It’s Official! We Live In A Tyranny!

I have to admit; I called this one completely wrong, and have been doing so for almost three years. When Obamacare was first proposed by the Democrats, herded by Nancy the Red Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid, I forecast – loud and often – that the mandate that people buy health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the government would never pass judicial scrutiny. How could it? What in the Constitution empowered the government to force people to buy products or enter into contracts to purchase certain services?

Well, in a terrible decision handed down today by the Supreme Court Jesters, we found out. According to the majority opinion, written by the Chief Justice (John Roberts), it turns out that the government has the power to pretty much regulate any behavior they want, as long as their enforcement mechanism is called a “tax”.

Chief Justice John Marshall

In the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, Daniel Webster made the argument, with which Chief Justice John Marshall agreed, that “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and overturned Maryland’s tax on banks. In today’s decision, however, Roberts wrote that the “power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits”, in direct contradiction to the man generally considered to be this country’s greatest Chief Justice.

How he comes to such a conclusion is entirely beyond me, and defies all reasoning and common sense.

The tortured rationalizations in Roberts’s controlling majority opinion rely on two absurd contentions:

1.  That a tax penalty isn’t enforced by imprisonment, and

2.  the tax penalty isn’t “onerous”.

Well, refuse to pay the tax and see whether or not you end up in prison. And what may not be “onerous” to Roberts – with his six-figure income and government benefits – may well be “onerous” to a couple of young married kids barely squeaking by while juggling a mortgage and car payments while underemployed – if employed at all – in this terrible economy.

According to Roberts, the government is perfectly within its rights to use tax law to “encourage” certain behaviors, and discourage others. So… what can we anticipate moving forward?

How about “weight penalties”? If your body mass index (BMI) exceeds certain levels, or if your weight falls outside certain arbitrary parameters for your height as set by the government, can you expect a “tax surcharge”? Why not?

How about a “tax surcharge” for smokers? After all, the government, in the interest of cost control for the “public obligation” of controlling healthcare costs, now has a vested interest in your behavior.

How about a “tax surcharge” if you had a traffic ticket that year? Hey… that’s “risky behavior”, and you could incur “healthcare costs” if you get in an accident, right?

What about if you want to buy a foreign car? The government has determined that the American car industry is “too big to fail”, and therefore if you “choose” to buy a foreign car, you’re contributing to the risk that American auto makers will fail. So I guess you should pay a “tax penalty” for not buying American.

Don’t laugh. Way back when the hysteria about second-hand smoke was taking place I predicted that if the penalties being considered against tobacco companies ever passed into law we’d ultimately see similar actions taken against other unpopular behavior, like fast food consumption. People laughed.

Well… look around you. Laws against trans-fats in foods (bye-bye, flavor), Bloomberg’s limits on soft drink sizes in New York, pate banned in Commiefornia, San Francisco’s ban on Happy Meal toys at McDonald’s, on and on and on.

The reality is that the endorsement of the mandate by the Supremes opens the door for government to regulate virtually every aspect of human behavior through the abuse of the power to tax.

Justice Marshall was completely right; in this case, the power to tax has completely destroyed the right of free choice.

© Brian Baker 2012

84 comments on “It’s Official! We Live In A Tyranny!

  1. slowcowboy says:

    Hello Brian– Virginia Daddy here. I read the mandate portion of the decision. Its quite frightening. I do believe that while he’s shut the door on Commerce Clause somewhat, he’s opened up another for government meddling. He’s done nothing to slow goverment down.

    I also believe the decision is entirely political and a punt of the issue. He believes he was charged with finding a way to keep a statute alive, and had to wiggle to get there. First, its not a tax (at least for the anti injunction act), and then it is (at least sufficiently to pass muster). But just the same, he in no uncertain terms, said the Commerce Clause cannot be used to regulate inactivity. And further, he said they are not there to judge the wisdom of the act. He’s essentially set teh stage for another full on battle in Congress.

    Worse, he’s done exactly as you say– allowed Congress to tax things to get results it wants. He does say there are limits to that, but does nothing to define what those limits are. You bet your ass these limits will be pushed by liberals– even if the ACA is repealed.

    • BrianR says:

      Hey, VaDad. Great to see you here, my old friend.

      You summarized the ruling perfectly, and its flaws. That’s exactly what he did; he tried to straddle the fence, and managed to contradict himself in the process.

      It’s not a tax, until it is. Commerce Clause can’t be used to regulate inactivity, until it can. On top of which, as you said, “… there are limits to that, but does nothing to define what those limits are.” Exactly. What’s not “onerous” to him may be a complete budget-buster to someone else. Talk about avoidance!

      This has to be one of the absolute worst rulings ever; right up there with Kelo v. New London.

      I’d have expected this kind of analysis from you, Mr. Lawyer. How’s that going for you?

      • slowcowboy says:

        Yeah, this ruling leaves me quite infuriated. I would be more satisfied with it had come out and said the Commerce Clause applies, without the contradictions. A strong and straight forward opinion would have given direction and something to stand on. This does nothing like that.

        All we can do is make sure we get our folks in and get their folks out come November.

        Just fine, all things told. Enjoying it, but it is busy. Thanks for asking.

        Hope all is well in your world.

      • BrianR says:

        “Infuriated”. Yeah, I guess that sums it up pretty well.

        All’s well here, too. Thanks for asking. The Munchkin continues to amaze and entertain and be her adorable, lovable self.

    • Mrs. AL says:

      Mind if I jump in here????? Hey, VaDad – good to read you here on Brian’s fine blog. Question – doen’t the Justices have to listen to and consider the argument presented on each side? And didn’t the Resident’s lawyer claim this was a tax? Would that help explain Robert’s decision? Congress does have the power to tax.

      • slowcowboy says:

        Of course they have to listen to both sides, and yes, I do believe the government did present the tax argument as a second thought, if the Commerce Clause failed.

        However, Roberts first had to deny it was a tax to get to a place where he could affirm it is a tax. I don’t buy it.

      • BrianR says:

        Exactly. He did a Kerry, being against the tax before he was for it.

        What a slimeball.

  2. Nee says:

    The upside is that Romney said it. He will repeal it. And it energizes those who have been sitting on the bench to vote. (No pun intended.) The thing is, the poor cannot afford health care, so how can they afford a penalty? I can’t pay now for fuc* sake. My N word is NOVEMBER.

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Nee, exACTly.

      “… the poor cannot afford health care, so how can they afford a penalty?”

      How, indeed? Even at that, it’s not even an issue of “affording” it. The issue is being able to DECIDE FOR OURSELVES whether or not we even want to participate, whatever the reason.

      • Nee says:

        Oh don’t I know it!! I spent a few minutes trying to educate not persuade and it’s fruitless, naturally. Not onlyv is there no regard for the Constitution, I was painted as “rich” and”crazy” and a liar yet again because my insurance did not go up because of O’ Care–no, see it doesn’t go up until 2014!!! Haha. They think the insurers are paying and that the 250k rich people will pay the fines!!! I need Jimmy’s bar!!! ;)

      • BrianR says:

        I need Jimmy’s barf bag!

      • rightdetour says:

        Hey BrianR. I used to read you over at TH. This is my first time at your wordpress blog. Here is my understanding . . . and it is a bit of good news.

        The poor obviously cannot afford the penalty. That is why the PPACA called for the massive expansion of Medicare beyond the elderly so that the poor would be insured. The PPACA also gave the Dept. of HHS power to withhold ALL Medicare money from any state that refused to expand coverage. The one bit of good news about the decision that for some reason has been ignored by the “talking heads” on tv and radio is that SCOTUS threw out that provision, calling it a “gun to the head.” Consequently, states still possess the right to refuse to expand Medicare to cover everyone. That means Obamacare can be defeated one state at a time.

      • BrianR says:

        Hi, detour. I’m flattered that you used to read my TH blog, and you took the time to comment here. I appreciate that.

        Everything you wrote is absolutely correct, but the fly in the ointment is that this decision grants the federal government massive new powers to coerce behavior based on the ability to impose punitive “taxes”. There’s just no way around that, nor is that new power restricted to “healthcare”, as I noted in my essay. The feds can now “tax” ANY behavior, including your inactivity. This is the first time people have been “taxed” for NOT doing something.

        That’s not only huge, it’s ginormous. It’s an unrestricted power to dictate.

        So, it really doesn’t matter what the decision did to state-level Medicare structures, nor the Commerce Clause, because the feds no longer need those things when the power to “tax” is limitless. They took away the “gun to the head” aimed at the states and gave it to the IRS to aim at every single person in the country. And that aspect CAN’T be defeated at the state level because it’s exercised at the federal level.

      • rightdetour says:

        BrianR:

        I would not totally disregard the SC smackdown of the Dept. of HHS. It depends upon what Republicans do in Congress (and maybe the upcoming election.) As long as Republicans do not rewrite the law in some other fashion or continue to fund the PPACA like they did in the last session, the PPACA is in limbo.

        Your warnings on taxation are well taken. On the one hand, the tax simply carries on previous federal policies. The power to tax served as the constitutional basis for Social Security and other social programs. On the other hand, it is a radical ( and as your write–ginormous-) notion to tax a citizen to force the purchase of a product or service. This was a concession to insurance companies so that they could afford to comply with the federal demand that they no longer exclude preexisting conditions. By forcing presumably healthy people into the pool of insured, the companies in theory can insure others in the pool who have preexisting conditions.

        This is an ominous development. No telling where this will lead in the future. I wonder if Progessives are already crafting legislation based upon this expansion to taxing power to drop on the unsuspecting public if they ever gain control of the House, Senate, and White House.

      • BrianR says:

        Yep. I’m posting another essay in a few minutes focused on this new and vastly expanded power. Stay tuned!

    • slowcowboy says:

      Agreed. This is essentially requiring everyone to pay for health insurance. Its maddening.

  3. Mrs. AL says:

    What, BrianR, will be your response to the declaration “It’s Official! We Live In A Tyranny!” ?

    The problem here is that we were sold cow pies disguised as vege-burgers. The argument before the court placed the individual mandate in the context of a tax, not the commerce clause. Therefore and voila – Congress can tax. Least ways that is how I understood what happened. Every U.S. citizen was told a bold-faced lie by the Resident, his spokespeople and their Rep and/or Senator(s) who voted for this abomination. That’s a fact.

    Now to your point … taxation without representation is the bottom line, isn’t it?

    The politics is going to be fascinating to say the least. I emailed my Senator very shortly after hearing the ruling,

    • BrianR says:

      I’m not sure what you’re asking, MrsAL. I wrote the headline, so I don’t know what you mean by my “response to” it.

      Actually, if you read the decision, the Commerce Clause aspect was part of the case, and Roberts et al simply blew it off.

      This actually isn’t “taxation without representation”, not in any way. It wasn’t a tax imposed by imperial fiat. It properly went through the entire legislative process. The Congress IS the “representation”, by definition. But that doesn’t automatically make it constitutional.

      Yep, the “politics” on this is going to be a real dog and pony show, with VERY high entertainment value. Lots of meat for us bloggers to chew on!

      • Mrs. AL says:

        Clarification … wanting to know how you will respond to the fact that it’s Official that we live in tyranny. What will you do? What will you not do?

        As for my “taxation w/o representation,” I still hold that view. This was declared a tax during argument before the Court when hearing the case and that is how the majority reached their decision. Problem is, it was NOT declared a “tax” by those who wrote, voted for and signed this slop into law. Therefore, the citizens were hood-winked into believing it was NOT a tax. Declaring it is a tax at the point of argument before the court means we were not properly represented on this matter, doesn’t it? HEY, I never claimed to be a brain trust, but I sure do understand the implications of language. If everyone thinks I am the dull knife in the drawer, won’t be the first time.

      • BrianR says:

        LOL!

        Okay, now I understand. Well, as to your first question, I’m not one of those people who goes running around yelling about grabbing my guns and heading for the hills. We’ve got a very serious problem here, and I’m not even sure there IS a solution, to be frank. I’ve written about this often, especially at my other blog on TH back in the day.

        This is simply one more step down the road away from liberty, and one more sign that the Fat Lady may have already sung as far as this country goes. We have no God-given guarantee of perpetuity; as a matter of fact, the idea that this country will last perpetually is the height of hubris. I’d sure hoped it would last longer than what I’m seeing, though. I hate to think of what my granddaughter’s going to have to put up with.

        All we can do is hope there are still politically viable solutions that can be achieved, but I’m certainly not sanguine about that.

        As to the “representation” issue: I see what you’re driving at. Interesting. Basically, it illustrates another aspect of the tortured rationalizations relied on to justify this abortion of a decision. You’re right that at the time the case was argued, the Bat Ears people were all over the map as to the tax/penalty issue. Frankly, that WAS another reason I thought this case would have gone the other way. Roberts et al simply bought into the Obamacarists’ line of BS, and tried to equivocate. Badly, IMO.

      • Ad Rem says:

        Er, doesn’t the US Constitution, inter alia require tax bills originate in the House & ObLAMEr-care did not?

      • BrianR says:

        Terrific point! According to Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;…”.

        Any “tax” bill must thus begin there. I don’t personally remember the chronology, but according to the Wikipedia entry I found ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare ) it looks like Obamacare actually did technically originate in the House.

  4. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Looks like we need another Constitutional Convention.
    One of the things discussed is a need for courts to specify how the Constitution supports their decision.
    Term limits
    For federal judges as well as OTHER politicians.

  5. Gunny G says:

    Yep, we got hosed. I have a new essay upon secession/nullification. We can no longer trust the government and I firmly believe that there will never be any reconcilation between the Left and Us.

    Roberts knuckled under to pressure from Obama through Kagan/Sotomayor, I’d bet on it.

    • BrianR says:

      Guns, I’ll be right over to take a read.

      Interesting “bet”. I’d have to wonder why he’d knuckle under, as he’s senior. But who the heck knows?

      I firmly agree on one thing: “reconciliation” between the Left and us is completely impossible. The visions are too divergent; polar opposites. I haven’t heard of such rhetoric from their side since October 1917, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia.

  6. Gray Ghost (Mississippi) says:

    Brian,

    I agree with Gunny. We never could trust the Left. And now it appears that we can no longer trust most of the federal government.

    Secession might be our only option. I firmly believe that it is more than likely that Roberts was threatened or “bought” by this administration. That would mean that even if Obama lost the November 2012 election, he would only have to say that the election was null and void due to voting irregularities. This decision means that SCOTUS would back him.

    Lock and load my friend, and stay vigilant.

    • BrianR says:

      Gray… whew! We’re really getting deep into conspiracy territory here…

      Well, as I commented at Gunny’s:

      This is an argument that pops up frequently, but as far as I can see, secession is unconstitutional. The Constitution defines the mechanism for admitting states to the union, but doesn’t mention ANY mechanism for letting them back out. It DOES mention “rebellion”, however, and as we saw in the Civil War, “secession” is simply a form of “rebellion”. It’s like the Mafia: once in, never out.

      The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution precisely because those Articles were too lax about states being able to withdraw. It allowed any state to basically blackmail the national government with the threat of secession, and was one of the main reasons it was discarded.

      We’re stuck with the current Constitution — at least, allegedly, though it sure seems to be ignored most of the time — so if you actually believe in it, you have to believe in ALL of it, not just the parts you like. That’s what Leftists do…

      ______________________________

      BTW, Roberts can no more act unilaterally than you or I can. SCOTUS votes on granting cert to a case, and it takes at least 3 (I think; maybe more) Justices to even accept a case. They have no jurisdiction on anything until a case has been granted cert and gone through the process.

      • slowcowboy says:

        You know, something’s always bothered me about the idea that seceeding is unconstitutional. Of course it is, but why would a state wishing to leave care about what the Constitution says? Its leaving for a reason. And of course it is going raise the ire of the rest of the states. But to me, its always an option to try, and I do think the nation will break apart at some undefined point in the future.

      • BrianR says:

        Yeah, I understand your point. Of course, that’s what the whole Civil War was about.

        I also agree that this nation is doomed, but I think that’s inevitable for ANY nation, given enough time. I’m sure you know that we’re already the oldest existing democracy in the world. But I do think the Tytler (mis)quote applies:

        A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
        From bondage to spiritual faith;
        From spiritual faith to great courage;
        From courage to liberty;
        From liberty to abundance;
        From abundance to selfishness;
        From selfishness to complacency;
        From complacency to apathy;
        From apathy to dependence;
        From dependence back into bondage.

        I think we’re pretty far along that cycle.

  7. clyde says:

    Good summation,and comments. This looks a LOT like making shit up out of whole cloth. It also proves another,and that is,albeit something WE’VE known all along,that Obama truly is the “Liar-in Chief”. The RNC NEEDS to loop asshat saying it’s not a tax to Stephanopolis all the time. I remember saying at your TH blog that I didn’t trust SCOTUS to fix this after dickweed signed it. I also have a REAL problem with Romney saying he’s going to repeal it on Day One should he win the election. Personally,I DO NOT believe for a NY second he,nor any other R has the cojones to go up against the SCOTUS. And,even if he does,what makes him think he’ll have the votes TO repeal it?

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Clyde, you’re right. Romney can’t just unilaterally repeal it. I think (and hope!) he was simply speaking metaphorically, and that he’s not THAT dumb.

      But you’re also right that he has a GREAT campaign issue in the fact that it boiled down to the “it’s not a tax” being a big, fat lie.

  8. Hardnox says:

    We have all been on our soap boxes and will continue so until November 6th, then of course we have the ballot box, if that fails we have the cartridge box.

    That is the way the country was formed, and the way the Constitution was based on the inherit premise of FREEDOM as a natural right. Jefferson spoke of the “Tree of Liberty” and why that tree needs to be refreshed occasionally.

    Today we have a tyrannical executive branch, a corrupt legislative branch, and a ideological judicial branch. All roads lead to November 6th 2012.

    • BrianR says:

      Well said.

      I don’t think we’re near the cartridge box yet.

      Yet.

      • Hardnox says:

        No, not yet thank God but we are getting closer. That would be terrible. The sad truth is where are our elected representatives? They have been out to lunch for decades. We are treated as cash-cow peasants and congress exempts themselves from laws that they foist on us. That shit won’t work too much longer. Our only recourse has been the ballot box in endless election cycles whereas the newly elected ones arrive with the promise of invoking change but ultimately morph into established traditions and we are left at the beginning again.

        Americans have lost near half of their wealth in 4 years whereas the typical congressman becomes a multi-millionaire within two years. I see that as a problem. Not jealousy. Simply that the system is corrupt whereas representative government has been stolen by special interest thus leaving citizens powerless. Eventually that kettle will boil over.

      • BrianR says:

        Yes, I have little doubt of that. It’s how the kettle boils over that’s important.

        More importantly, this ruling opens the door for MAJOR government abuse through diktat moving forward. I didn’t exaggerate when I said liberty was killed with this ruling; I chose my words very carefully. We are now completely at the mercy of government hacks exercising dictatorial powers by using the power to tax as a cudgel.

      • Hardnox says:

        Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that liberty was killed.

        True enough but the meanest of bastards can beat a passive animal relentlessly and that animal will most assuredly fight back eventually even if it means death. Americans have never taken to the yoke and I doubt they ever will. The question of course is how much will they take before “no” becomes a standard response? I suspect that it won’t take much more. Once obamacare comes into full force and people realize its tentacles the “shot heard around the world” will be heard once again. Just sayin’.

      • BrianR says:

        In most cases I’d agree with you, but here’s the problem, the same one I’ve mentioned so many times before (and I point again to my “Bread and Circuses” essay back at my TH blog):

        We now have almost 50% of the people paying no income tax at all. Almost HALF the country has absolutely no stake in fiscal sanity, and have their hands out looking for their government payouts.

        That’s a prescription for national suicide.

        Do you think any of those people are at all interested in changing a system that provides their livelihood? Hell, they’re the PROBLEM! Think of it this way: the mandate is enforced by a tax surcharge. Well, how do you add a surcharge to someone who’s not paying any taxes to begin with?

        This ruling is absolutely crazy, man.

  9. CW says:

    Give a liberal an inch and he’ll take everything you own.

    I guess it’s time to repeal the 16th amendment.

  10. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Brian R, Hardnox:
    That almost 50% non tax paying population Brian spoke of.
    He’s right. They do not want to change the system when the system forces YOU to donate ala taxes money to support THEM.
    Hardnox, you’re ready to fight to not have to support them?
    They are going to be just as ready to fight to keep your money coming in.
    THEY will be Obama’s “Civilian Security Force”……..

    • BrianR says:

      Exactly.

      We’re living “Atlas Shrugged”.

    • BrianR says:

      Believe me, nothing’s going to be any different on January 21st.

      Everything takes time; that’s a fact of life. The only time I ever saw an immediate change was when the Iranians released the American hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated.

      Here’s how it plays out. If the GOP takes a trifecta in November by keeping the House, taking the Senate and Romney winning, they’ll repeal it, which will take time. If the Dems keep the Senate, repeal is dead.

      Now, Romney could use an executive order to stop implementation of Obamacare, just like Bat Ears with his mini-amnesty. Would he do that? I HIGHLY doubt it.

      And if the Dems keep the Senate, that’s the ONLY way to stop Obamacare.

  11. thedrpete says:

    What was the U.S. Government is now the U.? Government, that because states no longer have even a scintilla of sovereignty. Now the 10th amendment has been repealed unconstitutionally by the Supreme Court. There are as of last week no-nil-nada-zero-zip-zilch copnstraints on the executive “branch” of the U.? Government and you and I are slaves.

    See y’all in the abyss beyond the cliff.

    • BrianR says:

      Not only is the Executive branch unconstrained, but so is Congress. This decision is the most far-reaching expansion of government power that I can think of. That’s why I wrote that we’re now officially living in a tyranny. I wasn’t kidding.

      BTW, it’s still the “U.S.” government… “United Slaves”.

  12. garnet92 says:

    A Judas in black robes has shafted us. Bad enough that he voted with the libs to uphold the crap sandwich that is ObamaCare, he literally rewrote part of the law in order to save it.

    I thought that he was a conservative justice – apparently he is not. Our problem is that we’re fighting against not only the openly liberal assholes, but also against closet liberals who pass themselves off as conservatives (or at least, Republicans) to get elected. There are few in Congress that we can trust to be solidly conservative and giving them assistance in the way of newly elected reinforcements is difficult since we continue to be lied to by the candidates.

    I am seriously worried about near-term elections. Those who are our enemies continue to grow their numbers and without education, even well-meaning voters may vote against their interest, just lemmings following the MSM off the cliff.

    Our only hope is educating the currently “inert” voter. Those folks who, given the truth, would vote against Obama and his ilk. Unless we can find a way to reach the masses, we are doomed.

    • BrianR says:

      Well said. Perfect. I couldn’t agree more.

      That’s why the appearance of the Tea Party three years ago was so welcome. Now we have to see if they can fulfill the mission, IMO.

      The only upside I can see in this abominable decision is that it may hnyper-motivate a lot of conservative and right-leaning people to actually show up at the polls in droves come November. The ONLY hope of getting rid of this abomination is for the GOP to win the hat trick.

      Like you, I HATE having to depend on the almost-always-unreliable GOP.

  13. jevica says:

    Brian;

    Great post, right on the mark.

    Haven’t heard what the “. . . it’s not a tax” Dems are gonna do now?

    As you say they can pass anything and call it a tax [or SCOTUS can do it for them] and we are shafted.

    Now it’s really necessary that BHO has to go, by that I mean he cannot be reelected.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Jev.

      Well, with their usual hypocrisy, all the lefties are running around the talk shows today saying that the mandate isn’t a tax. But I don’t hear a single one of them saying SCOTUS got it wrong, and we should repeal the law. Disgusting. This really is a case of calling a s**t sandwich “pate”.

      They also can’t see how this awful ruling can be used against THEM, too. Their smugness is actually hubris.

      My proposal for a new law, in the interest of making the country safer from crime (General Welfare Clause) and to assure that everyone can fully utilize their Second Amendment right: a tax-enforced mandate that everyone own a gun. If you refuse to own a gun, you’ll get a “tax surcharge” on your federal return.

      I wonder if the socialists would be so happy about THAT mandate.

  14. jevica says:

    Brian;

    Speaking of the General Welfare Clause, read this.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welfare-clause-andrew-c-mccarthy

    “Limiting the General Welfare Clause”

    • BrianR says:

      Interesting, Jev, as an exercise in governmental rationalization, but not really applicable to this case, other than in a broad philosophical context, IMO.

      • jevica says:

        Just thought it was interesting.

      • BrianR says:

        Oh, yeah, I agree. It is.

        But what’s REALLY interesting is how far so many “conservatives” are going in trying to find a silver lining to this massive thunderhead.

  15. jevica says:

    ““conservatives” are going in trying to find a silver lining” This SCOTUS decision is an abomination.

    They go on about the “commerce clause” etc., etc., etc.. Or what will happen when the PSP takes over all branches, etc., though I don’t think it will be as great as some do, unless there are some real CONSERVATIVES, not like RINO’s, Christie, and all that kind.

    BTW I can’t see the big hoopla about him?

    They also threw out the “Stolen Valor” law.

    Let’s hope Romney gets in and [if he has a chance] appoints some Alito, Thomas, Sclia.

    • BrianR says:

      I don’t get the hooplah about Christie, either. He’s good on beating the unions, but otherwise a pretty liberal guy. I wouldn’t vote for him.

      Good point on the Stolen Valor law. How can THAT be unconstitutional while OPbamacare IS constitutional? Makes no sense.

      As you say, we need Romney to get in and appoint TRUE constitutionalist judges. Bush was 1 for 2: Alito.

  16. jevica says:

    From your friends at PETA.

    “Doom: Tick bite can turn you into a vegan.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/01/doom-tick-bite-can-make-you-allergic-to-meat/

    “. . . University of Virginia researchers say saliva that sneaks into the tiny wound may trigger an allergic reaction to meat — agonizing enough to convert lifelong carnivores into wary vegetarians.”

    “This is obviously a biological weapon cooked up at the Centers for Disease Control labs – following a generous donation from Michael Bloomberg – designed to get everyone to eat broccoli. We tried to warn you.”

    I can believe that someone made this.

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, I saw that story, and had to laugh. God has a great sense of irony.

      But who’d make a crackpot claim like that? They HAD to be joking…

  17. jevica says:

    Brian;

    About this Commerce Clause thing by Roberts, heard this on the radio.

    “. . . see what Roberts said about the Commerce Clause? Congress can’t use the Commerce Clause.” He didn’t say that. We had a former lawyer call here on Friday, and others have written extensively on this, too, Roberts was writing for himself when he wrote the bit about the Commerce Clause. He was not writing for the court. It’s not part of the court’s opinion. It’s what’s called dicta. Didn’t even need to be in the ruling, his references to the Commerce Clause.

    I don’t know. All these people, and there’s some smart people that are really fooling themselves on this, into thinking the Commerce Clause has just been debt a mortal blow. It hasn’t.”

    And this from Mike Carvin, who “focuses on constitutional, appellate, civil rights, and civil litigation against the federal government.” On O’Reilly Factor on Friday night. Laura Ingraham was the guest host. “Carvin has argued this health care case before the Supreme Court and at a couple of other levels.”

    “. . . the chief justice said that what Congress did and what it said it was doing was unconstitutional. So I’m gonna pretend they did something different and therefore make it constitutional, which not only rewrites the statute, but eliminates all the safeguards that he had found under the Commerce Clause. So it produces a bad constitutional result, only by someone who’s deliberately ignoring the law as it was actually written.”

    • BrianR says:

      Yup. There it is.

    • slowcowboy says:

      I think the Commerce Clause has been taken out of consideration. It is not compeltely irrelevant now, but if Congress can tax most anything it wants, including Commerce, why should its direct regulation of Congress matter?

      The decision on the CC does matter. It is directly stating that Congress cannot regulate inactivity. He was answering a question before the Court as to whether the law is good under that idea. It was shot down, so I think it is more than dicta. Nonetheless, if Congress can achieve the same results via tax, does it matter?

      • BrianR says:

        Exactly; I agree. With unlimited power to use taxation as coersion, the Commerce Clause becomes completely irrelevant and redundant. No one needs it anymore.

        According to the Chief Judas, the power of the tax knows no bounds.

  18. jevica says:

    Brian;

    “Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices?”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-a-thiessen-why-are-republicans-so-awful-at-picking-supreme-court-justices/2012/07/02/gJQAHFJAIW_story.html

    This is something I have wondered for some time. When he was appointed the “Chief” was supposed to be a “real” Conservative, but after this decision I wonder?

    This should give you a laugh, “Roberts’s defenders point to his many other conservative decisions and argue that he is not another David Souter or even another Anthony Kennedy. That may be true. But is that really the standard we want for a Supreme Court justice — they are not another Souter or Kennedy? Shouldn’t conservatives expect Republican presidents to do better and appoint another Scalia, Thomas or Alito? That shouldn’t be too much to ask.”

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, no kidding.

      I would think a Justice’s duty to the Constitution should trump and and all other considerations.

      I guess I would be wrong…

  19. BrianR says:

    No, I doubt we’re cousins. But thanks for the kind words.

  20. I am extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one today..

  21. I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don’t know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already ;) Cheers!

  22. Super-Duper blog! I am loving it!! Will come back again. I am taking your feeds also

  23. Leo Dear says:

    Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  24. You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!

  25. Dick Palagi says:

    I would like to get across my affection for your generosity in support of individuals that really need assistance with the theme. Your special dedication to getting the solution up and down appeared to be rather beneficial and have continually made others much like me to realize their pursuits. This interesting tips and hints entails much to me and somewhat more to my office workers. Thanks a lot; from everyone of us.

  26. Teddy Blush says:

    Of course, what a splendid blog and illuminating posts, I surely will bookmark your website.Best Regards!

  27. Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write on my blog something like that. Can I implement a part of your post to my blog?

  28. Wow! Thank you! I constantly wanted to write on my blog something like that. Can I take a part of your post to my blog?

  29. My partner and I stumbled over here coming from a different web address and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to finding out about your web page for a second time.

  30. Howdy! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with us so I came to check it out. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Exceptional blog and superb design and style.

  31. Hi there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing several weeks of hard work due to no backup. Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s