Switcheroo - Bait Congress & Switch In Supreme Court

The only thing Chief Justice John Roberts got right on Thursday was recognizing in his heart of hearts (as he did in his Senate confirmation hearings & even long before that) that the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to overrule the work of the two elected branches.  Instead of declining to rule on the ObamaCare case's merits or better yet declining to take the case @ all Roberts led the Supreme Court to the same result by judicially deferring to Congress & BO finding ObamaCare constitutional.  But worse -  the Supreme's decision favoring ObamaCare as constitutional established another new dangerous legal precedent as if we needed another new dangerous legal precedent to help bring down our Republic.  By not taking the case ObamaCare would still be the law of the land but without the new terrible legal precedent.  This is the correct position constitutionally.

 

BO's real neat trick in establishing ObamaCare as the constitutional law of the land is calling the failure to follow the mandate part of the legislation a penalty to Congress (i.e., bait) & once passed the Congress pulling the old switcheroo to the Supreme Court arguing this same penalty is really a tax - without the word "tax" ever appearing in the legislation.  Of course we all know Roberts fell for this bait & switch tactic & ObamaCare mustered a majority of Supremes.

 

Roberts went out of his way to a fault to defer to Congress & BO to find ObamaCare constitutional.  Considering the result of the entire ruling it is not @ all comforting to know that someone who does not have healthcare insurance who is sitting @ home on their couch not bothering a soul is not affecting interstate commerce & therefore is not subject to Congress regulating their inactivity under the Commerce Clause - but that Congress is constitutionally able to tax this same person's inactivity under an undefined & non-existent tax clause.  Although this limits for the first time what Congress can do under the Commerce Clause it explodes what they can regulate & tax under an undefined authorization to tax.

 

In essence the Supremes nonsensically found Congress cannot regulate a non-activity but they can tax it.  Accordingly Congress is unlimited in what it can tax so we now finally have a precedent of a limitation under the Commerce Clause but no limit under an unspecified tax clause.

 

The real shame is that the four dissenters voted to throw the ObamaCare law out in its entirety & all Roberts had to do was vote the same way as his four colleagues to save the day & put a big nail in the coffin of BO's second term.

 

"Win some lose most" was the way I recently described relying on nine unelected people (virtually not one of whom could be named by the great majority of the 310 million people in this country) to overrule the 537 elected people (who also are unidentifiable to most of their constituents) who are involved in passing legislation – the Founders never dreamed of such a situation as I repeatedly wrote in March during the oral arguments of the ObamaCare case.

 

When the majority (including Roberts) found that Congress had reached a point of constitutional limitation in their powers under the Commerce Clause by mandating people to buy healthcare insurance or pay a penalty that should have ended the case with the law thrown out as unconstitutional.  But then Roberts went fishing while the four statist justices waited for him to come up with a reason, any old reason was good enough for them.  Roberts found that the penalty really functioned as a tax & since Congress has the constitutional power to "lay & collect Taxes" that the law was therefore constitutional based on the taxing power of Congress who, along with BO, had previously gone out of their way to say the penalty was not a tax.  This is what the control of our apathetic lives has come down to. 

 

Never mind that the the majority of Supremes found ObamaCare constitutional despite the word "tax" never once appearing in the 2,500+ page legislation, or that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House" – Section 7 Paragraph 1 (the House not the Supreme Court),  or the particular tax Roberts cited is undefined & really non-existent in the Constitution.

 

Now in my judging whether or not something is constitutional I first ask myself what would the Founders approve of re the matter & then check the Constitution itself – which will never let you down.  In the ObamaCare matter the founders would never have found it constitutional & neither would KY Senator Rand Paul who correctly said "just because a couple of people on the Supreme court declare something 'constitutional' does not make it so.  The whole thing remains unconstitutional."

 

So the focus turns to the November election – where it should be instead of the Supreme Court - for resolution.  Many are saying this is such an important election because it is our only chance to rid ourselves of ObamaCare.  By BO's design this may not be correct in that far too many people do not know what really lies ahead for them re penalties (sorry taxes), requirements to buy insurance, & wait lines for such things as therapies for aching muscles & joints.  It may take some years after the November election before enough people can experience the damage ObamaCare has done to our way of life & our standard of living.  I believe it will be far easier in a few years to overrun all of the healthcare loving statists than it will be in November if only when I consider the Republican alternative.

 

On the same day ObamaCare was found constitutional Mitt said he would keep several of the law's provisions as part of his reworking it.  For one Mitt said a new law must "make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured & they will not lose their insurance."

 

With that statement made within hours of ObamaCare being found constitutional how reassured are you that there is any difference @ all between Mitt & BO on healthcare?