41 votes

Liberty Re-defined by John Roberts

According to Roberts' ruling, "liberty" is maintained as long as there is a choice between complying or paying a tax. Roberts claims as long as that choice exists, the government is not compelling persons to buy a product or service. What he overlooks is that by defining the choices, the liberty to seek other choices is eviscerated, and the Constitution no longer seeks to Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

Liberty per Roberts: Do as I say, or pay a tax. You are free to choose.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Roberts, and all signers of the majority opinion, are due impeachment for failure to safeguard constitutional intent as stated in the Preamble.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would've preferred a

I would've preferred a universal health system like civilized countries have but that's a long way off while we still have crazies seeing commies under every stone.

You DON'T have to

Pay the tax. Find page 131 in ObamaCare and read for yourself. So you do have a choice to buy it or not and if you don't, they can't penalize you with a tax. Its a voluntary tax.

the same backwards half

the same backwards half brained rationale the monopoly courts have used for decades to validate the income tax, but taking it a HUGE step further. i loathe this guy. thanks bush!

it's funny how some people here really believe that going back to the old style governor appointments of the supreme court would actually solve this problem. yeah, the corporate bought governors are really going to solve this problem. the supreme court experiment has totally failed for ordinary people, and it wouldn't change anything to 'go back to the old ways of doing things.'

MUST BE OVERTURNED

Liberty per Roberts: Do as I say, or pay a tax. You are free to choose. This has to be overturned!

fireant's picture

Think "Nullify"and "Impeach".

Read Zachnap Ω™ posts below. his is the purest take.
And I say Impeach because we have to send a message to the political class that we don't like them playing footsy with the Constitution.

Undo what Wilson did

The 'Taxing Clause', Five Lawless Judges, and Obamacare

Read this. Obamacare was VOID as soon as it was passed. There is ZERO authority for anything in it. SCOTUS does not have authority, contrary to popular belief, to make final judgments on constitutionality. Nor can it make an unconstitutional law the supreme law of the land.

http://www.americanclarion.com/9603/2012/07/02/taxing-clause...

In Communist China, you are free to have more than one child...

In Communist China, you are free to have more than one child...

but you have to pay a tax.

Except for all the forced

abortions.

Ahhhh... sweet,sweet freedom.

Ahhhh... sweet,sweet freedom. Isn't it grand? Things are changing in China. They are changing very quickly economically and very slowly politically. The next ten years will be interesting to observe... and maybe heartbreaking.

It should be added that the penalties, I mean 'the taxes', go up exponentially should you utilize your freedom to have more than 2. The interesting thing is this, many in China are indeed choosing to do just that. This is a matter of economics on a collision course with government coercion. Those who are doing this are the very wealthy, a growing middle class is starting to test these waters too. It has become an odd sort of status symbol. Granted, the numbers who do this intentionally are very few, but it is happening. And in recent years these policies have been justified, in large measure, as being designed to help the poor.

So even in China we find this strange dance of government coercion being justified as safeguarding the poor. The very rich end up not minding it a bit, while it is the poor that truly suffer under it. Thus, the rich can afford their 'freedom', the poor cannot.

Thank you Justice Roberts for your lovely ruling.

Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With

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.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-rober...

fireant's picture

I don't want a 9Robe to play payback games....

and that may be why this ruling is so contorted.
I want them to view rulings under the light of Constitutional Intent. That's their job.
As far as the Commerce Clause, yes, he made an emphatic ruling regarding it, then turned around and invented another avenue to achieve the exact same purpose. He created an extra-constitutional tax which is outside the bounds of Direct Taxation. He has no authority to alter the Constitution! And now we have a system where CONgress can lay direct taxes on the people for failing to behave as dictated.
In my view, he failed his office miserably on this one issue, mattering not the worth of any other portion of the ruling.

Undo what Wilson did

Obamacare is unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional through and through and the Justices should have ruled that way. Not a single one has an excuse. Whoever rule it Constitutional is guilty of Treason. There is absolutely no doubt it is unconstitutional. There is no reason to do some end-around.

I understand this line of

I understand this line of reasoning and even see the possible implications as likely.. but that does not change the fact that the ruling is not based on the laws constitutionality, but on finding some means to maintain the courts influence while protecting it from political winds. It may well be that Roberts found a way to ultimately torpedo Obamacare, while getting to bed on time. It maybe wise both politically and personally, but that was not his job. His job was to rule on its constitutionality, period. And what he ended up doing was saying that the law was constitutional, just not for the reasons being used by those who passed it.

Roberts may have ultimately killed Obamacare (time will tell), but he set a bad precedence, which is really the point the original poster is making. If Congress has the power to tax us for what we choose not to do, then there is no limit on their power to tax. And unlimited taxation power is freedom destroying.

fireant's picture

Well stated.

thanks

Undo what Wilson did

Brilliant? Not. The bottom

Brilliant? Not.

The bottom line is that Roberts voted in favor of the constitutionality of the legislation. And, he showed us that he sees his job as being there to find ways to make lawfully passed legislation constitutional. This attitude portends many more horrible votes from John Roberts, as he will be biased in favor of every horrible, unconstitutional act passed by congress.

In the modern era, the constitution, and court precedent, means little. SCOTUS judges looking for ways to find in favor of unconstitutional acts will find them.

No, John Roberts didn't just pull a fast one on the libs, he just showed his true colors.

He's just another big government progressive with a robe.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

It's right up there with the

It's right up there with the mentality that said if a woman can swim she is a witch and guilty, death penalty. If she sinks and drowns, she is innocent.

Heads, big pharma wins. Tails, the citizens lose.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home
http://www.texasuncensored.blogspot.com

in my opinion his ruling is unconstitutional

because it violates 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-which is exactly what SCOTUS did when construed the penalty for not concluding and purchasing the insurance - as "tax", while at the same time recognized the right of the people not to buy the insurance.
Roberts even used the Hooper v. California quote:
"every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality" to support the argumentation, but it is flawed, because they don't save the statute, they rewrite it to make completely other sense then what Congress actually passed.
I wrote about it more here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/242821/bill-of-rights-a-piece-of-to...

Court ruling was incorrect

What type of tax is this?It's not an excise tax and it's not a direct tax so what is this tax?The court never said.

A direct tax payable to the foriegn bankers who own the

insurance companies. Taxation w/o representation. They got what they wanted. For now.

This is the new

"Robert's" Rules of Order!

SCOTUS ruling means

SCOTUS ruling means absolutely nothing. Obamacare was VOID as soon as it was signed. Their decision doesn't change that. Learn the truth... SCOTUS rulings are not binding if they are contradictory to the Constitution.

Start here (read and understand):

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/article-vi-claus...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32461

Look for another article by Publius Huldah on Obamacare titled "The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare." It will be posted on "American Clarion".

Sounds like

Sounds like a choice between a noose and a guillotine.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Broken, Not Re-Defined

All three branches of our government have become politicized by a two-party system run by the same small group of powerful men - and you continue to delude yourselves if you believe "our great political system", run by special interests and the industrial military complex, will change anything - and that includes Tampa.

To quote that great American hayseed Lonesome Rhoades, "...Just a bunch of trained seals"...and he was talking about you and I, the "Dupes of Hazard".

Be seeing you.

Correct.

Your observation is the fate of republican governance. People act rationally, and that means grabbing at the monopoly of force to get their slice of the pie, and then soon enough we spend more time fighting over the pie than adding to it. It's the feeding trough that Bastiat lamented. Unfortunately it's inevitable, as even the Constitution was powerless to prevent it. We shouldn't place our faith in the idea of governance. Government is the antithesis of freedom. We can do just fine without it.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

Mugger to Jack Benny: "Your money or your life!"

Jack Benny, after long pause, "I'm thinking...".

No so funny coming from the Supreme Court.

Already Re-Defined?

Think of cigarette taxes. In most cases they also amount to $2000 a year (or more).

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

But there is no tax for not visiting an oxygen bar.

Which would be more analogous.

I'm not conceding cigarettes should be taxed, but (a) it's an excise tax, (b) indirectly incurred by the purchase, and (c) applied mostly by the state, not the federal government.

Doesn't New Hampshire abstain? It can if it doesn't.

Now, imagine that if you didn't visit an oxygen bar periodically, and maintain a club membership, the federal government taxed you $50/year for failure to maintain oxygen bar club membership.

What a choice!

A government mandatory health insurance plan or a government mandatory penalty tax! Toss a coin, it doesn't matter the government takes all!

Just

Caesar taking that which Caesar claims as his.

Treason

and punishable by death