Roberts jokes about trip to 'impregnable' fortress

And I am thinking that he made the decision based on politics rather than the law. Tell me something Raees - if something fails constitutional muster under the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, how can a tax which is not necessary and proper then be constitutional? The power to tax delegated to Congress is only to tax to provide that which is a necessary and proper exercise of their delegated power, isn't it?

It's constitutional because the Supreme Court rule it's constitutional. Period.

You either support our checks and balances our forefathers put in place or you don't. Period.

Raees wrote: It's constitutional because the Supreme Court rule it's constitutional. Period.

You either support our checks and balances our forefathers put in place or you don't. Period.

:VeryScared: You probably think the Dredd Scot decision is a good call too, right?

And interestingly enough after the Dred Scott decision there was enough unrest to bring on the civil war. Is that where we are headed with this decision?

Not in the literal sense trekker, but I do think that it will have a similar effect in Rutherford widening the chasm that exists between those seeking more federal power and those seeking a restoration of the federalism established by the Constitution. The first battles will be the ones fought at the ballot box. Where it goes from there will be determined by whether the folks in DC respond to the disaffection evidenced by the results or ignore it.

Personally, I think it time to take from Congress the power to tax as a punative measure for not participating in the commerce of its choosing. There are at least a couple of amendments that I can think of off the top of my head that were a direct consequence of SCOTUS decisions such as this. Perhaps it is time for another one.

I thought this was an interesting take on why Justice Roberts ruled the way he did.

Roberts Rules To Avoid The Appearance Of Politics In His Court

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

http://news.investors.com/article/61649 ... htm?p=full

He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against ObamaCare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Roberts' concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.

ObamaCare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won't make it easy for you.

So perhaps we aren't giving Justice Roberts nearly enough credit. The man may just be a genius.

Thanks for the link lionshead2010.

Have been discussing for the better part of the day with friends why Roberts made a good decision keeping with his constitutional conservative thinking. I hope it means that in the future he will continue to do the same.

Pretty much why we need a conservative president to stop all the exec orders and because Ginsberg and Breyer may retire soon.

And hopefully the people will recognize the problems with ACA and send a message with the people they send to Congress.