Re: John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate

Good Afternoon from Köln Michael,

 

I got to my apartment yesterday evening around 18:30 Central European Time,  and the American news agencies were just beginning to report the Supreme's Opinion.   I was tired,  frustrated,  (I had sat in traffic for over an hour and a half,  just to get less than twelve miles)  and hearing the news,  I felt literally devastated.   I was so frustrated, and felt sold out by my own Nation.  What is it that these people could have been thinking?   How is it that some of our people could want such a dramatic change in our very way of culture;  all in the name of "compassion"?    Can they not see how this socialized system is such a miserable failure here in Europe?  Why would we want to emulate something (e.g.;  socialism and communism)  that has never worked through recorded time?

 

Well,  after several cocktails,  (and dinner)  and after receiving numerous e-mails from individuals and entities that were just as outraged as I was,  I did find some solace.

 

I took the time this morning to read Justice Robert's Majority Opinion;  as well as Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion,  and the Dissent's Opinion.  (That took over two hours to get through!) 

 

I disagree that Justice Roberts has somehow issued a Lennist Opinion.....I am baffled as to how Justice Ginsberg could be even remotely construed as a legal scholar;  and I do believe that the Dissent's Opinion, written by Justice Scalia is more aptly correct, with regard to one point, and a point that I think Grigg, like many of the media talking heads, are missing. 

 

It's one, very simple point, and what this whole Decision rests upon:  The distinction between the term "Tax"  and "Penalty".  On Page 39,  Justice Roberts makes the following Statement: 

 

"That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word "penalty" to describe the payment.  Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly "[i]mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation." Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislature's enactment."

Slip Op at 39.

On the other hand,  Justice Scalia frames it as such:

 

"In answering that question we must, if "fairly possible," Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. " ' "[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- ation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . ." or judicially rewriting it.' " Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. supra."

 "Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: " '[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide forthe support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.' "United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a "tax" imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress' taxing power.  "

Dissent Slip Op at 17-18. 

I have extracted,  (and then highlighted)  what I found to be the key portions of both Justice Roberts'  and Justice Scalia's written Opinions.   Again,  this just my take,  and for my notes;  feel free to take as little or as much of them as you wish. 

With regard to Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion in part, and dissenting Opinion in part,  I did read it,  but found nothing whatsoever worthy of even quoting or adding here.   Justice Ginsberg is an embarassment to the Judiciary,  period. 

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright."

John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate
Posted on 28 June 2012
by William Grigg

In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court -- the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.

During a 2009 interview with the obsequious George Stephanopolos, President Obama said that he "absolutely reject[s] the notion" that the federal health care mandate is a tax increase. This morning, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by nominal conservative Chief Justice Roberts, rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Constitution's Commerce Clause permits an individual health care mandate; however, the Court also claimed that it could impose such a directive by means of a direct un-apportioned tax (which is not authorized by the Constitution -- see Article I section 2, clause 3 -- and thus is expressly forbidden by it, as if that mattered anymore).

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we've seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

In the opinion he wrote on behalf of the four dissenting justices, Antonin Scalia described the Obamacare individual mandate, and the powers arrogated by Washington to enforce it, as a "blatant violation of the constitutional structure," irrespective of the conceptual framework used to justify it.

Scalia pointed out that with respect to the constitutional power "to tax and spend for the general welfare," the High Court "has long since expanded that beyond … taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government's enumerated powers" to the point that it now effectively manages practically every aspect of the lives of U.S. citizens -- and has absorbed all of the powers and functions once reserved to the states. The gravamen of this case, Scalia insists, is not whether the mandate can be justified on grounds other than the Commerce Clause, but whether there are any identifiable limits on the exercise of federal power:

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power -- upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

The Obamacare statute "exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding," Scalia concludes. "These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act's other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.

In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court's imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain -- and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.

Read the ruling here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/john-roberts-constitutional-traitor-chief-justice-approves-obamacare-tax-mandate.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.