Comment on Entry: Supreme Court Rules Federal Government Essentially Unlimited, authored by pudge
1. Ok Pudge, where were you on eminent domain? (New London CT) then Citizens United. Can't have it both ways ya know?

Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:07 AM
2. Pudge, are you saying if your side loses in the Supreme Court, you guys should settle your disputes with us liberals in the streets? Kinda sounds like it. I'm asking for a clarification.

Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 09:08 AM
3. Good to see Justice Roberts upholding the Heritage Foundation's/Romneycare model for the country, allowing the free market to control health care cost.

The government is not forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want health care, you don't have to have it. But as the Heritage Foundation rightly pointed out, you can't just skip out on the costs and force the rest of the citizens to pick up the tab.

At least all of those who claimed to be Constitutional scholars and who got this wrong will now be quiet and admit they had been wrong all along.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 28, 2012 09:10 AM
4. Well this changes the election. Now it'll be about Obamacare and the economy.

Posted by Victor at June 28, 2012 09:13 AM
5. "I believe there's an excellent chance the health insurance act will be shot down"... you needed better intel Pudge.

Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:13 AM
6. The responsibility for nominating John Roberts to the SCOTUS can be laid at the feet of Bush. That was Bush's fault. The leftists should thank Bush for this.

Political cover by saying the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional in terms of the Commerce clause, but constitutional in terms of it being a tax. It is what it is. @1-4 Party down with the rest of the dumbed down and ignorant statists...

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 09:20 AM
7. Meh. Yeah, Robers made an idiotic ruling, but he just handed Romney the White House. Obama and the demeecrats now have to hang on to this poopy baby, and look what happened to them the last time around.

Posted by zorch at June 28, 2012 09:21 AM
8. First house bill next week: Each American regardless of age must own a handgun by 2014 else they must pay a $1000 tax of 10% of income each year they don't provide evidence of owning a handgun.

Posted by doug at June 28, 2012 09:23 AM
9. proud: Ok Pudge, where were you on eminent domain? (New London CT)

Against the government overstepping its constitutional bounds by taking property for private use.


... then Citizens United.

Against the government overstepping its constitutional bounds by banning free speech through the regulation of money used explicitly to pay for it.


Can't have it both ways ya know?

Huh? In this case, I am against the government overstepping its constitutional bounds by requiring us to buy a product or service, and penalizing us if we do not.

What "both ways" are you talking about? I am against the government violating its constitution bounds, quite consistently.


you needed better intel

You don't understand probabilities.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:26 AM
10. Roger Rabbit: you are being deliberately obtuse just to stir up trouble. You will get no "clarification," as I won't play your stupid game.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:27 AM
11. Hutz: Good to see Justice Roberts upholding the Heritage Foundation's/Romneycare model for the country, allowing the free market to control health care cost.

You're a liar, Hutz. You know this is not their model (though I disagree with their models, too), and you know that this takes power AWAY from the free market, and you know this doesn't control health care costs.


The government is not forcing anyone to do anything.

You're a liar, Hutz. The law says plainly that it is a "requirement" and that we "shall" have health insurance, and there is a stiff "penalty" if we do not.


At least all of those who claimed to be Constitutional scholars and who got this wrong

I didn't get it wrong. I was wrong about what Roberts would say; but I was right about what the law and constitution say. The mandate is unconstitutional.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:29 AM
12. I hope that Mitt Romney makes an issue of Justice Roberts and other 4 justices allowing to let the law have it both ways..to be called a mandate (as part of the commerce clause, as it was written and say that would be unconstitutional) and then to uphold it as a tax !

This action sets an ugly precedent. I think that the Government can now require us to eat broccoli and brussel sprouts or whatever they can masquerade as a tax.

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 09:32 AM
13. pudge, I'm sure a probabilities expert like you understands that statistical probability lies somewhere on a continuum, and when you say "the chances are excellent" and it comes out 5-4 you missed by around 30% - 40% or so of the distance from 0% to 100% probability. That may be good enough for this blog, but it won't get you a job with an investment house.

Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 09:33 AM
14. @11 "I didn't get it wrong. I was wrong about what Roberts would say; but I was right about what the law and constitution say. The mandate is unconstitutional."

The problem with this argument is that he's the Chief Justice and you're not.


Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 09:35 AM
15. The good news is that polls consistently showed Americans did not like Obamacare roughly 70-30. So absent any ability to control the SCOTUS, Americans will apply their power where they can in November. Romney in a landslide. I just donated $1000 to his campaign.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 28, 2012 09:45 AM
16. Today the Supreme Court took an anti-liberty step today. The so called affordable health care act violates my indvidual liberty. So I refuse to buy health insurance. I am doing this for two reasons. First, the goverment has no right to require me to buy anything. Second, all insurance in the state of Washington must cover pre-birth infantcide. I will not contribute to anything that funds pre-birth infantcide.

If the goverment decides to come after me for this stand I will not resist. I am willing to accept any punishment that comes with my decision. That is what civil-disobedience is about.

Mathew Renner

Posted by Mathew"RennDawg"Renner at June 28, 2012 09:48 AM
17. Rabbit: you really have no idea what you're talking about. Really. When I say there's an excellent chance of A, it means there's a partial chance of B. So that it came up B is within what I said. To show I was wrong, you'd have to show that my probabilities were off, but simply pointing at the result cannot show that.

Seriously, you're just making yourself look stupid.


The problem with this argument is that he's the Chief Justice and you're not.

That is not a problem with anything that I wrote, in fact. He doesn't define constitutionality.

"The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:51 AM
18. Roberts is apparently the new Souter. Another liberal jackass in sheeps clothing put on the court by a supposed conservative in Bush Jr. Romney had better repeal this or ya'll better get ready to buy broccoli or be taxed if you don't. This ruling was carte blanche for the government to dictate your behavior or be made to pay up. One thing is for sure, the founding father's are rolling over in their graves today.

Posted by Rick D. at June 28, 2012 09:51 AM
19. I didn't get it wrong. I was wrong about what Roberts would say; but I was right about what the law and constitution say. The mandate is unconstitutional.
Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:29 AM


I don't think you 'get it' at all. You can't have it both ways

Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:52 AM
20. @17 "He doesn't define constitutionality."

Um, yes, he does when he's the swing vote on a 5-4 court. And you call ME stupid?

Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 09:58 AM
21. @18 Looks like you guys need to have a talk with your trained chimp about how he screwed this up for you.

Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 10:00 AM
22. Roger Rabbit: "He doesn't define constitutionality."
Um, yes, he does

Incorrect. He defines what the courts see as constitutional, not what actualy is constitutional. Again: the touchstone of constitutionality is what the constitution says, not what the Court says.

And you call ME stupid?

Shrug.

proud: I don't think you 'get it' at all. You can't have it both ways

It is true that I don't "get" what you mean when you imply I want it both ways. I want it only one way: following the Constitution, which the Court didn't do.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 10:16 AM
23. Can we all be honest? Of course pudge was wrong about what he thought the court would do. On the other hand, forecasting a decision incorrectly, especially a 5-4 decision with Roberts voting left and Kennedy right, is nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, pudge argued that there was a serious constitutional issue with Obamacare well before that concern became mainstream. As a political analyst, he hasn't done badly on this issue.

We can argue the constitutional issues ad nauseum, but the court has spoken and is unlikely to reverse itself.

Pudge's moral and practical views on healthcare are imho terrible,, but that's another conversation.

Posted by mm at June 28, 2012 10:31 AM
24. In which Pudge achieves Bill Clinton status by arguing over what the meaning of "is" is.

Here's a clue for you, stupid. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Period. Not what you say it is, not what I say it is, not what Barack Obama or the Man in the Moon says it is. That goes back to Marbury vs. Madison. I didn't like the Citizens United decision, but you sure won't hear me running around gibbering like an idiot that it's unconstitutional.

Because now, by definition, it is constitutional that money = speech, whether I like that or not. Your opinion is only that, your opinion. It has no greater, nor any less, value than mine does.

Posted by ivan at June 28, 2012 10:33 AM
25. Thank SCOTUS who just gave McKenna a clean shot to win his campaign for governor. He opposed Obamacare; Inslee was the floor manager in the House to pass Obamacare. The presidential campaign is now a referendum against Obamacare.

Between now and November every ugly, costly, liberty denying, ant-business and otherwise objectionable detail of Obamcare will be publicized so that even the progressive commenters on this blog can understand why it is a bad law.

Best of all, Inslee can kiss his political ass goodbye.

Posted by Paddy at June 28, 2012 10:34 AM
26. mm, Ivan and Rabbit do-do are getting quite cocky about this.

You people are in the distinct minority and the lost liberty from today's SCOTUS decision will be restored on November 6.

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 10:43 AM
27. mm: Pudge's moral and practical views on healthcare are imho terrible,, but that's another conversation.

Yes, it would be interesting to hear another conversation why you think my views are immoral. They aren't, and you seriously argue demonstrate otherwise. You can argue they are impractical and unlikely to achieve a good outcome, but because I argue they ARE likely to achieve a good outcome, that shelters me from attacks about them being immoral, because both the ends AND the means are good.

On the other hand, your view in favor of Obamacare *might* have desirable ends, but have -- in my argument -- immoral means.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 10:56 AM
28. ivan, you really just aren't very smart in these types of areas.

If the Court ruled that a law giving the Chief Justice the power to fill any Supreme Court vacancies was constitutional, would that make the law constitutional? Of course not. That's stupid, and no President would abide by such a ruling. The Court doesn't get to say what is constitutional, it only gets to say what the Court says is constitutional, and -- most of the time -- the rest of the government has some obligation to follow it.

But at the end of the day, only the constitution says what is constitutional, not the Court. That's how it actually works.


That goes back to Marbury vs. Madison.

No, it doesn't, actually. Nothing in Marbury v. Madison says that the Court decides constitutionality. It only says that the Court decides cases over constitutionality. That's not the same thing. It seems like it, but it's not. Again, read the Frankfurter quote.


Because now, by definition, it is constitutional that money = speech

No court decision has ever said that. Certainly not Citizens United. What it said was that a restriction on money spent TO ENGAGE IN speech is a de facto restriction on speech. This is obvious, of course: I can say perhaps that you can't spend money as a politician, but if my purpose in saying you can't spend money is to restrict your speech, then that is an intentional restriction on speech, and therefore unconstitutional.


Your opinion is only that, your opinion. It has no greater, nor any less, value than mine does.

Well, in the abstract, certainly. But the fact that my opinion is more reasonable, defensible, accurate, and so on ... that does make mine more valuable.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 11:03 AM
29. Wow, my post @27 had some bad editing. I blame Obama.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 11:04 AM
30. The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

Marbury v. Madison
--Chief Justice Marshall


Posted by Lionel Hutz at June 28, 2012 11:19 AM
31. I am terribly sorrowful that I have not served you, the American people. I have hope that your leadership will not abuse but can abide by my restrictions, and emerge eventually in freedom. God Speed.

Posted by the Constitution at June 28, 2012 11:24 AM
32. If Pudge allows me to post once more, my comments are as follows:
1. I didn't see this one coming. This ruling is a surprise.
2. Obama blew it in original arguments about "not a tax" line. In the end, it is the only argument that holds water (at least with Roberts). Obama should have put this forth from the beginning. Shame on you Obama.
3. I agree that Congress has the ability to tax. I also agree that there are taxes we don't like. I don't understand the repeal and replace argument, however. Now that Roberts has called the mandate a tax, why not campaign on getting rid of this tax and the other inefficiencies in the bill, which there are still plenty?
4. I find interesting the back-room speculation pertaining to the joint dissent. Was Scalia's write-up actually going to be the majority opinion and what changed Roberts mind? Was it Presidential interference or the over-the-top rhetoric in Scalia's dissent?

Those are my comments. I hope Pudge takes time to actually read my post and allows it to stay.

Posted by hopingmypostwillstay at June 28, 2012 11:26 AM
33. Hutz, thank you for proving my case. Surely, if you could've found anything in the case that said that the Court defines constitutionality for us all, rather than merely deciding what the Court should view as constitutional, you would have done so. Instead, you merely confirmed what I have said all along: that the Court determines what "constitutional" means for the Court, but not what is actually constitutional.

And this is obvious. Plessy v. Ferguson decision was a clear violation of the Constitution. That the Court said it was constitutional for government to give unequal protection of the laws to Homer Plessy was an obvious violation of the 14th Amendment. There's no serious question about this.

So what you are claiming is that "separate but equal" was constitutional, and then it became unconstitutional later, just because the Supreme Court said so. That's idiotic. The constitution didn't change, the Court did. The Court does not define constitutionality, the Constitution does.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 11:27 AM
34. Chief Justice also said that anyone who undermines the constitution is guilty of treason.

BTW: here is a link to the liberal news service, Bloomberg, that describes the $813 billion in higher taxes that are buried in the Obamacare statutory language. And that is how noble leaders bad policies triggers the 2d part of a double dip recession, er I ment depression.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-06-28/court-ruling-lets-400-billion-in-higher-taxes-proceed.html

Posted by Paddy at June 28, 2012 11:32 AM
35. What's done is done. Why waste time lamenting it?

Now the question is what to do about it. Lefty's seem to forget that the surge in the Tea Party came with the passage of this monstrosity and with that came Obama's 2010 debacle. Hear that? That's the engine of grass roots democracy revving up.

The best headline I read today was "Obamacare Becomes Obamatax". Bingo. How many videos and soundbites are there of President Downgrade saying it's "not a tax"? Thanks for the ad campaign going forward, PD. Game on. Obama now owns the biggest middle class tax hike in history. I expect you'll be hearing a bit more about that in the next 130 days... loudly and often. Again, thanks PD: game on.

Further, there can be no no more lefty whining about a "right wing court". Well, of course they'll still whine but it just adds to their hypocrisy list.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 11:37 AM
36. OK. The NEXT best headline of the day: 'Incredible Irony': Court Has 'Declared Obama to Be a Monumental Liar'

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 11:40 AM
37. 25. Thank SCOTUS who just gave McKenna a clean shot to win his campaign for governor. He opposed Obamacare; Inslee was the floor manager in the House to pass Obamacare. The presidential campaign is now a referendum against Obamacare.


mmmmm no, it will bog down a congress and Romney's campaign and all the other politicians who are running on ideology vs. where are the jobs?

What is the GOP plan to bring back the economy?

Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 12:10 PM
38. If Congress had said that they would adjust the Medicare withholding tax to 11% and extend it to all paychecks, and have the IRS penalize any one that didn't pay the withholding, would this bill really have gotten out of Congress?

Essentially, this is what the Scotus decision says Congress really meant to do.

Since the "tax" money has to be paid to private companies (insurance companies) Scotus doubled down on Kelo.

Posted by SouthernRoots at June 28, 2012 12:17 PM
39. proud American:

Please, the Republicans have no plans outside of opposing anything Obama ever does, and helping the rich. Heck, they have spent most of the last few years opposing their own ideas becasue Demoncrats chose to comprimise.

And now we get to see Mitt Romney campaigning against a health care system based upon the health care system he put in place and said should be a model for the country. Apparently it was only to be a model as long as a Democrat didn't do it. Which I guess means Romney will now be campaigning to replace our current health care system with our current health care system.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq. at June 28, 2012 12:26 PM
40. RE 34: It should read "Chief Justice Marshall also said . . ."

Posted by Paddy at June 28, 2012 12:32 PM
41. The crowing by our lefty pets, their occasional visitors, the liberal MSM and yes, President Downgrade reveals their true nature: it's about the WINNING, not the consequences of the "win".

It's the difference between maturity and immaturity, children and adults.

I think it falls right smack into the category of 'be careful what you wish for, you might just get it'.

Enjoy your celebration, lefty pets.

Really. I mean that.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 12:37 PM
42. If anything, immorality is clearly on the side of the Left. The Left is for stealing. They can hide behind a sanctimonious senator, the auspices of governance, the force of unions, the cause of some victim group, appeals to emotion, etc. but essentially it all boils down to taking something from someone by force. Stealing.

That's the essence of Leftist philosophy. Rather than a live and let live philosophy of commerce and the expectation of hard work and serious contribution by all parties in a society, the Left is constantly willing to take from Peter to pay Paul. And if you change the former to Pedro or Paula, you get the idea. As long as it falls under a Leftist sanction, then it is justified to them, no matter how immoral or undeserving the individual is based on their own merits and efforts.

The genius of capitalism is not that it can guarantee any perfection of even any great outcomes, but instead that for the first time in human history it allowed us to think of each more as trading partners and less as waring tribes. For the first time, we had a rational basis for interaction with our fellow humans rather than simply using force.

But that's all been thrown out the window with the late 19th century and 20th century rise of collectivism and all of its offshoots. Because Leftists aim first and foremost to pit us against each other, to define us again as waring tribes, to separate us in to colors and to community organize. To take by force from some, for the alleged benefit of others, and to destroy trade and civility. And when an arbitrary force decides what is valuable, it destroys the concept of value altogether.

It's a simple choice really. Either you are for a modern, enlightened, commerce oriented free man, or for a primitive barbarian that plunders based on some arbitrary force of government, union, NGO, etc.

The moral man expects only a return on his actual value, and never uses any force to extract something undeserved from his neighbor.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 28, 2012 12:40 PM
43. We're screwed, with Obama we will get two new Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Kagan and with Romney we get two new ones in the mold of Roberts (according to Romney).

Welcome to Romneycare's world where the technocrats know best and have the power to rule over you.

Posted by doug at June 28, 2012 01:10 PM
44. We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty.


Roberts literally took the wording of the law, describing it with requirements and penalties, and decided he would make it into a tax anyway. As the dissent notes, this is unprecedented.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 01:22 PM
45. Remember the continual chorus from the Left that the mandate was not a tax? Funny that.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 28, 2012 01:35 PM
46. Palouse, yeah. The law says having health insurance is a "requirement" and you "shall" fulfill it. Roberts says it's an option. The law says it's a "penalty," and Roberts says it's not.

Now, the left has been right all along about one thing: that there really is no functional difference between a requirement with a penalty, and an option that if unfulfilled results in a tax. But they use that to say "so we can do whatever we want." I say, "because that interpretation of the taxing authority means you could do whatever you want, therefore it is an unreasonable interpretation of that authority, because it completely undermines the Tenth Amendment and the limited government we established with the Constitution."

Congress can only use its taxing authority in areas where it has constitutional power. It cannot use it to insinuate itself into other areas of our lives that it would otherwise have no control over, to penalize us if we don't comply with its will. But that, of course, is why the left would never give up the income tax, because that's what the income tax primarily is to them: an extraconstitutional (I'd say, unconstitutional) means of control.

Keep in mind the fact that the Court did not recognize any authority for Congress to force us to buy health insurance, only to extend taxes to us arbitrarily for whatever reasons Congress wishes. And the Democrats will use this power if they hold on to power this November.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 01:45 PM
47. In a sense, the Supremes punted and Justice Roberts took the easy way out. It is up to the people rid the country of this cancerous Leviathan and defeat Obama and capture the Senate in November. The energy is there so its up to the GOP to harness it and do so effectively and get behind Romney.

In spite of the travesty in justice, there is a silver lining today; AG Holder has been held in contempt of Congress by a vote of 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting with the GOP. A number of Democrats walked out and a black Dem, Rep. Cleaver, a renowned racist called this vote racist - he is the pot calling the kettle black !

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 01:46 PM
48. doug: you can't take Romney's words about Roberts from before this decision and assume anything about them now. I thought Roberts was different before from what I think of him now. Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 01:48 PM
49. @15

The polls I recall were around that margin for just the mandate portion but were nearly flipped for other portions. Not trying to argue those details, just that I don't think this means Romney has a lock on this without being able to know how people weighed each of the portions of the law in forming their opinions of the whole.

Posted by Brian at June 28, 2012 01:49 PM
50. Nice to see in the ruling that the Federal government can't coerce states (Medicare exemption), but can coerce its citizens. Freedom takes another hit.

Posted by Dengle at June 28, 2012 01:59 PM
51. McKenna now says he opposes repeal including opposing the repeal of the mandate. Well this is an interesting GOP ticket this year: McKenna: don't repeal and pro-choice; Dunn: pro-gay marriage and pro-choice; and Finkbeiner: the guy who provided the vote to pass the pro-gay anti discrimination bill and to the left of Brad Owen on most other issues. I am not familiar with Kim Wyman's specific stances on the issues, but I do know she's in the same vein as Sam Reed.

Posted by Seashanty at June 28, 2012 02:09 PM
52. Keep in mind the fact that the Court did not recognize any authority for Congress to force us to buy health insurance, only to extend taxes to us arbitrarily for whatever reasons Congress wishes

I see this essentially as a distinction without a difference. What can they not compel us to do without imposing a tax on us if we don't do it?

It defies logic to call the mandate a tax, when in fact several classes of people are not subject to the tax, but those same groups still require the health insurance. When is a mandate not actually a mandate? At the Supreme Court apparently.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 02:11 PM
53. But, there is a positive side to this. Republicans can use reconciliation, the same tactic used to pass the bill, to repeal it. Let's go Romney!

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 02:22 PM
54. Re: Reconciliation, politicalwire reports that the Byrd rule in the senate prohibits using reconciliation to cut taxes without offsetting revenue increases. The senate can change its own rules of course, but I believe such a rule change would be subject to filibuster.

Posted by Seashanty at June 28, 2012 02:33 PM
55. @54 Republicans can offset the elimination of Obamacare "taxes" with spending cuts in the budget bill. As long as it doesn't increase the deficit, they can use reconciliation to do it.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 02:38 PM
56. By your support of the Republican Party you helped bring this about. When will you understand that this is all just a choreographed "Wrestling Match" to them.

Somewhere in some Washington DC Bar Republicans and Democrats are paling around with each other laughing at rubes like you!

Posted by Jason Maxwell at June 28, 2012 03:01 PM
57. Jason: By your support of the Republican Party you helped bring this about.

Please back up this claim. And simply saying that I supported Bush who nominated Roberts etc. is not sufficient: you have to show that if we had done differently, things would've been different.

If there were another realistic option to Bush, I'd have voted for that person. There wasn't. So to blame me/us makes no sense. It'd be worse if Kerry were President: they not only would've upheld the taxing provision, but also the interstate commerce power, and everything else.


Somewhere in some Washington DC Bar Republicans and Democrats are paling around with each other laughing at rubes like you!

I'm laughing at you for thinking we could've done something differently for a better result, so, I guess we're even.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 03:04 PM
58. pudge, what do you make of the stripping out of coercive Medicaid expansion penalty? States can now "opt out" of the Medicaid expansion, but then their citizens would still be subject to the tax. Would those states still be required to set up the insurance exchanges for those people to buy their coverage? I'm rather confused about the impact of this part of the decision.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 03:15 PM
59. Palouse: what do you make of the stripping out of coercive Medicaid expansion penalty?

I have mixed feelings. I think the federal government should be able to do whatever it wants to with its constitutional powers, within constitutional limits. I see no constitutional limit here. But on the other hand, I don't think Medicaid is a constitutional power. :-)

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 03:23 PM
60. Well, at least SCOTUS shot down the withholding of Medicare funds if states don't participate as unconstitutional (with the liberals dissenting).

I think that may end up being a bigger impact than people think. Everyone is focusing on the mandate (tax) being upheld, but many states may look at the Medicaid expansion as a severely underfunded mandate and choose not to participate. I'd still like to know more about the impact of this.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 03:29 PM
61. Didn't the ruling also state that on the grounds of the commerce clause, Obamacare was unconstitutional ? For what that's worth.

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 03:55 PM
62. @61 and even that was only 5-4. George Will was taking solace in that today. I don't. If a future court with one additional liberal on it has a case to decide, it could easily go the other way.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 04:01 PM
63. @16

The so called affordable health care act violates my indvidual liberty. So I refuse to buy health insurance.

It's a good thing for you that the ACA will allow you to revisit this decision if you or a dependent gets seriously ill.

Posted by John A. at June 28, 2012 04:06 PM
64. Post-Constitutional America continues its slide into 21st century insolvency and irrelevance as Obongo, Pelosi, Reid and now Roberts create yet another "entitlement" for shiftless no-loads and illegals.

Posted by Saltherring at June 28, 2012 04:19 PM
65. The BIG laugh of all.
O-dumber said over & over. NO tax hike, yet the S/C proved just that.

Enjoy lib's. O-dumber lied again!

Posted by Medic/vet at June 28, 2012 04:55 PM
66. @63,

And yeah this just shows what deep thinkers we have on the Left. It has been demonstrated that the mandate tax will actually be pretty affordable for the average Joe. Certainly far less than catastrophic medical costs and even many reasonable healthcare plans. And it's not as if the US government is going to hire an adept team of actuaries to make sure that the tax really covers all of the costs. Because Democrats just print money when they come up short.

So many young and otherwise healthy Americans will opt to pay the tax instead of the cost for premiums, etc. But then if/when they do get sick, they'll sign up for care and expect full service plan. We've tried this before with Social Security wherein a less than sustainable amount is paid in to a system of ever growing beneficiaries with ever expanding costs.


This won't end well. No Leftist program ever has.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 28, 2012 05:07 PM
67.
It's a good thing for you that the ACA will allow you to revisit this decision if you or a dependent gets seriously ill.

I'm so glad one of the locusts popped up with this line. I've heard it so many times I can't count.

Get the logic here, folks? The moment you need some help--whatever it is--you MUST turn to the government to steal from someone else to pay for your needs. In the leftist mind this somehow makes you more noble or something. So I guess chains and striped pajamas are some kind of badge of honor now, John A?

Go to hell, progressives.

Posted by Bastiat Fan at June 28, 2012 05:30 PM
68. KDS and Palouse: Didn't the ruling also state that on the grounds of the commerce clause, Obamacare was unconstitutional ?

I do not know.

It is true that Roberts said that in his opinion. It is also true that the four dissenters agreed with him.

Read the syllabus: "ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A, III-B, and III-D."

You also see things like, "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to ..."

But then read further: "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause."

So III-A is the part about the commerce clause, it was not part of the opinion of the Court (which was I, II, and III-C), and it does not say that he "delivered the opinion of the Court here," only that he himself concluded it. He said it, the dissenters agreed, but it was not part of the Court's delivered opinion, only a part of Roberts' own conclusions (like a concurring opinion).

No one joined him in Parts III-A (commerce clause).

Same thing goes for Part IV, which is about Medicaid, though, which only one person joined him on. So maybe agreement by dissenters without explicitly joining the opinion is sufficient? Even though they don't call it the Court's opinion?

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 05:33 PM
69. @10 You caught me! My mother said the same thing about me. I was born a troublemaker.

Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 06:24 PM
70. Pudge, I think Roberts explicit statements about the Commerce Clause not being valid here, and the detailed dissent claiming it's not valid is enough to make it the 5-4. That's why Roberts had to make all of those contortions to uphold the mandate as a tax. To make it look like there's nothing in the bill compelling commerce. Crazy.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 07:09 PM
71. Matthew and Bastiat Fan: I join you. I have said for a long time that I will go to jail before I will let Kathleen Sebelius run my life, or dictate my health choices. Actually, my physician and I have seriously discussed an "underground medical economy" to avoid Government control. We only have one more chance to prevent our Individual Liberty from being taken from us entirely. We MUST elect a Republican president and Senate in November.

Posted by RushBabe at June 28, 2012 07:21 PM
72. In order to elect a GOP president, this issue must be articulated every day until November and the dumbed-down masses must be educated about the consequences, but above the Republicans must articulate how they intend to replace it if there is any hope of repealing this Leviathan. This piece by Jay Cost is a good start;


"Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on Obamacare--and, in particular, the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not.

The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party's way of doing business. In particular, it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly, anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing.Let us hope that the Court invalidates this law.

First, the individual mandate represents an enormous transfer of wealth, completely independent of income or social status. It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with. Democrats typically rail against supposedly regressive GOP tax proposals, but nothing the Republicans have ever cooked up compares to the individual mandate. While we're on the subject of Democratic regressiveness, LBJ's Medicare is a similarly regressive form of taxation, and ditto Social Security, ever since Johnson turned it into a pay-as-you-go system. Yet watch Democrats howl with outrage whenever the GOP dares suggest reforms that would alter this socially unjust status quo.

Second, the mandate itself is the method by which the Democrats have delivered literally billions of dollars worth of patronage to the key interests groups that lined up with them during the health care debate. The party sought to apply new layers of regulations upon doctors, nurses, hospitals, retirement care facilities, etc., and they rightfully feared a rebuke from these key "stakeholders," as the Obama White House called them. What better way to buy their silence than to require 30 million Americans become their customers, whether they want to or not! All it took was a flip-flop on the part of the president - who conveniently disavowed his campaign opposition to a mandate - and suddenly all those opponents turned in to lusty supporters, eager to get their hands on all that new revenue.
But what about the "public option"? The inclusion of a public option would have mitigated the perniciousness of the mandate - for then, at least, the government would not be requiring individuals to contract with private, for-profit entities as a condition of their citizenship. Liberal Democrats, naturally, blamed Republican perfidy for the death of the public option - but it never stood a real chance, anyway. The White House hinted early in the health care process that there were many ways to get to universal coverage, and never once suggested that the exclusion of a public option would be a deal-breaker. And that was because none of those stakeholders whom the mandate bought off wanted to compete with the government! And what would be the point of buying them off with a mandate while including a public option? So, in reality, the "will they or won't they" drama over the public option in the fall of 2009 was mere kabuki theater: the insurers, the drug makers, the doctors, hospitals, nurses, and so on would go ballistic. It was never going to make the final cut.

Let's put all this in historical context. The Democratic party is the oldest existing political party in the entire world, and it was founded as a people's party. Andrew Jackson's veto message of a bill to recharter the Bank of the United States stands to this day as a kind of mission statement for the modern party, and it is worth quoting at length (emphasis mine):

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

The individual mandate is an overwhelmingly unpopular item that requires a patently unjust transfer of wealth for the purpose of paying off the interest groups that have the biggest financial stake in health care. Considered next to Jackson's veto message: It is a signal that the Democratic party has become the opposite of what its founders intended to be.

Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 07:29 PM
73. Romney best not 'make an issue' on ANY of this...he should focus solely on the economic state of the nation. Obama has won this and I think even the nation's sympathy rests with him and this. When the ads start flowing about what the positives of this are and the likelyhood of Romney now taking all this away, evey though bullshit - it WILL RESONATE. I'm sorry to say that Obama will roll with this and Romney's chances are dwindling unless a major situaton arises that truly without any possible doubt erases his creditability. Justice Roberts (whom I do wholly respect) just gave it to our POTUS.
Constitutional reasoning has suffered a blow today and no matter how you slice and dice it...THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
This is sad. I will vote for Sheriff Joe! :)

Posted by Duffman` at June 28, 2012 07:43 PM
74. This means, of course, that the federal government can write a law that says, "Everyone shall have a Chevy Volt, or be taxed $10,000."

The federal government can certainly write a law that taxes everyone $10,000 and rebates $10,000 to anyone who buys an electric car. That's essentially the same thing. Maybe they can even just pass a tax on anyone who doesn't buy an electric car. You may see an ideological difference, but I don't see a practical one -- and that's what matters to me.

But their power isn't "essentially unlimited". They need to get elected or re-elected. I doubt the $10,000 tax would stand for long if Congress were foolish enough to enact such a thing.

We never should have been trusting the Supreme Court to do our work for us.

I agree. Republicans should promise to repeal the entire ACA. We'll see if that gets enough of them elected to do it. I don't think it will, but that's how I think issues like this should be resolved.

Posted by scottd at June 28, 2012 08:13 PM
75. Romney best not 'make an issue' on ANY of this

Wrong Duffman. Polls taken in all the swing states showed support for repeal of the law or at least the mandate. All of those voters know there is only one way to do that now, and Romney needs to make that clear. He made a solid statement about it today, and should make sure everyone hears it.

Posted by Palouse at June 28, 2012 08:40 PM
76. pudge'sNemesis

Keep dreaming big in search of relevance. We're almost rooting for you ... nah.

Why is it lefty's are so utterly graceless in victory as well as defeat? What a miserable way to go through life.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 09:35 PM
77. Lefty's are so utterly and deliciously predictable.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 09:47 PM
78. duffman lol what kind of a horse ass name is that?

Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:59 PM
79. Today's decision by the Supremes in no way gives the Federal government, in toto, "essentially unlimited" powers. We still have a Federal government of enumerated and limited powers. But, you're right, Pudge, in one area: taxes. The 16th Amendment gave the Congress unlimited and unfettered power to tax. It's bad law, in my view, but it is the law and has been now for just over a hundred years.

Posted by BobC at June 28, 2012 10:12 PM
80. When Romney repeals this abortion of a law, we'll see how many leftists show up on this site.

One thing is for sure, the GOP needs a better vetting process to weed out the jurists that aren't interested in interpreting the US Constitution as much as they are hell bent on committing judicial activism as Roberts did today.

We get the government we deserve. Conservatives believe in rugged individualism, Liberals believe in learned helplessness. November will tell whether we become the latter or the former.

Posted by Rick D. at June 28, 2012 10:17 PM
81. scottd: The federal government can certainly write a law that taxes everyone $10,000 and rebates $10,000 to anyone who buys an electric car. That's essentially the same thing.

Yes, and it's an unconstitutional way around their more obvious constitutional limits. They have no power to be involved in what cars we drive, so they therefore have no power to tax us based on that, either.


Maybe they can even just pass a tax on anyone who doesn't buy an electric car.

Yes, the Supreme Court seems to think such obviously unconstitutional actions would be acceptable.

You're not making your case, here. You're just giving the Republicans more ammunition against the left that thinks the government should have such power.


But their power isn't "essentially unlimited".

False.


They need to get elected or re-elected.

You're confused. I didn't say the elected officials have unlimited power according to this ruling, I said the federal government does.

BobC: Today's decision by the Supremes in no way gives the Federal government, in toto, "essentially unlimited" powers.

It does.


We still have a Federal government of enumerated and limited powers.

Before today, we did, perhaps. But now, we don't, according to this decision.


But, you're right, Pudge, in one area: taxes. The 16th Amendment gave the Congress unlimited and unfettered power to tax.

First, you're contradicting yourself: if they have unfettered power to tax, they have essentially unlimited power, because they can do whatever they want with the tax code.

Second, no, the 16th Amendment absolutely does not grant unfettered power to tax. That is a complete misreading of what it says. It says it can tax based on my income, not that it can tax based on my other activities (or lack thereof).


It's bad law, in my view, but it is the law and has been now for just over a hundred years.

No, it hasn't been 100 years yet. Perhaps you're thinking of when it passed Congress, not when it was ratified (1913). Minor quibble. :-)

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 10:26 PM
82. we'll see how many leftists show up on this site.

Like mosquito's and flies that let us know summer is here, lefty's show up to show us their fear, hubris and hypocrisy ... in other words, they reveal their weakness and that of their positions. Their 'debate" serves to make us stronger ... and that they are so amusing (like the circus clown) to boot.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at June 28, 2012 10:30 PM
83. Pudge and others...don't start rending your garments just yet. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, so I'll offer law professor/talk host/blogger Hugh Hewitt's take:

"One way to think about this: The decision is a modern Marbury v. Madison, where the executive who thought he had won had actually lost. The Chief Justice, already on the fence because of the plausible argument about the taxing power and worried about the Court's reputation and legitimacy as well as the prospect of two or three more appointees from President Obama, decides to go for the historic win and, by putting the taxing power on steroids, upholds the law but also changes the campaign tone which will not only result in the election of Mitt Romney and security in the next round of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations, but also lays the foundation for a long range cabining of the Commerce Clause and an eventual strike down of other portions of Obamacare, including the HHS regs. If this scenario plays out, this will put Roberts in Marshall's rank, but that depends on the electorate and, if elected, Mitt Romney's appointees to SCOTUS."

Of course, this optimistic take depends (2) on Mittens actually getting elected and (2) enough Tea Party-type Republicans in Congress to "encourage" him to keep his RINO-squish self at arm's length.

Posted by greybeard3 at June 28, 2012 10:40 PM
84. greybeard3: I am not predicting a terrible future. I am only saying this is a terrible decision. Of course, we could benefit from it in the long run, if -- for example -- the people react against this unconstitutional usurpation of power and put people in office who will eventually turn that around.

I don't know what will happen. I am neither optimistic, nor pessimistic. I just know the decision was wrong and enables politicians -- on both sides of the aisle -- to exercise more power over the people.

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 10:43 PM
85. You conservatives are so hysterical. One minute you are praising Roberts to the high heavens for upholding Citizens United and the next you are ready to string him up as a traitor. Maybe you should learn some politics.

Posted by SmoledMan at June 28, 2012 10:53 PM
86. You Liberals are so hysterical. One minute you're praising Robert's to the high heavens for upholding Obamacare and the next you are ready to string him up as a traitor on citizens united. Maybe you should learn some politics, Smoledman.

Posted by Rick D. at June 28, 2012 11:02 PM
87. Smoled: One minute you are praising Roberts to the high heavens

False.


the next you are ready to string him up as a traitor

False. You're just making things up. I saw only one comment here slamming Roberts. Criticism for an incorrect decision, sure, but only one vitrolic comment out of all the ones here.


Maybe you should learn some politics.

Well, see, that's part of the problem: the Democrats just want to play politics to get what they want, and damn the Constitution and the rule of law.

And then they lie, like scottd, and say they really do care about the Constitution. This is what concern trolls do: try to draw you in by saying they are on your side in some way, they care about the same things, to trick you into sympathizing with them. But when you say you care about the Constitution, as Obama does, and then consistently ignore it (Citizens United, the gun cases, etc.), you're clearly not being serious.

(Frankly, while Obama is the biggest divider we've had as President in 100 years -- even trying to undermine unity in his inaugural speech, attacking people who believe in the limited government of our Constitution as people who have been passed by history -- he's also the biggest hater of the Constitution and rule of law in that time. Yes, moreso than Nixon, by far.)

Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 11:13 PM
88. By making this a tax instead of a penalty, what happens to all those thousands of waivers that Obama gave out?

If it's a tax, then everybody should be subject to it equally (14th amendment). So, how can certain groups be exempted unless it is specified in the law?

Posted by Ken at June 29, 2012 05:58 AM
89. pudge @ 87;

True regarding Chief Justice Roberts, whose ruling forced the American people to choose in November which type of government they prefer; the limited, Constitution-bound, rule of law, separation-of-powers, checks and balances version created by the Founders, OR the despotic, oppressive, statist-collectivist, nanny-state, over-taxed and over-regulated variant preferred by Obongo and his lemmings.

Posted by Saltherring at June 29, 2012 07:23 AM
90. Oh, and by the way, aren't the lemming and rabbit both members of the rodent family, making them cousins so to speak? Roger Lemming....doesn't have that inane ring, but perhaps more accurate...

Posted by Saltherring at June 29, 2012 07:29 AM
91. Ken @ 88. That was my thinking as well. It seems to me that Obamacare is not equal protection under the law if there are exceptions where some are exempt from it.

What I don't get is why liberals think in the long term that it is better to have more people in the wagon that those who are pushing the wagon. Then again, realizing that liberals are linear thinkers, they rarely take into account the future repercussions of their actions in the now.

Posted by Rick D. at June 29, 2012 07:32 AM
92. Rick D.: That was my thinking as well. It seems to me that Obamacare is not equal protection under the law if there are exceptions where some are exempt from it.

True, but:

a. we have had those types of exemptions for years

b. if they are exempting specific groups for specific constitutional or important historical reasons (religious groups, Indian groups) then most people wouldn't have a problem with it, I think. But doing it as favors or just because you think it would be too hard for them (unions) is obviously unreasonable under the 14th.

Posted by pudge at June 29, 2012 09:15 AM
93. In reading around the web and in reading the actual opinion, I'm now finding that Chief Justice Roberts has probably done us all a real favor. For one thing, he struck a deep blow to the Lefitist notion of Congress using the Commerce Clause as an all-purpose Leatherman to their statist ends.

And further, he's set in motion the physics of American politics that will react equal and opposite.

Roberts is a chess master playing the long game. He's given a pawn/ shiny object to the Left to keep them occupied, insulated the SCOTUS from the perpetual petulant whining of the Left, and sent a message to the electorate to put the King in checkmate. As always, the Left will hang themselves.

Posted by Jeff B. at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM
94. Jeff B.: whether we can turn this to advantage is one issue. But I do not accept that Roberts gave up a huge power to the federal government for some future advantage.

I don't think he would do this for political purposes. And he could've dealth the same blow to the commerce clause without conceding on the taxing power as a way *around* the commerce clause's limitations.

He simply bought into the notion that the taxing authority has no real limits, which is insane to me, because it never would've become part of the Constitution if people thought it could be used to get around the other limits on congressional authority.

Posted by pudge at June 29, 2012 10:15 AM
95. After much gnashing of teeth over the last 24 hours, I tend to agree with Jeff B. that Robert's decison (though stretching the bounds of believability) was a trojan horse of sorts. Let's face it, he's the chief justice and will be a sitting figure on the highest court for some years to come. While I think his reasoning in upholding Obamacare was torturous on legal grounds, I also believe he set some legal limits that will benefit himself and others on the court in future rulings. I'd like to detract my comment @ 18 about Roberts' as it was typed in a moment of frustration and haste. I believe he will be a good, thoughtful jurist throughout his reign as the CJ and believe yesterday's actions were meant as a net positive for himself and the country going forward.

Posted by Rick D. at June 29, 2012 10:31 AM
96. I left one last thing off my last post. Now, let's get rid of this Obamanation known as Obamacare (and Obama the man) by electing Mitt Romney in November!!!

Posted by Rick D. at June 29, 2012 10:34 AM
97. When Romney repeals this abortion of a law, we'll see how many leftists show up on this site.

Romney is going to run for Governor of Massachusettes after he loses and repeal Romneycare? I guess he can try.

@ 89: True regarding Chief Justice Roberts, whose ruling forced the American people to choose in November which type of government they prefer; the limited, Constitution-bound, rule of law, separation-of-powers, checks and balances version created by the Founders and followed by Obama, OR the despotic, oppressive, statist-collectivist, nanny-state, over-taxed and over-regulated in favor of big buisness and the rich variant preferred by Romney and his lemmings like me.

Fixed.

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq at June 29, 2012 10:39 AM
98. "Everyone shall have a Chevy Volt, or be taxed $10,000."

I think that would be an arbitrary penalty disguised as a "tax", and would be banned under Roberts' opinion. It is simply a $10,000 penalty, with no relationship to income.

The Obamacare "penalty" tax, on the other hand, is related to income. If someone doesn't have income, or has less than a certain amount of income, they don't pay the "penalty" tax for not having insurance. At a certain income range, the "penalty" tax is a percentage of income. Granted, with both a floor and a ceiling for the "penalty" tax, it is not as fair and logical as a regular income tax based on percentage brackets. But nothing says that taxes have to be fair and logical to be constitutional.

In some respects, it is sort of like social security/medicare and unemployment taxes. Those taxes stop being added above a certain income level, so folks with higher incomes above the ceiling pay a much lower percentage of social security/medicare, and employers pay a smaller percentage of unemployment tax, once an employee goes above the ceiling for unemployment tax.

But I don't see how the federal government could directly tax someone $10,000 for not having a Chevy Volt. On the other hand, it would be perfectly constitutional for the federal government to impose a $10,000 excise tax (or even $100,000 for that matter) on the sale of every brand new combustion engine motor vehicle, and use the money to subsidize all-electric vehicles.

Posted by Richard Pope at June 29, 2012 10:54 AM
99. Hutz: no one believes you. Honestly, not even the leftists on HA will believe your claim that Obama is for limited rule-of-law constitutional-bound government, and on the contrary, Romney is for nanny-statism and over-regulation. Obama's whole attack against Romney is that he wants to cut regulations, and he's been saying since his first campaign (and as part of his inaugural address, and his stimulus push, and Obamacare push, and many other times) that he thinks the government should not be limited in what it tries to do for "the common good."

You just look stupid.


Pope: I think that would be an arbitrary penalty disguised as a "tax", and would be banned under Roberts' opinion.

You base this thought on what? The ACA mandate is clearly an arbitrary penalty that he calls a tax ... which isn't even disguised as a penalty. Maybe you think the mandate penaltytax is not "arbitrary"? Fine, but then neither would the Volt penaltytax not be arbitrary: you're paying $10,000 to help cover the cost of your carbon. Then it's not arbitrary.


It is simply a $10,000 penalty, with no relationship to income.

Exactly like the mandate penaltytax, yes, because -- of course -- people who can't pay it would be partially or wholly exempt from it. I didn't say that because I was clearly drawing a parallel to the "Obamacare" penaltytax, which works that way. So please don't think you're making a clever point, because all I have to do is say (which was implied) is that at some income levels you don't have to pay it, and boom, under this decision, it's acceptable.

You haven't drawn a single distinction between the Chevy Volt $10K penaltytax and the mandate penaltytax.

In some respects, it is sort of like social security/medicare and unemployment taxes.

... which are also unconstitutional -- since Social Security and unemployment are unconstitutional federal programs -- but I digress.


I don't see how the federal government could directly tax someone $10,000 for not having a Chevy Volt.

Um. The only question is how, under this decision, they couldn't. (And of course, I mean legally, not practically.) You literally have no remaining objection to it, no example of what makes it different from the mandate penaltytax.


On the other hand, it would be perfectly constitutional for the federal government to impose a $10,000 excise tax (or even $100,000 for that matter) on the sale of every brand new combustion engine motor vehicle, and use the money to subsidize all-electric vehicles.

No, it wouldn't be, but that's another discussion.

Posted by pudge at June 29, 2012 11:10 AM
100. I hope there will be a complete and accurate expose put forth for all to see breaking down each and every new tax and how it affects us now that it has been affirmed.I have yet to see one. I think, as usual, most progressives have overlooked the means, thinking it will only be the "rich" who will be paying for this "obamination". Even some of the lemmings may stop short of the cliff.

Posted by shaydo at June 29, 2012 12:29 PM
101. 100.

http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996

Posted by Jack at June 29, 2012 12:42 PM
102. We were betrayed by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts yesterday along with our own Attorney General Rob McKenna. By Noon yesterday, McKenna gave a press interview stating that Congress should not try to overturn Obama-Care and that the mandate should be left in place. What kind of Nancy Pelosi juice has this guy been drinking? I sent the McKenna campaign an email asking them to take me off of their mailing list. McKenna is a RINO who no longer deserves the support of any Washington Republican. What a traitor.

Posted by John at June 29, 2012 01:03 PM
103. John: McKenna betrayed no one. He said we should not try to overturn it because he thinks it is a waste of time and that we should try to address it through other means: through modifying it. While I disagree, it does not betray the principles that we oppose the law on.

This is just fact.

Posted by pudge at June 29, 2012 01:13 PM
104. Roberts did not put any limits on the Commerce Clause. His singular opinion on the commerce clause was not joined by the rest of the majority, it doesn't have any power of precedence as a result. The federal govt. ability to regulate beyond what we would usually think as being allowed under the commer clause was not affected in the slightest.

However, Roberts managed to create a brand new unthought of way for the Federal government to subject it's citizens and that is through mandating the purchase of private goods via tax code.

The Chevy Volt one is a good example, though it needs adjusting. While Obamacare is not an equal tax on income, as future rulings will show, increasing everyone's tax rate by 30% of their income if they don't purchase a Volt would be acceptable per that amendment.

Same for owning a gun, Robert's ruling has now allowed pretty much anything to be mandated through the use of the tax code.

McKenna is just like Romney, a big government GOP man. As long as Republicans are in control, they would love to have the ability to mandate what they want to mandate, that is why we have Obamneycare in the first place.

The people need to take back the government from those politicians who want all that power.

Sarah Palin, heck, even Ron Paul, either of them should storm the Convention and demand the delegates drop Romney like a rock.

Posted by doug at June 29, 2012 01:47 PM
105. doug: His singular opinion on the commerce clause was not joined by the rest of the majority, it doesn't have any power of precedence as a result.

Yes, BUT, the four dissenters agreed. And note that he didn't get a majority for his Medicaid expansion opinion either, but that is being treated as holding. So I am unclear what this means.

My tedency is to read it as you do, but given that the same logic would apply to the Medicaid expansion, and everyone seems to agree -- including the decision itself, which calls the curb on Medicaid expansion a "majority opinion" -- I think we're wrong.

Posted by pudge at June 29, 2012 02:14 PM
106. Pudge, the way it is supposed to work when it happens this way is thus:

A state will have to bring suit later as for as the medicaid expansion and the Supreme Court would have to hear that case, then a supposedly new majority would have to form an opinion that says the coercion is unconstitutional. As such the appeals courts cannot use the ruling as precedent in this case because the controlling opinion doesn't allow it as that tidbit was in the minority in the controlling opinion.

Same thing with the Commerce Clause. No precedent was set because Robert's majority opinion did not have the agreement of the other four on this issue. The ASSUMPTION would be that if this particular law came back to the court on only Commerce Clause grounds it would fall 5-4, but that cannot be assumed by any lesser court.

The Commerce Clause thus remains untouched for now, and I expect for as long as Kennedy is on the court as he will vote for the legislature unless it is something completely vile such as this act.

Posted by doug at June 29, 2012 04:09 PM
107. Michael Savage is right. Our country is OVER. Forget about this election. The election is so small compared to what is really happening.

If Republicans were serious they could have Roberts impeached! But of course, this bill was written by REPUBLICANS. Obama himself said it. He got this idea from ROMNEY!

Posted by Kay at June 30, 2012 05:33 PM
108. Kay: Our country is OVER.

Nonsense. Was our country "over" when John Adams had journalists jailed for sedition? When FDR locked up Japanese citizens? Please have some perspective.


Forget about this election.

No.


The election is so small compared to what is really happening.

That's always true. So what?


If Republicans were serious they could have Roberts impeached!

False. That doesn't even make sense. The real goal is to reduce government power over our lives, and the Court is only one way to do that, and impeaching Roberts would not lead to removing him from office (since the Republicans don't control the Senate), and would make it harder to win elections (since the voters would dislike it), and even if successful would only lead to a more liberal justice being nominated by Obama.

No, the way forward is to say, "these are the lines the Court has drawn, and while we disagree with them, we will, when we regain power, pull government back away from those lines, while the Democrats promise to push us toward and over those lines." Move past the Court and do it through the political process; it's the best way forward.


But of course, this bill was written by REPUBLICANS.

False. There's no sense in which that statement is true. It's completely incorrect.


Obama himself said it. He got this idea from ROMNEY!

And you believe Obama? There's almost no truth in it. Republicans didn't come up with the mandate; very few Republicans ever pushed for a mandate; the mandate in the ACA is very different from one any Republicans -- including Romney -- ever pushed. So, yeah, go figure: Obama lied about that, too.

Posted by pudge at June 30, 2012 06:29 PM
109. Step back and look at the big picture here:

1) We know that Obama threatened the Court in no uncertain terms-uphold this or else!

2) There are some tantalizing indications in the dissent (which is unsigned) that it may actually have been authored by Roberts, who then changed his vote late in the proceedings.

3) Roberts interpreted the Commerce, Taxing and Spending, and Necessary and Proper Clauses much more conservatively than they've been interpreted in, oh, say, our lifetimes. This is really, in most respects except the bottom line, a very conservative opinion.

4) His rationale for upholding is absolutely the flimsiest (i.e., most likely to be later overturned) one possible. He's no dummy. Ask yourself why a very smart man would choose as a rationale one the President, the Congress and every other court that heard this case rejected out-of-hand.

5) He repeatedly states that he's not ruling on whether it's a good law, and that the people can throw the bums who wrote this law out if they (the people) don't like the law. In fact, that's the note on which he ends the decision, the last thing he wants to leave you with. Again, ask yourself why.

What scenario can you come up with that explains all those points?

What if the Chief Justice, who has been a consistent conservative all along, far from going over to the dark side, is trying to protect the Court from being gutted by Obama and at the same time hoping that this decision will light a fire under opponents of the law and encourage them to throw the bums out and repeal the law? (Given the fact that Romney has raised over $4.6 million since the decision was announced Thursday, it's looking so far as if that gamble might just pay off!)

http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/06/roberts-and-obamacare-what-just-happened/

Posted by Tobijah at June 30, 2012 08:49 PM
110. Tobijah,

You haven't read very many of Clarence Thomas' dissents or concurring opinions, have you? If you would like to learn what it means to be conservative, just read his writings...he makes Roberts look like Nancy Pelosi and Scalia look like John McCain.

Posted by doug at June 30, 2012 09:24 PM
111. If Romney wins the election, Roberts will be seen in a brighter light - as personality of the year, not only in Time Mag. but in conservative circles.

However, if the incumbent is reelected, Roberts will have that albatross around his neck.

What he has done has reenergize the Tea party and a microscope will out there to further digest the ACA aka the Health Care Redistribution Tax.

Posted by KDS at July 1, 2012 08:45 AM
112. KDS: If Romney wins the election, Roberts will be seen in a brighter light - as personality of the year, not only in Time Mag. but in conservative circles.

That's a damned shame, then. If any conservative changes his views of Roberts based on how an election turns out, then those conservatives are as bad as the liberals they loathe: putting some ancilliary ends before the means.

Realize that the Democrats are showing their true colors here: they said this should be upheld because it is not a tax, but rather, a commerce clause power with a penalty. The Court rejected their entire reasoning, and they couldn't care less, because they get to keep the ACA. For them, the ends is all that matters. For conservatives, the means matters, because the means -- if appropriate -- will lead to consistently good, fair, and free ends.

So changing your view of Roberts if Romney gets elected ... that's extraordinarily pathetic, frankly.

Tobijah: Step back and look at the big picture here

Let's!


1) We know that Obama threatened the Court in no uncertain terms-uphold this or else!

False. He did no such thing. He did say the Supreme Court should not overturn it, which was low-class of him as usual, but it was not a threat. Obama wields no power over the Court to threaten it with.


2) There are some tantalizing indications in the dissent (which is unsigned) that it may actually have been authored by Roberts, who then changed his vote late in the proceedings.

Perhaps. But there's no significant evidence of this.

3) Roberts interpreted the Commerce, Taxing and Spending, and Necessary and Proper Clauses much more conservatively than they've been interpreted in, oh, say, our lifetimes.

Not really, no. It's about on par with many decisions in recent years, ever since we started going back toward congressional limits under Rehnquist.

4) His rationale for upholding is absolutely the flimsiest (i.e., most likely to be later overturned) one possible.

False. While I think it's wrong, there's no serious indication that the idea that the taxing power can be used to encourage or discourage activity will be overturned, ever. And there's a lot of historical precedence here. I hope it's overturned, but I have no reason to think it will be.


He's no dummy.

Correct.


Ask yourself why a very smart man would choose as a rationale one the President, the Congress and every other court that heard this case rejected out-of-hand.

Because he thinks it's what the Constitution requires, obviously.


5) He repeatedly states that he's not ruling on whether it's a good law, and that the people can throw the bums who wrote this law out if they (the people) don't like the law.

Yes. That's a given.


In fact, that's the note on which he ends the decision, the last thing he wants to leave you with. Again, ask yourself why.

Very simply, because he doesn't want anyone to think he is endorsing the law.


What scenario can you come up with that explains all those points?

The only reasonable scenario is that Roberts believes he was following the Constitution.


What if the Chief Justice, who has been a consistent conservative all along, far from going over to the dark side, is trying to protect the Court from being gutted by Obama and at the same time hoping that this decision will light a fire under opponents of the law and encourage them to throw the bums out and repeal the law?

It is extremely stupid to think Roberts would do something like that. If he did, he should be impeached for violating his oath, and using the Court to play politics instead of ruling on the merits of the case as he sees it.

You are claiming Roberts would ever be a deciding vote on a case -- let alone such a major one -- to intentionally and knowingly go against what his view of the Constitution is. That's just inane. Please stop.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 07:23 PM
113. True conservatives probably won't waver much on their opinions of Roberts. The point I was making was how the mainstream would portray it. My views of Roberts are subject to minor change; IOW, if Obamacare aka the Healthcare Redistribution tax is repealed, it will be in spite of Justice Roberts.

The other rulings that went against the expansion of Medicaid and calling the mandate unconstitutional in terms of the Commerce clause will have a positive affect in future SCOTUS - for limited Government. However, the positive effect would be overshadowed if the Health Redistribution Tax is implemented.

I hope that Mitt Romney can effectively defend Romney care and admit that if he had to do it over again, he would have done it differently and it was a lesson learned. He'll have to do that in order to get that monkey off his back.

Posted by KDS at July 1, 2012 07:53 PM
114. In @111 I should have replaced "conservative" circles with "Republican circles". A good number of Republicans are not true conservatives and are more susceptible to view this like the mainstream would.

Posted by KDS at July 1, 2012 08:07 PM
115. CBS is reporting that Roberts did side with the conservatives and then switched his vote. Let the conspiracy theories begin.

Posted by Palouse at July 1, 2012 08:10 PM
116. Palouse: CBS is reporting that Roberts did side with the conservatives and then switched his vote.

They have zero credibility without naming a source on the record, which they do not do.

That said, there's no reason to think he changed his vote for any reason other than that he was convinced by the Constitution and SCOTUS precedents.

But the article points out where I think KDS and other conservatives are in trouble, thinking that there was much success in this opinion ... there was no majority opinion for the rejection of the commerce clause, nor for going against Medicaid expansion. It never actually happened.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 08:18 PM
117. They don't name a source, but the pieces of this story fit. The unsigned dissent, no one joining Roberts on Commerce, even some of the language in the dissent using "we" which is usually reserved for the majority opinion. In a landmark case like this, I would expect the dissent to address the majority opinion in much more detail than it did. It was written like a majority opinion because I think it was.

Only Roberts knows why he switched, and until he retires I don't think we will ever hear it from him.

Posted by Palouse at July 1, 2012 08:30 PM
118. Palouse: They don't name a source, but ...

To me, I can only say, "but nothing." I make it a habit of not considering as possibly true a story that cannot be verified as true.

So as far as I am concerned -- because it is as far as the verifiable facts are concerned -- he didn't switch. Of course, it's possible, but it's no more likely true after the story as it was before.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 08:46 PM
119. Didn't the SCOTUS voted 7-2 against the expansion of Medicaid ?

That aside, here is the last portion of David Limbaugh's article "Obamacare Ruling Has Major GOP Upside". I'll add a caveat - it depends what Mitt Romney does with this potential momentum;

"As a necessary consequence, the patients' choices of and access to various treatments will both be severely diminished under Obamacare.

The quality of healthcare will also diminish. Doctors are already planning to leave the medical profession in droves. They are advising their family and friends not to choose the profession. People are not being allowed to keep their plans as Obama cynically promised. The Willis survey reports that only 30 percent of employers will keep their same plans under Obamacare.

The anxiety brought on by Obamacare -- including that brought on by the tsunami of additional federal rules, regulations, and taxes it will impose on small businesses -- is having a crippling effect on job creation in this country. Seventy-four percent of small businesses say they are not expanding because of Obamacare.

The American people overwhelmingly oppose this federal power grab, which is why Mitt Romney and the Republican Party had better read their cue cards and understand that now is not the time for fecklessness. It is the time to draw clear contrasts between the Republican vision and the Obama record.

I believe that this ruling by the court will reinvigorate the tea party movement in a way that nothing else could have and, provided Republicans don't blow it by refusing to take the gloves off in the campaign, could help lead to a GOP landslide in November."


Posted by KDS at July 1, 2012 08:47 PM
120. Palouse: So as far as I am concerned -- because it is as far as the verifiable facts are concerned -- he didn't switch

Sorry, I meant, "we don't know whether he switched." This story really adds absolutely nothing of interest with its unnamed sources.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 08:48 PM
121. KDS: Didn't the SCOTUS voted 7-2 against the expansion of Medicaid ?

I don't know. I do know that there is no opinion of the Court that more than four people agreed to on that point. But there were two separate opinions that came to that conclusion, one with four and one with three.

I know that Ginsburg referred to the majority opinion against the expansion, but ... which opinion was that?


I believe that this ruling by the court will reinvigorate the tea party movement in a way that nothing else could have and, provided Republicans don't blow it by refusing to take the gloves off in the campaign, could help lead to a GOP landslide in November.

The easiest way to say this is similar to what I wrote in my piece above: the people of this country have been that if they want their liberty, they can't rely on the Court to secure it for them. If that won't move the people to action ... then nothing will.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 08:50 PM
122. I think there's just too many odd things about this opinion and how it was written to think that Roberts believed consistently all along in the taxing power argument.

I also just don't believe CBS made this up (Rathergate notwithstanding). No one close to the court is going to come forward with this information and attach their name to it and expect to keep their job and future career in law, assuming it's a clerk or something.

Posted by Palouse at July 1, 2012 09:01 PM
123. Palouse: I think there's just too many odd things about this opinion and how it was written to think that Roberts believed consistently all along in the taxing power argument.

I don't see any serious evidence supporting that, really.

I also just don't believe CBS made this up

Even moreso, there is no evidence supporting this whatsoever. And that's the problem.


No one close to the court is going to come forward with this information and attach their name to it and expect to keep their job and future career in law, assuming it's a clerk or something.

So? That's no excuse.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 09:04 PM
124. No pudge, there's no hard evidence, and this isn't a court of law. Just a case of Occam's Razor, to explain the aforementioned oddities in post 117. I suspected he was part of the majority based on these things prior to this story.

Posted by Palouse at July 1, 2012 09:17 PM
125. Palouse: this isn't a court of law

That's irrelevant to my point. My point is that you can't trust what you can't verify, and this goes double for government and triple for journalists.

Every time the press relies on unnamed sources, and you think they shouldn't, it's partially YOUR fault for accepting their unnamed sources other times.

And it's not even so much that they are lying or making it up: maybe they just got it wrong. Maybe they misquoted accidentally, made an honest mistake. Maybe they left something out. Since the source wants to remain anonymous, he won't correct the record, and you can't ask him.

So you just can't trust a damned thing about it. You really can't.


Just a case of Occam's Razor , to explain the aforementioned oddities in post 117. I suspected he was part of the majority based on these things prior to this story.

Exactly You don't need the CBS article's "unnamed sources" to evaluate the possibilities. That's my point. It's not about what Roberts did, but whether the unnamed sources tell us anything. They do not.

Posted by pudge at July 1, 2012 09:33 PM
126. Pudge, what is clear to me from the oral arguments is that Roberts hung his hat on the taxing notion. Roberts desperately wanted a 9-0 decision on Obamacare (most likely for striking the mandate to begin with). However, he realized he had to deal with 4 liberals who are for more political than judicial and they weren't going to strike down the vehicle to single payer universal healthcare.

So, then Roberts wanted to figure out a way to bring both sides of the court together, his idea was to declare it a tax and say the mandate was unconstitutional otherwise. This would work for the liberal arm, because they can care less about jurisprudence, they just want the ends. He also wrongly thought the conservatives would go for it because it could lead to the overturning of Obamacare in a couple years when tax cases come back to the court while also throwing a big bone of limiting the commerce clause.

My guess is that Roberts thought all along up to even the last day that the conservatives would sign on to his decision at the last minute. The conservatives gave him the bird and hung Roberts out in the wind. I think Roberts now is totally crushed and feels as big as an ant and is probably feeling like the worst human being on earth....

His big ego thought everyone would fall in line, yet they didn't.

Posted by doug at July 2, 2012 08:29 AM
127. Regarding Roberts "switch":
There can be many explanations to why someone may switch. One cannot assume it was due to pressure from the "left" or "president." For example, one theory is Roberts may have thought that Scalia's (I believe) write up was too harse for his taking and agreement. What should concern both sides is the potential that the "source" of this news can only come from the court itself. This potentially is more serious than whether Roberts switch or not. It says that someone on the court wants to "sway" public opinion via leaks. This is potentially worse (at least the same level) as when the Executive Branch or Congress does the same actions, which we know they do. It strikes at the impartiality and third branch of our government. The fact that this "source" exists should concern both liberals and conservatives.

Posted by hopingmypostwillstay at July 2, 2012 08:40 AM
128. I didn't read all 127 comments here, so I'll apologize in advance if most of what I'm about to post has already been said.

As is usually the case, folks on both sides of the debate over this decision are missing the most important points, IMO.

"Liberals" who have showed up elated here and rubbing the "conservatives'" noses in it would do well to consider a few years down the road. Virtually every President builds on the abuses of The Constitution perpetrated by his predecessors. So what happens when somebody you vehemently disagree with is in the White House and in control of Congress? The limits on his or her power have been essentially ruled null and void by SCOTUS. You may love the fact that "your guy" has the power to take from some in order to pretend to provide for others, but when a future President uses his or her unlimited taxing power to force you to do something which you find personally objectionable, I hope you'll remember this day. Enjoy your mandatory Glock.

And the reaction from conservatives... uggh.. I don't even know where to begin on this one. Romney has already proven himself to be a tyrant by his actions as Governor of MA. I'd like to see Glorious Leader lose his re-election bid as much as any of you, but do you honestly believe that Romney is a "small government" guy? Seriously????

I really wish BOTH sides would look at results instead of rhetoric.

Liberals, "your party" has been telling you for decades that with higher taxes, less individual sovereignty and less restrictions on government power, they can create or come closer to some kind of utopia. Please look at the results! From the war on poverty to the Federal Government's takeover of the education system, the result has been nothing but failure. We spend tens of trillions of dollars on program after program, the results are always either no change or decline, and the answer is always "But this next thing will work! Just let us take more money and freedom away from those evil successful people!"

Conservatives, "your party" has been telling you for decades that it is for constitutionally limited government and less spending. Please, look at the results! The last time Republicans held the White House and Congress, we got MORE out of control spending, MORE massive entitlement programs, MORE disastrous meddling in education, and MORE abuses of The Constitution with bills like the incredibly inaccurately named PATRIOT act. Republican politicians will talk all day about The Constitution, but when it comes down to it, they are no more for limiting Federal power than Democrats. They just want to control different parts of your life.

If you want somebody to blame for Obamacare, look no further than the GOP. After 6 years in power, they'd made Americans so cynical about politics that we were willing to elect a Marxist, just because he repeated the word "change" over and over again.

But... but.. The Tea Party movement is changing the GOP. Right?

Hardly. Did the GOP use either of the opportunities it had in 2011 to reduce spending and delay the bankrupting of our nation? Hmm. No. Did the GOP display its commitment to limited government by rejecting the 2012 NDAA, which allows for American citizens to be jailed indefinitely without trial simply because we think they might be terrorists? Nope again. The bill passed with OVERWHELMING support by both parties. Was the Tea Party successful in getting someone who cares about limited government nominated for President? Uh.. we selected the ONLY guy in the race who had enacted a tyrannical health insurance mandate at the state level. A man whose positions shift whenever the political winds get slightly breezy.

But we will all skip merrily along, pumping our fists and shouting "HELL YEAH!", every time "our party" tells a lie with which we enthusiastically agree. Now that the Supreme Court has said that there is no limit whatsoever to the Federal Govt's power, we had all better wake up.. fast.. and realize that swallowing the lies and repeating the slogans can only lead to more tyranny, no matter whose slogans we chant.

Posted by Antisocialist at July 2, 2012 04:17 PM
129. Antisocialist: it's obvious you didn't read much here, since most of the criticism you posted about "conservatives" and their reactions have nothing to do with anything posted here.

And Romney is a "tyrant"? You obviously know almost nothing about him or his tenure as governor of MA. He was the governor of a state completely controlled by Democrats, and as governor had very little power. He didn't even have the power to be a tyrant, let alone to shrink government by himself. (I lived in MA for 20 years, so I have some perspective here.)

And compared to Obama, yes, Romney is a small-government guy. He'll be more for small government than any President since FDR, except for Reagan ... granted, that may not be saying much, but it's something.

And you're also wrong on history of spending. The media and Democrats have duped you. In fact, the last time the Republicans held the White House and Congress, they shrunk the deficit to 1/10th the size it is now. It's only when the Democrats won the Congress back that the deficit ballooned again. Yes, really. When the deficits increased under Bush (except for one year), Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress: FY 2002 and FY2003 were under Democratic control of the Senate, seeing deficit increases of $500b combined, on spending increases of $300b. Over the next four years, with GOP control over both houses, we saw spending increase $500b, and a deficit decrease of $215b.

Then the Democrats took control of both houses and in ONE year we had a spending increase of $250b and a deficit increase of $300b. Then Obama became President and in ONE year signed a spending increase of $535b, and a deficit increase of just shy of $1T.

So yes, the GOP spent too much. But to pretend that we got "more out-of-control spending" under GOP control just defies the facts.


But... but.. The Tea Party movement is changing the GOP. Right?

Yes.


Did the GOP use either of the opportunities it had in 2011 to reduce spending and delay the bankrupting of our nation?

Yes, actually. You remember all the crowing from Obama about how spending growth has decreased under him, in the last couple of years? There's two primary reasons for that, and both of them are due to the GOP. First, GOP political pressure for the elections caused the Dems to slow down (since they had so drastically increased spending in 2008 and 2009), and second, the GOP took control of the House to disallow drastic spending increases.

And while they didn't refuse to increase the debt limit, they did slow it down and require more accountability and bring more awareness to the public.


Did the GOP display its commitment to limited government by rejecting the 2012 NDAA, which allows for American citizens to be jailed indefinitely without trial simply because we think they might be terrorists?

The NDAA does no such thing. You're wrong. Yes, really. Do you believe that the Constitution disallows such indefinite jailing without a trial? Do you believe that the Court precedents agree? If you answer yes to both -- and you should, because the record on both is clear -- then this law cannot be reasonably interpreted to include citizens.

What it says (and I haven't read it in some time, and can't look it up right now, so I am being slightly vague here) is that there is a list of covered persons (which may include citizens), and that among the list of possible actions for covered persons is some type of jailing without trial etc. But it is necessarily implied that each action must be independently justified by the circumstances, and if a given action would be unconstitutional against a given person, it therefore cannot be used.

That's what the law says.

Now granted, many law enforcement people may incorrectly think from this law that they can perform those actions against anyone; therefore, the law is worded poorly. But it doesn't actually say what you think it says.


Was the Tea Party successful in getting someone who cares about limited government nominated for President?

Yes.

Posted by pudge at July 3, 2012 06:55 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?