Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right
Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
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 threw his
windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
h/t BH
The Truth: This is a political opinion that was written on June 28, 2012 and posted on the conservative commentary web site, I.M. Citizen. Click for article.
Nine Supreme Court Justices heard arguments in the form of four questions inquiring if the Affordable Healthcare law is Constitutional. We found an article that explained it "In Plain English," in a June 28, 2012 article found on the Supreme Court of the United States Blog.
The article said that the primary question was if it was legal for Congress to require that Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or be penalized. It said that "the government’s primary argument was that Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of health care for the uninsured to health care providers, insurance companies, and everyone who does have health insurance." The article went on to say that five Justices, Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, "all rejected that argument. But the government still won, because a different set of five Justices – the Chief Justice, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but for a different reason." That being the power of Congress "to regulate commerce assumes that there is commercial activity to regulate and in the view of Chief Justice Roberts "the mandate creates activity, rather than regulating it."
The article continued to say that Chief Justice Roberts did reject the government’s Commerce Clause argument but "agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else."
Denying the Court's claim of a tax, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in a briefing the following day that the fine is still just a penalty. In a July 2, 2012 Fox News article GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign was quick to toss a challenge to President Obama to make a decision to either call this "an unconstitutional penalty or a 'constitutional tax,' but not both."
While promoting the Affordable Healthcare Law, President Obama said that the individual mandate is not a tax.
Nine Supreme Court Justices heard arguments in the form of four questions inquiring if the Affordable Healthcare law is Constitutional. We found an article that explained it "In Plain English," in a June 28, 2012 article found on the Supreme Court of the United States Blog.
The article said that the primary question was if it was legal for Congress to require that Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or be penalized. It said that "the government’s primary argument was that Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of health care for the uninsured to health care providers, insurance companies, and everyone who does have health insurance." The article went on to say that five Justices, Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, "all rejected that argument. But the government still won, because a different set of five Justices – the Chief Justice, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but for a different reason." That being the power of Congress "to regulate commerce assumes that there is commercial activity to regulate and in the view of Chief Justice Roberts "the mandate creates activity, rather than regulating it."
The article continued to say that Chief Justice Roberts did reject the government’s Commerce Clause argument but "agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else."
Denying the Court's claim of a tax, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in a briefing the following day that the fine is still just a penalty. In a July 2, 2012 Fox News article GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign was quick to toss a challenge to President Obama to make a decision to either call this "an unconstitutional penalty or a 'constitutional tax,' but not both."
While promoting the Affordable Healthcare Law, President Obama said that the individual mandate is not a tax.
Video of Obama Interview on ABC found on YouTube
The genius status of Justice John Roberts might be settled by the results of the November 2012 Presidential election.
update 7/3/12
No comments:
Post a Comment