Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong to uphold Obamacare

[Brian4Liberty]

Original RPF content:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?694-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-was-wrong-to-uphold-Obamacare

Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong to uphold Obamacare

by Brian4Liberty on 06-28-2012

The verdict is in. The Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which narrowly passed Congress in a purely partisan effort. The swing vote on the Court, and thus the decision, lay with Chief Justice John Roberts.

In the decision, Chief Justice Roberts ruled the law to be Constitutional if the individual mandate portion of the law was interpreted and characterized as a tax, rather than as a penalty. This opinion in and of itself is questionable, as this "tax" would be based on not purchasing a product from a private business. This would be a brand new type of tax; a tax forcing a person to engage in a transaction, rather than a tax on a transaction. All existing taxes are based on activities. This new form of tax is a precedent, and a dangerous one at that.

Back to the law in question, it is apparent that this tax is better defined as a penalty, as it was written, and as it was intended. This penalty was not to be construed or interpreted as a tax. This was the very specific language used by lawmakers when this Bill was written, debated, and voted upon.

Chief Justice Roberts has re-characterized this penalty as a tax, and for that reason, he sided to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law.

It should not be the role of the Supreme Court to re-characterize or modify law. This is legislation from the bench. When a law is in violation of the Constitution, the appropriate course of action is to strike down the law. If the opinion of the Court includes information on what language and intent might pass Constitutional muster, so be it. It is then up to the Congress to revise the legislation, debate the revision, and vote on the new version of the law. Finally, the new version would have to be signed by the President.

It is a sad day when new precedents are set in the laying of taxes and of legislating from the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong not to strike down Obamacare as it was written, and as it was intended. The initial intent and wording of a law is very instrumental during the debate and passage process. It should not be re-characterized or changed after the fact by the Court.

 

[cajuncocoa]

+1 rep

 

[Travlyr]

The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review.

http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review.

http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Interesting. But they do it all the time anyway. So do they base their judicial reviews on this?

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

 

[Travlyr]

Interesting. But they do it all the time anyway. So do they base their judicial reviews on this?

I don't see how that could be their justification because the legislature, the executive, judicial branches and the States are the United States. That is only one party.

It is up to the people to determine judicial review. I think they just do it because nobody has challenged them.

 

[priest_of_syrinx]

No, it's based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

[Travlyr]

No, it's based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

In other words, they just assumed power they don't have. All their judicial review decisions are unconstitutional.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No, it's based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Interesting stuff, although it appears that long ago it become "settled" law.

 

[Travlyr]

Interesting stuff, although it appears that long ago it become "settled" law.

Not to Jefferson, Madison, or me. I still believe that the constitution must be amended to be changed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In other words, they just assumed power they don't have. All their judicial review decisions are unconstitutional.

Almost all SCOTUS decisions are technically unconstitutional, as they weren't held before a jury. But the Constitution only binds people who give a damn or have the necessary weaponry.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not to Jefferson, Madison, or me. I still believe that the constitution must be amended to be changed.

On paper, yes. But in practice, that ship has sailed. Perhaps someday in the distant future, that will change.

 

[awake]

Original RPF content:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?694-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-was-wrong-to-uphold-Obamacare

Yes he was wrong...but how many generations will be subject to his political judgeship? One silly little man in a robe! It is tyranny that will last well beyond his grave and many generations from now. Talk about screwing future generations...

They put slavery to a democratic vote today; 5-4, slavery wins it by a nose. Those who claim to be your protectors of your liberty just pushed you that much closer to full slavery.

Study healthcare in Canada to know what your future holds.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Not to Jefferson, Madison, or me. I still believe that the constitution must be amended to be changed.

Not that I can speak for Jefferson, but his main concern seems to be that the Supreme Court would be nullifying the work of Congress, which has proven to be unwarranted in practice. Quite the opposite. The court hardly finds anything unconsitutional that expands the size and scope of the Federal government. Jefferson would probably have a lot more to say about the way in which the Democrats got this passed in the first place.

Now, if the time ever came where we had a Congress and President who truly attempted to undo this mess, then the Supreme Court would probably rule that it was unconstitutional. I.e. "The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to eliminate the Federal Department of Education (without replacing it with an even larger Federal bureaucracy)."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes he was wrong...but how many generations will be subject to his political judgeship? ...

Yes, the ramifications of Supreme Court appointments are long lasting indeed. That is why it is outrageous that the Senate keeps rubber-stamping the nominees. Lindsey Graham stood up for and endorsed the last three appointments, all of which voted to uphold Obamacare.

 

[georgiaboy]

The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review.

http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Wow. I had no idea. Gov't school brainwashing and mainstream media does it again. For my whole life,

Legislative Branch - makes the laws.
Executive Branch - executes the laws.
Judicial Branch - interprets the laws.

suckered again. shazbot.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In other words, they just assumed power they don't have. All their judicial review decisions are unconstitutional.

One can justify judicial review by the fact that "the judicial power of the United States" was vested in the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts Congress might establish. What does "judicial power" entail? The power to determine the law, something the courts had been doing in the Anglo-American legal system for centuries. Of course, the Supreme Court's determination of the law is subject to being overruled by either the legislature (on statutory or common law issues) or by the States (on constitutional issues).

 

[Pericles]

One can justify judicial review by the fact that "the judicial power of the United States" was vested in the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts Congress might establish. What does "judicial power" entail? The power to determine the law, something the courts had been doing in the Anglo-American legal system for centuries. Of course, the Supreme Court's determination of the law is subject to being overruled by either the legislature (on statutory or common law issues) or by the States (on constitutional issues).

Pretty much that. The issue is that now the SCOTUS is thought to be the sole authority on what is Constitutional. The final authority is the states. If a majority of the states find a federal act unconstitutional - it is.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Pretty much that. The issue is that now the SCOTUS is thought to be the sole authority on what is Constitutional. The final authority is the states. If a majority of the states find a federal act unconstitutional - it is.

True, and the states have overruled Supreme Court decisions by ratifying amendments three times in our history. But more often the Court reverses itself, either by finding unconstitutional things that it had previously found constitutional (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education overruling Plessy v. Ferguson) or finding constitutional what it previously found unconstitutional (e.g., in 1987 the Court held that interest on state and local bonds wasn't constitutionally exempt from the income tax, overruling a contrary 1895 decision).