Obamacare upheld.

[TrailDust]

No, our only not violent option would be a State convention to pass a Constitutional Amendment to have this law not only repealed but also to make it where no other law of this type can ever be passed again. The main problem with this is that it will take no less than 34 states to pass it. Just because Romney repeals it which i doubt he can or will it still leaves the door open to do it again or to use the SCOTUS ruling as a way to tax us for what ever they want to with no repercussions.

A constitutional amendment to abolish it is possible, but very unlikely IMO.

I keep saying this, we will either have another revolution, another civil war, or this nation will follow the lead of the Roman empire.

What he said....100%. Taking everything into account, I'm figuring America crumbling from within the likeliest.

 

[TrailDust]

Re: Obamacare upheld but Stolen Valor Act shot down

How wonderful, another split decision. To answer your question, Supreme Court appointments made when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate are what's wrong with the Supreme Court.

 

[TxDad]

I've been saying for years now that it will come to one of those outcomes and its what this country needs to avoid total collapse. The two party system has been broken for some time and government has gotten so bloated and out of touch with its constitutional duties to the people. I get the feeling that things like this are what will bring a second revolution or civil war about in the very near future.

I think that if it gets to that point we have already collapsed. Bye bye to society as we know it. Guess who will be begging gun owners for protection. Thats right, the anti's.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

It's not as simple as it looks. Go read the opinions. Here's my arm chair lawyer take:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Roberts strengthened the 10th amendment by disallowing the Medicaid expansion requirement. States can selectively not participate in the expansion but still receive their due funding under the existing Medicaid arrangement.

Roberts' opinion specifically talks to the clear inadequacy of the Commerce Clause to support a mandate. It notes that only enumerated powers granted to Congress can stand. That is a huge statement on a SCOTUS ruling - huge.

It says that no matter the merit, and regardless of what it's called in the bill, its a tax that would need to be collected by the IRS. Then goes on to say simply that you must suffer the damages of a tax before you can sue. In other words, you have to pay the IRS and then sue for a refund under the current interpretations of the law.

So...

This sets up as the largest tax increase in history. It doesn't disallow those seeking remedy in future cases AFTER they have paid the tax. It locks it up as a tax and disallows the wishy-washy language we've been hearing. People will have to decide if they want that tax. There's a ton of political implications come the net round of elections.

It also strengthens any future Commerce Clause and 10th amendment cases coming before the court.

Bottomline: If we can enact change legislatively then we just inherited one of the strongest libertarin-esque precedents/rulings from the SCOTUS in recent history. In effect, it seems like Roberts gambled on the people deciding at the ballot box this year instead of through a ruling.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted” to the Federal Government “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries.

The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers. Congress may, for example, “coin Money,” “establish Post Offices,”and “raise and support Armies.” Art. I, §8, cls. 5, 7, 12. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824). The Constitution’s express conferral of some power smakes clear that it does not grant others. And the Federal Government “can exercise only the powers granted to it.” McCulloch, supra, at 405.

Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.

Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enumeration of powers sufficed to restrain the Government.As Alexander Hamilton put it, “the Constitution is itself,in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.

Yee freakin' ha! This is where they say the Commerce Clause is insufficent to sustain the law. It can only stand as a tax.

 

[srstaff]

Re: Obamacare upheld but Stolen Valor Act shot down

and apparently, 'conservative' but decidedly insane Chief Justice Roberts...

 

[macshooter]

This might be wishful thinking, but I think there is a chance there might be some craftiness in Roberts' decision. Hmmmm....

1. Because the libs in the SCOTUS were completely dependent on Roberts to uphold this law, he could dictate the terms of exactly on what basis the law would be upheld, and they would go along with it, no matter what it was. They all would have gone with upholding in under the commerce clause, but he took them in a different direction. He's had time to delve into that 3000 page monstrosity. It could be he has found some way that it will be impossible to implement the law with the some states opting out of it. Or maybe that's it's just a disaster that will fall apart on it's own without his help. Maybe not

2. It really lights a fire under conservatives, and makes this election a life or death thing for freedom, maximizing the chances of obama being defeated in Nov. It maximizes the chance obama care will get repealed, since a win for Romney and wins in congress will be seen as a mandate to repeal it. Also, because it's now legally a tax, it can be repealed much easier with a simple majority in congress by using budget reconciliation. It also inflates the ego of the left, perhaps encouraging democratic lawmakers to be even more bold and try even more brazen abuses of power in future laws. (that might be their undoing)

3. It limits the power of the govt under the commerce clause. That's the most important thing that could have been accomplished if the law had been struck down. And it still happend even though it was upheld.

4. By throwing the doors wide open to congress' unlimited power to tax, he's set a trap of sorts. If you follow the same line of reasoning, congress could enact a law that forces everyone to buy green cars or pay a heavy IRS imposed fine. A law like that will be upheld as constitutional under the precedent that was set today. However people will freak the f*ck out, because American's are not used to being treated that way, it's totally outrageous and un-American. So it will not be hard to rally support for a constitutional amendment to restrict congress' power to tax if they do that.

So Roberts kills any possible accusation of the SCOTUS being politically controlled by the right, while simultaneously limiting what the govt can do under the commerce clause, and while setting the up left with the temptation for gross abuse of power through taxation in the future laws that will expose them for who they are, and rally the entire nation for a constitutional amendment to put them in their place. He maximizes conservative voter turn out in Nov, and makes it much easier to repeal obama care using budget reconciliation. All of that would not be possible if the law had been struck down on the basis of the commerce clause alone. So maybe he's crafty in what he's done. (Or maybe I'm an incurable optimist )

 

[macshooter]

Of course if we throw obama out of office increase republican control of the house and take the senate, the dems will not be writing any abusive laws for a long time. Still, if anything, we should know by now that progressives are very patient and will wait till the opportunity arises. They've been working on what happened today for 100 years.

 

[winchster]

This might be wishful thinking, but I think there is a chance there might be some craftiness in Roberts' decision. Hmmmm....

1. Because the libs in the SCOTUS were completely dependent on Roberts to uphold this law, he could dictate the terms of exactly on what basis the law would be upheld, and they would go along with it, no matter what it was. They all would have gone with upholding in under the commerce clause, but he took them in a different direction. He's had time to delve into that 3000 page monstrosity. It could be he has found some way that it will be impossible to implement the law with the some states opting out of it. Or maybe that's it's just a disaster that will fall apart on it's own without his help. Maybe not

2. It really lights a fire under conservatives, and makes this election a life or death thing for freedom, maximizing the chances of obama being defeated in Nov. It maximizes the chance obama care will get repealed, since a win for Romney and wins in congress will be seen as a mandate to repeal it. Also, because it's now legally a tax, it can be repealed much easier with a simple majority in congress by using budget reconciliation. It also inflates the ego of the left, perhaps encouraging democratic lawmakers to be even more bold and try even more brazen abuses of power in future laws. (that might be their undoing)

3. It limits the power of the govt under the commerce clause. That's the most important thing that could have been accomplished if the law had been struck down. And it still happend even though it was upheld.

4. By throwing the doors wide open to congress' unlimited power to tax, he's set a trap of sorts. If you follow the same line of reasoning, congress could enact a law that forces everyone to buy green cars or pay a heavy IRS imposed fine. A law like that will be upheld as constitutional under the precedent that was set today. However people will freak the f*ck out, because American's are not used to being treated that way, it's totally outrageous and un-American. So it will not be hard to rally support for a constitutional amendment to restrict congress' power to tax if they do that.

So Roberts kills any possible accusation of the SCOTUS being politically controlled by the right, while simultaneously limiting what the govt can do under the commerce clause, and while setting the up left with the temptation for gross abuse of power through taxation in the future laws that will expose them for who they are, and rally the entire nation for a constitutional amendment to put them in their place. He maximizes conservative voter turn out in Nov, and makes it much easier to repeal obama care using budget reconciliation. All of that would not be possible if the law had been struck down on the basis of the commerce clause alone. So maybe he's crafty in what he's done. (Or maybe I'm an incurable optimist )

Ok, so you have managed to make my blood pressure return to normal. I don't like it, but I can almost buy it. If the plan was to win in November and make sure Obama doesn't get a SCOTUS nominee then ok, but this all backfires if Obama wins again.

 

[macshooter]

Ok, so you have managed to make my blood pressure return to normal. I don't like it, but I can almost buy it. If the plan was to win in November and make sure Obama doesn't get a SCOTUS nominee then ok, but this all backfires if Obama wins again.

Yeah, that's the other thing, if Romney wins, he'll be replacing Ginsburg at least, and maybe others. That's a HUGE deal. You could say that if obama got re-elected and packed the SCOTUS, that along with the massive damage he would do to the country in the second term, would make striking down obama care a meaningless hollow victory.

I think more than anything, the future of the SCOTUS is at the top of the priority list for a conservative justice when they look across the isle at Kagan and Sotomayor...

On the other hand if the SCOTUS saves the American people's ass by striking down obama care, and the American people are stupid enough to turn around re-elect obama, then what's the point? The people deserve whatever happens. As Roberts put it, it's "not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices."

 

[Texasjack]

I think that if it gets to that point we have already collapsed. Bye bye to society as we know it. Guess who will be begging gun owners for protection. Thats right, the anti's.

I believe this to be 100% true.

Even if Romney wins, he's just Obama-lite. Chances are pretty good that Obama is still going to win. (Never bet against Chicago incumbents.)

The SCOTUS decision just further advances the reality that Washington no longer cares for the opinions of the people. They have established a big enough closed system that they can operate without our input.

And all those Left Coast and Rust Belt folks cheering this on shows how far we've fallen as a country. People no longer give a crap about the basic ideals that this country was founded on.

We are so very screwed.

 

[country_boy]

bottom line, we need to elect a new president and stop this mess, or else.

 

[Texasjack]

Re: Obamacare upheld but Stolen Valor Act shot down

Washington has established a self-sustaining bureaucracy that has reached a point where it no longer needs to care about the opinions of the people. Today's opinions just underscore the depth of the takeover.

 

[kris lee]

Nothing Romney can do will be permanent. For him to say he will repeal obama care is pretty stupid. Congress will have to repeal it. Bottomline this next election is do or die for this country and for freedom. If obama care doesn't get repealed our healthcare system will be destroyed. The best and the brightest will not want to become doctors anymore and have to deal the quagmire of stupidity that is the govt bureaucracy. That will drive quality people out of the healthcare system, and in it's place you will have brain dead bureaucrats.

As for expanded powers of taxation, who knows what damage has been done today. But, all new taxes have to be passed by congress, and politicians want to get re-elected. So that will put the breaks on it some. The real danger would be if congress could somehow delegate powers of taxation to a bureaucracy, like the EPA. Imagine if congress gave the EPA the power to tax ammunition based on the amount of lead or other harmful substances are in it...

+++1

 

[RetArmySgt]

Here are the Taxes in Obamacare, i hope you dont have good insurance (see last on list).

ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners - Forbes

 

[TXARGUY]

Re: Obamacare upheld but Stolen Valor Act shot down

From now on I'm a retired 5 star General with 3 Medals of Honor, 15 Purple Hearts and a war injury I got saving a bunch of civilians from a nuclear bomb that went off in my face. Please honor and pity me but most of all send me money because I'm a crazy insane hero. But you can call me Generalisimo Best War Hero Ever!

 

[XinTX]

Words fail me at this point. To say I am disgusted with DC is a gross understatement. Matt Kibbe had a good quote. "This strips away any pretention that anyone in DC is on our side."

 

[XinTX]

Re: Obamacare upheld but Stolen Valor Act shot down

Gee, does this mean I can go tell everyone I'm a medical doctor? Based on the ruling it would appear I can.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

236 years was a good run. Here is to hoping we can get this killed legislatively. Otherwise, I don't see us making another 200 years.

^^^^^^this

 

[orbitup]

+2