you're reading...
America, courts, federal, First Amendment, freedom, frustration, law

The Supreme Court…

…reported on a few recent decisions, yesterday.

One on the ‘Affordable Care Act’ aka Obamacare; the other on the right of sleezebags to wear military medals that were not awarded or earned.

Like many, I initially thought Chief Justice John Roberts had sold out by siding with the more pink side of the court.  But, I’ve not yet had time to read the entire text of both sides of the decision.  So, I withheld judgement.

Then, I saw a number of conservative and libertarian bloggers pronounce that my initial impression was not the case.  i.e.

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights* by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.


My two biggest impressions from the above essay were:

1)  The ACA IS a tax, in spite of the was it was sold put over on the American People differently, and

2)  Civil communication and discord have gotten so far afield in this country that the author warns in his first sentence against doing harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family!  WTF?

Speaking of harm, my gut tells me that finding out someone has dishonored our military by wearing their medals and gaining benefit from having done so turns my stomach.  Just as burning the American Flag does.  But I recognize we DO have a First Amendment and acting independently against these sleezebags is just as wrong attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Doesn’t mean I have to like it, though.

I wonder if this decision is defacto extended to other federal blackmail – as with enact our kind of highway laws, or you don’t get the funding?

If so, the fun is just beginning.

*’states rights’ – a sadly over-used term.
Amendment 10- Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  Powers, not rights.

h/t Rev. Paul,

About guffaw1952

I'm a child of the 50's. libertarian, now medically-retired. I've been a certified firearms trainer, a private investigator, and worked for a major credit card company for almost 22 years. I am a proud NRA Life Member. I am a limited-government, free-market capitalist, who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.


10 thoughts on “The Supreme Court…

  1. My favorite part of yesterday was reading the tweets/internet posts of those who were so angered by the ruling that they said they’re moving to Canada!

    It’s a bizarre world we live in.

    From now until November, we’re going to hear the Dems talking up Obamacare – a pale shadow of what they REALLY wanted; and the Repubs railing against the centerpiece – an individual mandate advocated by the Heritage Foundation and lauded by many Republicans, and put into place in Mass. by their party’s nominee: Mitt Romney!

    *settles in with popcorn*

    Posted by Tomi | June 29, 2012, 8:31 am
    • ‘Settles in with popcorn’ – sounds like a good plan!
      The two parties (Tweedledee and Tweedledum) need to realize there are other parties out there.
      Like the Libertarians.

      Posted by guffaw1952 | June 29, 2012, 8:35 am
      • Well, actually, (and sadly), I really don’t think that will ever happen. With all the serious money invested in one or the other, third parties have virtually no chance to succeed. So, unless the Libertarians (or Greens, or whomever) can get a coterie of billionaires together to support them, we will be stuck with the system we currently have.

        Kodos: “It’s true, we are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system – you have to vote for one of us!”
        Crowd: (murmurs) “He’s right, this is a two-party system.”
        Man In Crowd: “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.”
        Kang: “Go ahead, throw your vote away.” (Kang and Kodos laugh maniacally)

        (Don’t blame me! I voted for Kodos!)

        Posted by Tomi | June 29, 2012, 11:43 am
      • HAHA! Well, historically, it has happened before, so who knows?
        Now, do I register as a Whig or a Know-Nothing?

        Posted by guffaw1952 | June 29, 2012, 12:33 pm
  2. The word “powers” here refers not to the States, but to that authority specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, and the 10th Amendment was and is intended to prohibit the central authority from growing, prohibiting it from doing anything not spelled out in the document.

    EVERYTHING ELSE is recognized by that Amendment to be within the rights of the States to act – or not – as they please.

    At least, that was the original intent.

    Posted by Rev. Paul | June 29, 2012, 8:34 am
  3. Okay, since now it appears lawful and appropriate to dictate behavior and choices of private citizens via the US tax code using the might of the IRS, the following proposal should not meet with any resistance:

    1. 26 USC Section 53 et seq, the National Firearms Act of 1934, is hereby REPEALED.

    2. Title 10 USC Section 311, Militia: Composition and Classes, is hereby amended:
    (c) Each member of the unorganized militia is required by this act to purchase and maintain in proper working order
    (i) a rifle of the pattern then currently in use by the United States Army (heretofore “service rifle”, and
    (ii) no less than six magazines or ammunition feeding devices compatible with the service rifle, with a capacity of no less than twenty cartridges, and
    (iii) a maintenance kit for the service rifle, and
    (iv) no less than five hundred cartridges for the service rifle.
    (d) Each member of the unorganized militia who fails to comply with Part (c) of this section shall be taxed no less than $1,500.00 for each year not in compliance, and such tax shall be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.

    “No matter who you are or what you believe, you have to understand that some day the worst control-freaks among your bitterest enemies will control the federal government, and you better have restored effective, working constitutional limitations on that government before that time arrives.” — Rick Gaber

    Posted by Tango Juliet | June 30, 2012, 5:58 am
  4. I read that essay the other day, and while I agree that it’s good that the commerce clause is no longer an open ended vessel for universal statism, I don’t buy into the idea that the second ruling, the one that magically transforms the individual mandate (which was passed by Congress as a mandate-not a tax, signed into law by the President as a mandate-not a tax, and determined by the Supreme Court on the first day of oral arguments to be a mandate-not a tax) into a tax, is somehow a genius move! The law was non-severable, no part of it could be removed without the whole thing becoming void. Once the individual mandate was struck down as un-Constitutional, the entire law was struck down, unless there was a ruling that I am unaware of in which the law was determined to be severable. The second ruling is 100% Judicial Activism! I would have preferred the Chief Justice to have voted consistantly on these two rulings.

    Posted by Gregory Brown | June 30, 2012, 5:42 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

%d bloggers like this: