Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President. But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
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.
Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.
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.
People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.
He is protecting Liberty!
Brilliant point... I believe he also struck a pen through the heart of Left wing judicial activism. "“It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices.”
ReplyDeleteStill not seeing it. Using the tax approach, he's said that the federal government can compel individuals to buy anything they want them to buy, so long as they do it through a "middle-man", a bully, a thug, literally a tax-collector. If they can compel you to pay for it, then they are indeed forcing you to buy. I'd have to google around a bit to see whether or not they can force you to use what you buy. I believe the state is able in some cases to force medical care over the objections of the individual. In this case, forced medical coverage will be used to pay for treatment.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Congress get the power to do this ... even worse than before ... they need no authority to regulate anything they want to anymore. They can tax, so they can do anything. That's not a victory of any kind. It's jumping out of the pan straight into the fire.
He is forcing the Democrats to defend the law as a tax when they keep saying it wasn't a tax when they passed it 2 years ago. He does make a good point...it is not the courts job to protect the people from the consequences of their political decisions. We put the democrats in charge for a few years and we paid the price. However; he says they passed the law under the wrong section of the Constitution. It is not Commerce, but rather a tax so treat it like a tax.
ReplyDeleteAt least I'm starting to see the argument. I have been trying to see it from the point of view of a Constitutional ruling. Jumping out of constitutional interpretation into the political arena - I can see the point at least; even though I'd argue that it's a naive one. Don't forget that we don't have a working democracy in the US. We have two parties pursuing the same agenda with different spin. Romney will say that he's going to "leave it to the states" ... something I've written about more than once. There's more than one way to skin a cat and the politicians know them all. Our only hope was the Constitution. They're going to use whatever power they have and a lot more. Now that they can regulate individuals through taxation, it's pretty much over. I may have a chance to write an article next week and will lay it out a little further.
DeleteIt totally agree Roger.
ReplyDeletePolitically this ruling sucks and these two parties will do nothing to take back the fact that they are shoving mandated health care down our throats. I get what the Chief Justice did in effect and he has opened the door to further challenges to the power of the federal government.
That's the tricky assertion that I still don't get. It's more like he knocked down a wall than opened a door. He's said plainly that there's now no limit to the misuse of taxation. He's said nothing as far as I can see that would create a new challenge to existing misuse of the Commerce Clause. I can see that he's opened up a whole new vista of opportunity for arbitrary intrusion and abuse of power. Anybody can challenge those abuses, but I don't see this as creating any new opportunity to win any of those challenges. In fact, don't be surprised if the government levies a huge new tax on lawsuits challenging federal legislation.
DeleteBeing a tax it also makes it easier to defund it.
ReplyDeleteIt was a brilliant move by Roberts to do it this way.
ReplyDelete- He insulated himself from the "partisan!" vitriol that was sure to come and he protected the court's perceived legitimacy
- He handed the GOP a campaign issue by not letting Obama and the odious Democrats off the hook for the truly dirty and shameful way the whole thing went down in 2010, and he wrapped it up in a big shiny election-year bow by legally declaring it to be a tax
- He laid the groundwork for true change and limits to Congressional power under the commerce clause
If Romney and the GOP can hold up their end of the deal, Obamacare will be gone by February and Roberts will have put himself into position to be as influential a chief justice as we've ever seen.
Seriously, this is Marbury v Madison type stuff. They'll be talking about it in law schools for years to come.
AND - per Art 1 Sec 7, this "tax" (revenue) bill did not originate in the House!
ReplyDeleteYes, because this tax originated in the Senate instead of the House, it can now probably be rescinded.
DeleteApologists for Roberts remind me of how the libs find "genius" in every stupid or destructive Obama does; it's disgusting. Roberts has set a precedent that would/will allow the feds to use their taxing authority to compel any citizen to behave in any way they want, whether it is to force them to buy health insurance or eat broccoli twice a day. The dissent had it right in the Obamacare case: the whole thing is unconstitutional and should be thrown out in its entirity. A Chief Justice who weasels around to insulate himself from partisan vitriol and protect the court's perceived legitimacy as Roberts has done gives weasels a bad name because weasels are not cowardly animals. Firstly, his oath is to uphold the Constitution, not cover his own ass, and secondly, his actions have severely inpugned the court's legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I was peeved at Roberts, but I think now he is a genius. This is what he did: any future law that these idiots try to get through using the commerce clause to force us to buy something against our will will not be able to be done in that way; it will only be able to be done using the taxing power. However, because people don't want their representatives to raise their taxes and representatives don't want to lose their jobs, representatives will be MORE careful about what they try to force on us if it has ANYTHING to do with tax money. Roberts has effectively taken these idiots' power away from them because they know that when it comes to raising people's taxes, there will be HELL to pay. That's why he's a genius.
DeleteThe conservative media just is not getting it.
ReplyDeleteRoberts manages one of the greatest feats in the history of the supreme court.
1. He reigned in congressional power forever and wrote the opinion that in a way that will uphold it.
2. Exposed the tax elements (easier to fix)
3. Insulated the states from the heavy hand of the federal government
4. And finally, gave the true power back to the voter to finish what the court started.
Pure genius if you ask me.
Roberts error, however, is that calling it a tax then means it must originate in the House because it's now a revenue bill. It did not originate in the House but in the Senate through trickery. Instead, the commerce clause wouldn't be the Constitutional issue. The Origination Clause becomes the issue to decide. This is the error made by Roberts.
ReplyDelete