Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obamacare Legal

Wall Street Journal:
Though the challengers largely lost on Thursday, the court did affirm one of their basic arguments: that Congress can’t use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to require people to buy insurance.  Chief Justice Roberts says the government’s arguments on this point would fundamentally change “the relation between the citizen and the federal government.”


So it's a tax, not a forced consumption.
And if I don't pay the tax? I am compelled to go to jail, not to buy insurance.
The best legal minds in the country came up with this.


Remember when Obama said it wasn't a tax? Couldn't they take him at his word?
Of course they couldn't. 
We can't either.


And Roberts sold us out.

5 comments:

  1. I think it's important to understand that Roberts didn't just decide on his own to look at it as a tax. The government asked the court to consider this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I get that. I don't get what you meant at Joe's.
    But just because the government asked, didn't mean he need oblige.
    It's a penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've wondered how the Feds would react if 25% of every business in the U.S. refused to make a tax deposit. Would they realize they have no control? Would they realize they only govern by consent?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cactus, Roberts didn't have to fold though..
    I was kind of hoping there was some method to Roberts' apparent madness, but the more I study and read, the more I think he really honestly caved to the leftwing media and the Dems...afraid of the reputation of SCOTUS. What kind of man is THAT? WHat a HORRIBLE thing to do.
    Honestly, it's taken something out of me in a way; I guess I always felt that I might not agree with the decisions but they meant well and were only interpreting the constitution, not making things up or acquiescing to the Left. MY GOD.

    ReplyDelete