Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Chief Justice Roberts Destroys Obamacare!

Expand Messages
  • J. Keen Holland WWP Email Member
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      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?
      Here's the cold water ... 

      If, as the Court has ruled, the fee for not buying the right kind of insurance is a tax, then the Court had no ability tto rule on it at all. The anti-injunction act, on which the Court hae heard oral arguments -  and, having hearde the arguments, went on to cfonsider the challenges to Obamacare, implicitly finding that it was not a tax - forbids consideration of a challenge to a tax until someone is actually liable to a tax, and that doesn't happen until 2014 under Obamacare.  This is a very important constituti9onal point. Article III, Section 2, provides that Congres may limit the the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Chief Justice has led the Court in declaring a portion of the Constitution itself nullo and void as incompatibloe with its freedom to ignre the Constitution in reaching whatever result it chooses to reach. 

      Second, the Medicaid portion of the ruling is dangerous in that it implies that the Court has the power to prev3ent Congress from changing an existing law. That is, if Congress says Medicare is one program and you take all of it or none (which it did in Obamacare), kthe Court has said that Congress has not the power to change the shape of the Medicaid program in a way the Court doesn't like. This is dangerous in the extreme and has major implicatiuons for any move to pare back fedeal spending. 



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Lou Wynman and Randist Bo7b WWP Email Member <bobalou@...>
      To: World-wide_Politics <World-wide_Politics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 7:05 am
      Subject: |World-Wide_Politics| Fw: Chief Justice Roberts Destroys Obamacare!

       
      Yeah, we do remember Obama claiming that ObamaCare is not a tax. Now, it is ... officially.

      Mebbe all is not lost?

      ('tho we're not all that impressed with "States Rights". We prefer "Individual Rights" ... what's so good about being ruled by thugs in Sacto rather than thugs in DC??

      --bob & lou

      CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DESTROYS OBAMCARE

      To all my fellow Conservatives - You are going to enjoy this!

      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 threw his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.

      Brilliant.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."
      --Noam Chomsky, US educator and linguist

      --bob & lou

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.