Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius – Revisted

Bookmark and Share If you read my post Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius, composed just a few hours after the supreme court ruling, you’d know that I promoted the idea that, although Roberts didn’t strike down Obama-care, his ruling gave those against Obama-care some tools with which to work. This outlook was in the minority. It was based upon the idea that by ruling the Democrat’s use of the commerce clause was unconstitutional, Roberts took away one of the pillars on which Obama-care was based. He also ruled that the mandate had to be a tax. This was beneficial to the citizens because, as a tax, it could be repealed by vote. Additionally, by ruling the mandate a tax, Roberts forced Democrats to have to defend tax increases in a recession and in an election year. My last point was that by ruling the federal government’s threat to yank funding from states was unconstitutional, Roberts opened the door for states to reject Obama-care without suffering a severe penalty. And if numerous states reject Obama-care the idea of a “national” healthcare system is obviously jeopardized.

And now two weeks after the SCOTUS ruling, with emotions more controlled, let’s take a look at recent events, shall we?

Yesterday, as you may know, the Republican-led House voted again to repeal Obama-care in its entirety. Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Senate is likely to stop the repeal in its tracks. But, this forces Democrats in an election year to justify standing with Obama-care and the associated taxes. They will be pulled from the shadows and subject to the intense glare of the American people. By the way, the Left is going to flood the media with the idea that less Democrats voted to repeal Obama-care this time than in previous votes, implying the outlook toward Obama-care has changed. Don’t be fooled. Since Obama-care was rammed down the people’s throat, there has been a purging of its supporters in Congress. So, were there fewer Democrats supporting this repeal? Yes — because there are fewer Obama-care supporting Democrats in existence. But the job is not done. The Senate will reject the Obama-care repeal. There are still too many liberal-socialist Democrats in the Senate. They must be purged, too. The Senate elections, crusaders, must be a focus.

With their new found freedom based on the ruling, the list of states that have already rejected Obama-care or have announced they are not likely to implement it include: Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia and Missouri. From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57” states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it, that I have heard, since his short, bitter-sweet victory speech the day of the ruling.

As the election year progresses, pressure will increase to reduce budgetary outlays. You can bet Obama-care will be targeted. Because it is such an outrageous monstrosity, you can become a political hero by successfully attacking small pieces of it — trial runs, pilot projects and subsidies come to mind. The administrative and regulatory demands of Obama-care are extremely complex. Limit the flow of cash and the implementation of Obama-care gets hurt badly. As a bonus, you get some votes. It will be interesting to see as the season progresses if any Democrats, feeling they need votes, join Republicans in attacking aspects of Obama-care funding.

The interpretation that Roberts’ ruling possessed a silver-lining has proven to be accurate. Many people will continue to bad mouth him based upon complex interpretations of law, the ‘true’ meaning of words and the implications of precedent. I’m not a judge, nor am I an attorney or law clerk. My expertise in law is limited to the times I’ve been on the wrong side of it. So, to these judicial gripes I can not comment. Others will remain bitter because they feel he should have just struck down the law. Perhaps. But he didn’t. He left it up to the people. He tied Obama-care and the supreme ruler to the same fate and handed that fate to the American people.

If you want to rid yourself and your descendents of the horrors of Obama-care, then you must rid the country of Obama. It is as simple as that.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

If It It, It Is. If It Isn’t, It’s Un-constitutional.

Bookmark and Share

In keeping with my quoting former President’s in discussing the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare we will quote the (in)famous William Jefferson Clinton:

“It depends on what the definition if ‘Is’ is.”

The SCOTUS decision rendering the Obamacare mandate legal only under the Congresses power to tax is not even a week under the belt but has most still hot under the collar. Conservatives are up in arms that they were betrayed by one of their own at the last moment as Chief Justice John Roberts apparently changed his mind at the 11th hour and liberals are scrambling to explain how they can still support it as a ‘tax’ which will impact millions of middle and lower class families.

The President says it’s not a tax. His chief of staff says it’s not a tax. Pelosi says it’s not a tax. John Carney says it’s not a tax. Most Democrats, especially those up for re-election who supported the bill are screaming that it’s not a tax. ***BREAKING NEWS*** The Supreme Court of the United States of America says IT’S A TAX. You wanted a ruling in your favor…you got it.

So….as most pundits and armchair constitutional lawyers try and wrap their heads around what they feel is a very complex situation, allow me to simplify it for you.

The SCOTUS ruled it’s a tax. If you are going to continue to claim publicly that it is not a tax then you are making the argument against your own bill. Which by the way AS A TAX can only be disputed after someone has to pay it which will happen in 2014. If it is not a tax then you arguing that it is in fact unconstitutional. Good, we agree on something.

So, for those of us who believe this ruling to be a gigantic infringement upon one’s personal liberty as well as a Pandora’s box of the government’s power to tax, take a chill pill. The administration and it’s surrogates are making the disputing of the ‘tax’ easy for us by claiming, despite the ruling to the contrary, that it is not a tax.

It all depends on what the definition of ‘Is’ is.

Bookmark and Share

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Bookmark and Share  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.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net
 

Bookmark and Share

President Obama attacks the Judicial Review role of the United States Supreme Court

President Barack Obama struck a new low in his presidency yesterday, when he went after the Supreme Court during a press conference over the “Obamacare” case, saying it would be wrong for the “unelected” Supreme Court, to take the “unprecedented and extraordinary” decision, to strike down his signature health care legislation, when it was passed by an elected Congress saying he expected the justices to rule the act as constitutional. What makes President Obama’s comments dumb-founding is the fact that his former profession is that of a constitutional law professor.

The president’s comments have been viewed by many that not only will he be running against Congress in this November’s election, but if his signature piece of legislation is struck down for being unconstitutional he will make it an election issue. Polls show American’s are divided over the issue on ideological lines, with conservatives opposing the measure as a government overreach and liberals supporting it as a necessary overhaul of the health insurance system.

“In accordance with precedents out there, it is constitutional,” Obama said of the 2010 Affordable Care and Prevention Act passed by congressional Democrats with no Republican support. “That’s not just my opinion, by the way, that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.”

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American “experiment in democracy” with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations. The Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.

President Obama framed the issue as one affecting everyone rather than an “abstract argument.” “People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordablity of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions,” Obama later added: “Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.”

In addition, the president noted, 30 million people will gain coverage when the individual mandate and the rest of the law are fully implemented in 2014.

“I think it’s important and I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said. “So, there’s not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this and I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

President Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court “will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law” passed by Congress.

He also took aim at critics of the health care bill, noting that such opponents now were calling for the kind of “judicial activism” they have opposed in the past.

“I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” the president said.

“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama added.

If the justices uphold the law, Republicans are likely to say the only way to overturn it is to win control of the White House. If the court strikes down the legislation, Democrats will campaign to regain control of House of Representatives in order to save the reforms.

The president’s comments came hours after Congressman James Clayburn, assistant Democratic party leader in the House of Representatives, suggested that if the ruling goes against the healthcare legislation then Obama should take on the supreme court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected in June in the middle of the campaign for the November presidential election and is certain to become an election issue whichever way it goes, coming just months before November’s vote.

%d bloggers like this: