 |
| The Supreme Court of the United States 2012 |
(IJReveiew.Com) - 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?THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A deeper analysis of the Supreme Court ruling, particularly focused on Chief Justice John Roberts, reveals a deeper meaning that was not previously reported on Thursday. It would appear that Chief Justice Robert's careful wording of the ruling that saved Obama's healthcare law, reveals that the court has effectively taken the teeth out of it. On the one hand, the court has decisively ruled that the people cannot be made to pay a "penalty" for refusing to buy medical insurance. They can be taxed, but they cannot be forced by a penalty. Now this seems like semantics at first, and as far as the individual taxpayer goes, it is semantics, but in a legal sense, this is very important. It means the federal government cannot force you to buy a product. It can tax the hell out of you (we already knew that) but it cannot force you to buy something you don't want. Now I realise that on an individual level that is empty consolation. However, it's not the individual level that is remarkable about this ruling.
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....
read full story here
What is remarkable is how this ruling effects the states. The penalty for states not complying with Obamacare has effectively been wiped out as unconstitutional. So what does this mean? It means states need not comply with Obamacare. They can simply opt out! Now that doesn't mean that such an opting out will go smoothly. In fact, I'm sure the federal government will do everything within its power to fight it, but the states have effectively been given the upper hand with this ruling. They can now tell Obamacare where to go, without having to worry about any penalties. Currently, there are over a dozen states that have already pledged to do this. This is nothing short of empowering those states to utilise their power of nullification.
At this juncture, as bad as this ruling is, I can't think of anything more redeeming. Namely because it opens the door for the states to finish some unsettled business left over from the Civil War. During the War for Southern Independence, the Dixie-American War, the states were left with the cruel reality that their will no longer matters. While that paradigm still exists to a large degree, there is now a crack, an opening in the wall. States can effectively nullify a federal law, and in this case, the federal government can do nothing to stop them. It means the battle cry against Obamacare has just turned into a states-rights cry, and it is defined 100% as states-rights. It is now a pure battle between the states and the federal government, that is fit to play out in the years ahead. Granted, the federal government will do everything within its power to crush state resistance against Obamacare, but now it will all be out in the open for what it truly is -- a continuation of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Now is the time for all of us to rally behind states-rights, especially if you live in any of the Southern states. I encourage all of my readers now to join and/or support THE LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH.
10 comments:
I think you still miss the mark here, Mr Knight. Judge Kennedy said that the whole barrycare deal was unconstitutional from the get-go. That snake in a black robe, Robets, pulling the "tax ploy" out of thin air, simply wanted to save the court's (ie, his own) public image. Jefferson was wrong when he said the judiicary is the weakest of the three branches, and the constituion of 1787 is dead. We live under a judocracy. Pete Frey
Make no mistake about it Pete, this was a terrible ruling. The whole mess could have been avoided by striking Obamacare down, which is what the four good justices tried to do. Roberts stepped away from the other four judges, and that was nobody's fault but his own. We can speculate from now, until hell freezes over, as to why. After all is said and done however, he at least left us with this crack in the wall. There is at least a chance for the states to do battle. Now it's up to us on a state level to fight back. Support the League, and any other states-rights organisation you can find.
remember too Sir Knight, the govt has long referred to the social security deductions from our pay checks as "contributions" And if you think that means "voluntary" I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Pete Frey35
Now Mr Knight, lest you think that thee "behavior modification" laws which our SCOPTUS has just approved being confined only to the feds, let me inform you that such process is alive and well at the STATE level. Here in PA, the turnpike authority (a state agency) is planning to establish a totally electronic fare collection system, abolishing all human collectors, but also mandating that all users of the road purchase the state-authorized electronic transponder (which by the way can keep tabs on all your driving habits, whereabouts etc) and have it installed in your vehicle. Failure to purchase this govt gizmo will require that you pay the maximum fare on the turnpike and other toll facilities, regardless of distance travelled. Failure to pay the toll will result in a higher fine and confiscation of your PRIVATE vehicle. Imagine how many errors, false readings and fraud can be accomplished at the state level. No Mr Knight, corruption, arrogance and dictatorship exist at the state level as well. Sorry to burst your state's rights bubble. Pete FRey
You're right Pete. States rights by themselves do not guarantee freedom from tyranny. There is also a big cultural issue to consider. Some cultures (like those up north for example) are often willing to sacrifice privacy for convienence. Other cultures (like those down south for example) are more likely to shoot down a police drone when it flies near their property. I guess it just all depends on where you live.
wrongamundo, Mr Knight. There are as many northerners who will take out police drones at the cock of a rifle bolt. PA issues more hunting permits than any state in the nation. Remember this is the state that Barry referred to where "folks cling to their guns and bibles" Liberals control the big cities, the heartland is as conservative as a southern baptist on steroids. Pete Frey
Truth is Pete, I really don't know if there will be anything left of Dixie by the time the empire falls. I do agree with you that a con-con makes the most sense for a peaceful and level-headed people. Problem is, a lot of people in America are neither peaceful nor level-headed.
Liberals will oppose a con-con because they're afraid the conservatives will get too much control. Conservatives will oppose a con-con, because many of them have enshrined the current Constitution as Holy Writ and see any attempt to alter or abolish it as the ultimate blasphemy.
At this juncture I see no easy out and no way to abandon ship before she sinks. It's like the lifeboats are loaded, but the sailors manning them will not let them be lowered. So it looks like we are all going down with the ship. The trajectory of the United States is obvious. You and I both know that. When it finally implodes, we can only hope our state governments will be able to muster enough strength to maintain civility. If not, we will be reduced to a feudal system in rather short time.
It means the federal government cannot force you to buy a product. It can tax the hell out of you (we already knew that) but it cannot force you to buy something you don't want.
I do tend to disagree that the semantic difference makes a legal difference. Whether by tax, penalty or other means, essentially the government IS forcing you to buy something you don't want. That is the real fiasco of the ruling - we have always known the government can tax economic activity, but now it can tax economic inactivity.
Why not, they tax everything else, even the wind.
Post a Comment