healthcare down (which, for those of you who just don’t get it, will reduce the premiums everyone is paying) a lot of smaller provisions are made. The provisions include basing the pay of doctors on quality of care instead of quantity of patients, opening the prescription drug market to more competitors, preventing some expenditures as being used towards deductibles (like over-the-counter drugs), capping the profits of insurance companies to a reasonable amount to prevent price gouging, etc. All of these provisions pay for themselves or are covered by restructuring existing federal healthcare programs.

      As long as you continue to be insured, you’ll experience no change in taxes. As a matter of fact, your premiums should decrease, leaving you with more disposable income. And the Act frees up more federal money than it uses, so more of the taxes you already pay will go towards things Republicans love… like wars, tax breaks for churches, prosecuting minor drug charges, and border security.

      So, we have the old system where the uninsured abuse the Hippocratic Oath to get care where they can’t be refused, the emergency room, and then never, ever pay for it… which makes the cost of healthcare go up for EVERYONE else… and now we have the new system where everybody mitigates the risk of needing healthcare by having affordable insurance. Why is this so difficult for you guys? Every citizen wins and all it costs us is a slightly diminished capacity for outrageous profits.

      To quote a friend: “Remember that the individual mandate was a conservative Republican idea supported by the Heritage foundation. So what the Supreme Court did was uphold a conservative Republican idea. That’s why conservatives should be happy. Conservatives didn’t start saying that the individual mandate would destroy the country until President Obama supported it.”

      To oppose the Act now, just because it was presented by the current president, is just playing partisan bulls**t politics and you should be ashamed.

      • IamAJD, you’re the one playing partisan bulls**t! You’re simply lashing out at the Author and those who happen to agree with him just because they don’t agree with you’re liberal ideology. If anyone should be ashamed, it’s you.

      • Have you ever had an accident with your automobile and the other person had no insurance? Who paid, you or them? You did the right thing and even had to have uninsured motorist insurance, all because the other did not do the right thing. Why should we all have to pay for other people’s mistakes. Is it fair that we be required to pay for the wrongs of others? I think not! We have to stop thinking we have to always take on the responsibilities of others, because they choose not to be responsible!

  20. Roberts had a duty to uphold the Constitution. He ruled Congress is not bound by the Constitution when it comes to Taxes which is not true. Further, the Constitution requires all tax bills to orginate in the House. So since he ruled it was a tax bill and it ended orginating in the Senate – he was required to strike it down. Roberts did wrong – no getting around and why is anyone desperate to defend a Chief Justice for writing an opinion that the Chief Justice personally knows to be in violation of the Constitution?

  21. This piece was equally as good, and came out before IM’s
    http://www.taxpolitics.com/2012/06/silver-linings-in-the-obamacare-ruling/

  22. A very hopeful perspective, but reasonable in both the practical and political sense. The Left is always prone to overreach when in power, which usually causes a reactionary backlash. In this case, they’ve gone so far that when the rubber band snaps back, as it were, we may see profound historical possibilities arise to the nation’s benefit. Another very hopeful perspective.

    Also, you’ve provided an exceptionally fine piece of writing. Thanks.

  23. Certainly an interesting take on understanding the ruling. I read that Roberts essentially struck down the idea of govt. forcing citizens to buy certain things but by calling it a tax it makes it legal for the govt. to “tax” you for not purchasing something. It feels like Roberts took the easy way out. We still ended up being forced into purchasing healthcare…”or else”. Also, if a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty then does the Govt. still get to “tax”/penalize citizens for not taking healthcare. I’m not sure this guy’s interpretation completely correct.

  24. “They (wh/obam/dems) wanted ammo to fire this bill on citizens. Roberts put a grenade in their pocket and handed the pin to the people. I say OoRah Big John!”

  25. Who wrote this article – I.M. Citizen or Bert Atkinson?
    http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

  26. This is a great article. It’s exactly what I was thinking as soon as I heard how he ruled. This is the biggest political Pyhrric victory of all time for Obama. Roberts not only castrated Obamacare by giving states a legal way to opt out, he turned it into the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. Obama now has to defend to the voters why he railroaded a massive tax increase that the majority of Americans were against.

    If this had just been struck down, a lot of voters who don’t like Romney wouldn’t even vote in November. Meanwhile, Obama would just pander to his ultra-liberal constituency and get re-elected. Now, the fence-sitters HAVE to hold their noses and vote for Romney if they want Obamacare gone.

    • Indeed!

      • But this whole thing is essentially a blueprint from what Romney did in Massachusetts! How do y’all rectify that?!

        Plug your noses and vote for Romney when the stink you’re so repulsed by emanated from the candidate himself? Makes no sense.

  27. This article was written by a Roberts apologist, trying to twist our minds into believing in fairy tales, almost like those telling us Obamacare is good for us. Roberts looking like he was actually trying to help us by poisoning us, yeah he did it to give us peace and love. Not fooled this guy voted in favor, all his talk of it being unconstitutional was voided when he voted and made it constitutional in the eyes of the entire world!

  28. So what did Roberts actually say “Yes” to? And do you know how (or if) we can actually read his written ruling? Thanks.

  29. Roberts is a traitor to this country; he just threw 300 million people under the bus.
    He just paved the way to get around the commerce clause, opening up a Pandora’s Box that will never be closed.

  30. Well, that explanation would work if you don’t consider President. He has set a horrible president that the government can basically tax you for anything you are not doing. BAD BAD BAD! We can win the election and get rid some of the non originalist constitutionally minded justices, bit it will take another case like this one with that new court to overturn this president!

  31. Do you just…not understand anything?

  32. Okay…I’ll buy the so-called brilliance of Roberts, for now….it better turn out the way this article states!

  33. Elections have consequences.

  34. In my very good opinion He is an Idiot, Some might call him a Haudy Pantywaist, but given the FACT Obama is going to lose —YOU also will only lose everything . You didn’t think it through did you HA ha HAAAAA HJAaaaaaaaaa. If I was really mean I would tell you your wife cheats on you also BUT ! How would I know that ? And I am not mean so I won’t say that. . I am sorry that you made such a bad decision that you will regret because Obama will not be in office to defend you BUT What if he tossed a Million or so dollars of ours to you ?

  35. I am counting on Nikki Haley, our governor in SC to make sure SC does not participate in obamacare.

    • Don’t worry. Haley’s last act before hopefully becoming Vice-President of the United States will be to refuse the Obamacare funding for South Carolina in January. Before the winter is over, President Romney will sign the bill repealing it, and all of this will be over.

  36. I think He screwed america..

  37. Then how is it legal in the state of Massachusetts? I would love to see it repealed we are forced to have health insurance or be faced with a ” penalty” or tax as the Supreme Court calls it.

    • Because there is a difference between the Federal govt. & the states. I know the ABRomney people like to deny this, but there you go.
      Also, MA hasn’t brought a lawsuit to challenge it.

    • Mass gets to keep it because it is a state not federal program. Want to get rid of it in Mass? Do like I did MOVE OUT!!! New Hampshire is still relatively sane want to help keep it that way? come on up

  38. Bravo. Brilliant to be sure. “Thank You.”

  39. Bravo. Brilliant. “Thank You”.

Leave a Reply to dennis myers Cancel reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>