The Right Opinion
The Chief Justice of the United States
Just about everyone in Washington was wrong about what the Supreme Court would do yesterday on the Obamacare case. Well, we were sort of right but in the end we were wrong.
First of all the official title of the case is:
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
Who knew that? Put your hand down, you didn't know it until today, either.
I, along with everyone else, believed the Court would rule the Individual Mandate to be an Unconstitutional extension of the Commerce Clause.
In case you were absent that day from Dr. Robert Hill's Con Law class at Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, 45750 the clause in question which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 begins with the words, "The Congress shall have the power" and then follows with 18 things the Congress shall have the power to do.
The third power is:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The Court ruled by 5-4 that indeed the Individual Mandate was an Unconstitutional expansion of the "commerce clause."
But, as CNN and Fox News Channel discovered to their collective professional embarrassment, Chief Justice Roberts went on to say that the Mandate is legal if it is considered a tax because the very, very first power the framers granted to the Congress was the power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ...
I know you are asking: What in the world is an "impost?" so I looked it up for you.
According to Webster's Third Unabridged it is defined as: "Something imposed or levied" which sounds redundant to a tax but maybe the framers were being paid by the word.
So, when CJ Roberts wrote that the individual mandate could be considered to be a tax, maybe he should have written it could be considered an Impost, but I don't think they'll throw out the 193 page opinion because of that.
On Monday, the Chief Justice had sided with the Majority to overturn almost all of the Arizona immigration law. There were those who wondered whether that decision was a foreshadowing of Roberts' opinion yesterday.
I guess it could be looked at that way, but I don't think the Chief Justice of the United States has much trouble separating the word "Arizona" from the term "Health Care" in his mind.
The four Justices who voted in the minority were clear, and to some degree harsh, in their dissent saying they would have repealed the entire law.
Roberts said in his opinion that the Court could not, and would not rule on whether the policy of forcing people to buy health insurance was a good one, writing:
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions ... Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
Unlike half the political pundits in Washington, Gov. Mitt Romney read the decision correctly and said,
"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do. What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."
At his confirmation hearing in June 2005, Roberts said:
Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.
But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
There were plenty of people outside the Supreme Court building yesterday to see the "umpires." At one point I tweeted (I'm @richgalen) "Is there any more useless activity than demonstrating outside the Supreme Court? Other than demonstrating at the base of a volcano, I mean."
I think the nation owes George W. Bush a national round of applause for nominating John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. I don't know if former President Bush agreed with the ruling or not, but he had to admire the fact that Roberts told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at his confirmation hearing.
Pretty good stuff, that.
On the Secret Decoder Ring today: Links to the full opinion (which you can download, print, and put on your shelf next to your copy of the Starr Report), to all of the Enumerated Powers, to Romney's statement and to Roberts' statement at his confirmation hearing.
Also a modestly amusing Mullfoto and a topic appropriate Catchy Caption of the Day.
Copyright ©2012 Barrington Worldwide, LLC | Mullings.com
9 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM
You get what you vote for, so you can vote to be taxed to death in November, or you can vote for freedom and to save the Republic. Taitor or Patriot? You Make the Call!
cornell in Canada
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Well said, wjm.
James in Stafford, VA
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Ladies and gentlemen -- I myself was horrifically dismayed at Chief Justice Robert's decision yesterday, and quite frankly, nearly threw up on my keyboard over what I felt was a horrendous betrayal. However, after 24 hours, and listening as carefully as possible to many opinions all over the spectrum, I believe I've come to the following conclusions (abbreviated for a blog posting): 1. Chief Justice Roberts has maintained the integrity of the court in a highly charged environment by ruling both for and against key provisions; 2. He exposed, in a non-reversible way, what we have all known from the beginning -- it is a tax, even though many tried to claim it wasn't. In doing so, he exposes the opposition as duplicitous at best, and outright deceptive and lawless at worst. 3. He has directed back to the people the responsibility to take charge of their elected officials, and to hold them accountable. 4. Even though he has given the administration a great gift in upholding the ACA, he has given us an equally great gift -- exposing them for who they are -- socialists who do not hold true to their oaths and who love political power more than their country or Constitution. They will not be able to shed this albatross. 5. I liken it to a very dangerous game of chess. Chief Justice Roberts could have siezed his opponent's queen and put his opponent at severe disadvantage. But I think he's thinking bigger than just this move -- he's thinking about the whole "game". Instead of taking a queen, he sacrificed his own -- but because he sees the checkmate even in the sacrifice. The checkmate is, of course, voting the current administration out of office and taking back our government. Once done, we can repeal the law and fix the problems.
I want to write a whole editorial on this, but simply don't have the time. My boss does expect me to actually work for him instead of blogging.... But think about this -- there are the battles and there are the wars. Sun Tsu's quitessential philosophy that "all warfare is based on deception" applies here. Yes, the Chief Justice made a sacrifice play, supposedly giving the opponent a crucial win -- but he has a broader perspective in mind, and as much as I loath the ACA and all the usurptations it stands for, I believe that the Chief Justice has been incredibly shrewd, and has positioned us for checkmate. Let us not waste this opportunity! We must rally to the cause!
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM
I still do not understand what the hell the power to tax has to do with constitutional authority to force an individual to purchase something he does not want, and to force every tax paying American citizen into a one size fits all health care plan.We need to rise up and have an American spring in this country.
TJS in Florida
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM
You are correct sir. Calling the penalty a tax is a transparent deception. Saying that the government can force us to do anything as long as they call the penalty a "tax" is an absurdity. The constitution grants only enumerated powers, and medical insurance is not one of them. The actions of Democrats in passing the law were unconstitutional, and the supreme court justifying coercion by calling it a tax is also far outside the bounds of the constitution.
Adrien Nash in Crescent City, CA
Saturday, June 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Chief Traitor Roberts has revealed himself to be above the law. What law? The Constitution and the principles it embodies. How did he justify his treason to the Constitution? By assuming the authority to do that which no man has the right to do, which is to bastardize the meaning of fundamental words crucial to the framework of all government. Lincoln said; "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so." Roberts choose to defy the basic immutable law that no one has the right to fundamentally alter the laws of the nation by simply perverting the meaning of a simple word. Giant ships are steered by discreet rudder gears on which the direction of the ship is dependent. Roberts and his liberal allies smashed the gear that has always existed and replaced it with a socialist gear, a gear that declares that punitive penalties are taxes, and that taxes are penalties. No difference says the brain-dead imbeciles masquerading as the highest and wisest minds in the entire judicial establishment, when in fact they are political bozos who consider the Constitution to be as sacred as a doormat. Now how do we go about removing the knife from our back? Only by securing the power to flush the toilet that Washington DC has become.
Holmes Simons in FL
Sunday, July 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM
The inalienable rights of American citizens have been revoked by the egotistical rantings of one pseudo-intellectual judge in an pathetic attempt to exhibit the superiority of his legal acumen above that of his peers, and, by his singular effort, he has destroyed and repudiated the legacy of individual freedom that is the very foundational principle upon which the Federal Government was created to defend and protect.
So, before one jumps on the bandwagon glorifying the shrewdness of Justice Roberts in advancing conservatism, please consider these two simple facts:
1) The inherent fallacy of the so-called “Commerce Clause”, upon which Congress has relied for years to regulate any and every aspect of economic activity, was upheld; but it cannot be used to regulate “economic inactivity”, such as one not purchasing health insurance.
2) What then can Congress use to regulate “inactivity”? What else but its UNLIMITED power to tax.
What kind of personal behavior falls outside the categories of “activity” and “inactivity”? None, whatsoever! Therefore, the ramifications of ruling by the Supreme Court that the ACA is constitutional grant Congress, a group of corrupt cowards, by one means or another, the power to regulate everything and everyone.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, human rights that the Founders considered to be given to an individual by God, are now completely subordinated to the whims and fancies of godless, manipulative politicians.
Let’s hear it for InJustice Roberts: YEA!!!!!
Let’s hear it for God: BOO!!!!!
Let’s hear it for the American Citizen: FU.
Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Sunday, July 1, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. was nominated by President George W. Bush - in case anyone still holds to the naive belief that electing Republican presidents matters.
Garry in Oklahoma
Monday, July 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Army Officer:
Excellent point. In addition, anyone who believes that Mitt Romney (who passed Romneycare as governor of Massachusetts) is eager to overturn Obamacare, is naive as well. He may talk now about repealing Obamacare in order to appeal to the conservative base. But if he becomes President, I would not be surprised if he uses his Presidential veto threat to thwart any legislation to actually repeal it. Remember, Romney is more favorable to big government than he is to the Tea Party, and he obviously favors government health care. The only hope of repealing Obamacare is a conservative Republican majority in both House and Senate, plus a Republican president who can be pressured to not veto the repeal legislation. We must get control of the Senate.