Chief justice’s canny move guts the Commerce Clause

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War - The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

... the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html

I'm thrilled. The tax and budget busting ACA can be dealt with after the November election. This puts the Commerce Clause misuses in the ground. Victory.

Do you ever get dizzy from all that spinning? Good attempt though, trying to put a positive spin on defeat.....

Sorry, ButtUglyTwinWhore, but he didn't "gut" the Commerce Clause...He said it didn't apply to this case because he didn't agree that people who weren't already covered were engaged in "interstate commerce"...

But thanks for playing.

Sucks to lose, don't it?

archer wrote: Do you ever get dizzy from all that spinning? Good attempt though, trying to put a positive spin on defeat.....

I didn't try to do anything. That article said it all. I was just gloating.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Sorry, ButtUglyTwinWhore, but he didn't "gut" the Commerce Clause...He said it didn't apply to this case because he didn't agree that people who weren't already covered were engaged in "interstate commerce"...

But thanks for playing.

Sucks to lose, don't it?

Well don't argue with me... that's the article in Salon. Why don't you elaborate on why the article is wrong instead of throwing your poop at me?

But he opened the door to allow Congress to simply call any mandate a "tax" or "penalty" and enact it anyway.

If the tax applies to Obamacare it also applies to Romneycare ....spin that Mitt.

Something the Dog Said wrote: But he opened the door to allow Congress to simply call any mandate a "tax" or "penalty" and enact it anyway.

This is true, who needs to regulate interstate commerce. Just tax any behavior or lack of behavior you want. Mandate away! Whohooo!

Don't own an electric car? $1000 tax
Don't maintain a healthy weight? $500 tax
Don't sign up at work for your 401K? $500 tax
Don't own a bicycle? $100 tax

Tax the street, tax your feet.

The fact is, there is a reason for Obama and the numbnut Dems not wanting to call it a tax. This will make more excelllent commercials where Obama's lies can be revisited. This is Obama's "read my lips" moment. Nothing could have fired up Republicans and inndependants more than this ruling.