Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Decision

This outlook was in the minority. It was based upon the idea that by ruling the Democrat’s use of the commerce clause was unconstitutional, Roberts took away one of the pillars on which Obama-care was based. He also ruled that the mandate had to be a tax. This was beneficial to the citizens because, as a tax, it could be repealed by vote. Additionally, by ruling the mandate a tax, Roberts forced Democrats to have to defend tax increases in a recession and in an election year.


From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57″ states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it – that I have heard – since his short, bittersweet victory speech the day of the ruling.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10309-f ... obamacare/

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if it had been ruled constitutional under the commerce clause it could have been repealed by the vote of a future Congress at any point in time - just like Social Security and MediCare can be.

What Robert's vote essentially establises is that Congress can levy a tax at any time and not be restrained in any way by the constitutional limits of their delegated powers with no requirement that the tax be shown to be necessary and proper to carry into execution their limited delegated powers. I fail to see how an unlimited power to tax for whatever purpose Congress desires is either desirable or beneficial.

I disagree with the decision of Roberts. He set the precedent that the government can tax for any reason. He legitimized the concept of government without limits.

It's my opinion but Roberts ruling seems like the long way around the barn, he could have ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and maybe that would have been the end of it. On the other hand, who knows how many bills were/are in the cue that amount to various versions of Obamacare plus or minus one thing or another.

I disagree with the article too. It restricts the commerce clause power, but opens the floodgates for power to tax for almost any reason. So there is another backdoor route to take to accomplish control of any commerce, whether it is interstate, intrastate, or even if the commerce doesn't exist yet, you can initiate it and mandate it under threat of penalties.

Don't have an IRA or 401K at work. Penalty/Fine for you.
Don't have a miles-driven GPS installed in your car- Penalty/Fine
No alcohol breathalyzer interlock in your car - Penalty fine
Don't belong to a qualified health/fitness club or miss your annual physical - Penalty/Fine
Don't drive a car that gets at least 35mpg- Penalty/Fine

Yep, just slip one of these items as an amendment in some bill, with a small $25 penalty to start, with the details up to agency bureaucrats. A constitutional precedence has been set giving it much more legitimacy.

Laugh now, and watch it happen later.

No it was not the right or a good decision for liberty, and it really set no limits at all on what can be taxed. And it doesn't even require clear language in the law calling it a tax, you can call it a penalty or fine for non-participation in some activity that the government "qualifies".

I am glad that Roberts disallowed the commerce clause argument - that is good. I do fear that tax argument. But then with the pace that the Constitution is being dismanteled (yet another hit coming with the UN Arms Treaty) it doesn't surprise me. Things are gonna get ugly, I'm afraid.