Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
BERT ATKINSON JR. JUNE
28, 2012 3:59
PM
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.
This article,
written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice Robert’s
decision. Comment below and let us know what you think. Also check out I.M. Citizen’s blog - quite
interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment