General Verrilli, today you are arguing that
the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.
Obama's Supreme Court Rebuff
Americans still revere the Supreme Court. As one of the three branches of the Federal government, confidence in their conduct
and authority is usually higher than Congress or the Presidency. Yet when a real or contrived constitutional crisis develops,
the screams and indignation arise and point to a convenient culprit. The current Obamacare case before this court has all
the trappings of a full-blown confrontation. The reason is simple. The underlying question before the Supremes is not purely
a legal matter. At stake is whether this country is actually a government under laws. Alternatively, is it an authoritarian
dictatorship nuisance by irritating lawful restraints?
Ron Paul intelligibly explains the merits of the case and the pit falls of judicial review. In an article, The Supreme Court and Obamacare, the following points are covered.
"The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s
powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the
power to "regulate" commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore
the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.
It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must
oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine
of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against
extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not
nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.
While I’m heartened
that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal
mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill-- passed under a Republican President and a Republican House--mandates
that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans,
mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported
by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these
mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope
of Article I, Section 8."
Now one might read this
analysis as an argument that favors no judicial review of Obamacare, but this viewpoint misses the essential element that
has allowed the tyranny of the judiciary. The Role of the Supreme Court concludes:
"The depths of personal ignorance and societal denial about
the nature of our own history are only superseded by the lust to destroy the unique American experiment in self-governance.
The concept of Federalism, the sharing of distinct, defined and limited roles and scope for governmental authority is the
basis of the U.S. Constitution. Arbitrary, contrived and manufactured jurisprudence that relies on court ruling to establish
the Supreme Court as the final and ultimate authority is un-American to its core. But that is exactly the wish of the mainstream
pretenders for the rule of law. The scam of righting legislative and executive wrongs from the bench is the harbinger of a
tyranny that resides in black robe Jacobins."
Remember that no one knows exactly how
the Supreme Court will vote. However, it is eminently clear that little press coverage emphasizes the unethical role of Justice Elena Kagan’s refusal of recusal from the case. This slam-dunk example, where a former
solicitor general and legal advisor on the Affordable Care Act in the Obama administration, from avoiding the case; is stellar.
The current assessment that the initial vote among
the nine jurists went against Obama is still speculation. What is clear is that the President reacted as a tin horn dictator
with intimidation tactics against the court. Such conduct is not only unfitting, but also downright scary. Frightening not
because it demonstrated just how ignorant the radical community organizer is, but because he is unqualified as a constitutional
Such a juridic mind needs a legal lobotomy. This indulgence
by a lunatic lends weight to the assessment that Barry Soetoro is a CIA creation and a trained spook on a mission to turn
the remains of the Republic into a third world junta.
When the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals demanded a legal position from Attorney General Eric Holder, that the government acknowledges the precedent
of judicial review, the storm clouds thickened. Apparently, not even this despotic regime was willing to stick a rod in the
eye of Lady Justice, at this time.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what
would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically
elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've
heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of
people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that
this court will recognize that and not take that step."
judicial activism stretches the Constitution into a living perverted document. The illegitimate autocrat is preparing the
public for non-legal means to implement the stages of Obamacare through executive decree. Just how far will a disturbed fanatic
like Obama go to circumvent a negative decision by the Supreme Court?
aware that until any rendering of a final ruling, a death on the court could handily keep the extortion racket in tack. Is
this too farfetched to contemplate? Then watch the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the undercurrents with the court.
What if SCOTUS Strikes
Conventional wisdom says the President must eat humble
pie. Well, we will all see. If a tyrant is blocked from stacking the court, why not just ignore the decision? This is a serious
question in an age of the post Republic.
"Who in the world died and made Barack
Hussien Obama King of SCOTUS? Telling them they had better understand what all this means when it comes to their decision
when it’s handed down in June.
There also have been rumors that
Justice Kagan may have leaked the decision to the ‘Arrogant One’…we most likely will never know, but you
can be sure that question was planted yesterday…and he was prepared for it and knew it was coming.
What Dear Leader did to the members of the Supreme Court during one of his State of Union
speeches was ‘unprecedented’…what he did yesterday also was.
I’ve never seen anything like the audacity of this so-called man…how about you? As far as I’m concerned
the only ‘activist‘ at this point of the game is the ‘Community Organizer‘, he has to go come November…he
is one dangerous man to this nation through my Viewfinder in Life…how’s it lookin’ through yours?"
Sentiments like this should overtake the public. However, in the entitlement society, few
have the intellectual integrity or the moral courage to turn down the "something for nothing" promises
of a political class that has abandoned any connection to reality.
activism is no way to novena. In spite of this inappropriate labeling of a potential decision that overturns the Obamacare
mandate as hypercritical overreach is not valid. Before folks break out the champagne bottles, prepare yourself for hostile
responses. The whiner in chief is hell bent on becoming an absolute ruler.
Forbes offers a significant caveat that might be used to uphold Obamacare.
advocates have had some success articulating one limiting principle in particular: that mandates are kosher when it comes
to health care, because "health care is unique." As Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a conservative star, put it in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the mandate involves "regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive."
It isn’t true, of course: health insurance is about regulating how citizens pay for
something that they might consume in the future, not something "they already receive." But the point is, some conservatives
in the lower courts have been persuaded by this argument."
intellectually crippled conservatives buy into the all encompassing central government, just how can the Obama juggernaut
be derailed? Since the Congress does not have the stomach to impeach the impostor, who will remove Barry Soetoro from office?
Relying on a national election to reflect the will of the people, when
the process is a rigged game is foolhardy. Besides, the notion that Obama can actually win the presidential vote is even more
alarming. Just what kind of country would willfully endorse a dictatorship? Maybe the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable
Care Act will provide a hint of an answer.