« Piling Up: The Detritus of Failed Stimulus Policies | Main | Nothing Really New at EU Summit. What's the Party About? »
Sunday
Jul012012

Chief Justice Roberts Gutted Congressional Power and May Still Have Invalidated Obamacare

Contributed by Chriss Street. Specialist in corporate reorganizations and turnarounds, former Chairman of two NYSE listed companies. His latest book, The Third Way, describes how to achieve management excellence and financial reward by moving organizations from Conflict and Confrontation to Leadership and Cooperation. Chriss lives in Newport Beach, CA.

Conservatives should be ecstatic that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts sided with the four liberal Justices in ruling the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is constitutional as a tax, while siding with the four conservative Justices that the law is un-constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Roberts just humiliated President Obama, gutted the social welfare and regulatory state, and appears to have set-up the entire Obamacare law to be constitutionally invalidated.

Senator Barack Obama cemented his relationship with John Roberts by leading the opposition by liberal Senators to Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Obama said he did not trust Roberts’ political philosophy on Constitutional questions such as: “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.” Obama as a constitutional lawyer knew Congress’ power to exercise control over individuals’ personal lives began through Supreme Court decisions during the President Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration that expanded the Constitution’s Commerce Clause far beyond its limited plain reading: “The Congress shall have Power”…“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

President Obama may have stridently denied Obamacare was a tax, but the legislation contains 21 new taxes that raise $800 billion over the next ten years. On the same day as the Obamacare decision, the Court also ruled 6-3 that a law convicting a California politician named Xavier Alvarez for falsely claiming he won the Medal of Honor was unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: “Though few might find (Alvarez’s) statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.” Having ruled dishonest boasting by politicians cannot be a crime, Roberts reasoned Obama’s dishonesty does not invalidate Obamacare: “decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them, it is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Before 1937, Congressional efforts to pass legislation forcing unionization, minimum-wage laws, restrictions on agricultural planting and so forth were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as “not commerce.” After winning re-election in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that would have given him the right to “pack” the Supreme Court in his favor by appointing six more Justices. However, in what became known as “the switch in time that saved nine“, Justice Owen Roberts capitulated to Roosevelt’s threat to rig the Court by reversing his position and voting to expand the Commerce Clause to by uphold minimum wage laws as regulating “commerce”. Four years later, an intimidated Court dispensed with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, as but a “truism” and not a limitation on Congressional power.

Thomas Jefferson warned the natural tendency is for government to grow, like a poisonous vine, it sprouts through any gap. Giving Congress the power to freely regulate nearly everything, means they can choose which restraints to place on the self-interest of one regulated party in order to provide advantages to another. Not only does this expansion of the Commerce Clause lead to the continual rise of the social welfare and regulatory state, it is the secret sauce that funds political crony capitalism.

The Roberts Opinion that Obamacare is “not commerce” guts seventy-five years of the poisonous growth of the vines of government under the expanded Commerce Clause:

“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.'”

In what may be Roberts ultimate legal slam-dunk of Obama, Roberts’ ruling that the President and Congress’ passed a tax now threatens to constitutionally invalidate all of Obamacare under Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Although the law originated and was narrowly passed in the House and then the Senate wrote and passed their version of law, the House version hit a roadblock in the Senate. So Democrats to avoid an even riskier close vote in the House and because they reasoned the legislation wasn’t a tax bill, pulled the Senate version of Obamacare and deemed it passed. Failing to originate the final bill in the House allows another constitutional challenge that the law is invalid.

Conservatives should praise John Roberts as a brilliant legal tactician that has revived the Original Intent of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and vanquished Barack Obama’s quest for the Forward expansion of a Living Constitution. At the still young age of 57, Chief Justice Roberts may have two more decades to honor the strict construction meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Cross-posted from Chriss Street's blog.

Click the Link to Listen to Chriss Street & Paul Preston on the Syndicated Radio Show “The Inside Education” Streaming Weekday Evenings from 7-10 PM. http://www.mysytv.net/kmyclive.html

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (10)

How wonderful, would that this be true!
July 2, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSolarburst
Are you an attorney? I don't think so with this analysis.

Any argument that it the bill was unconstitutional because it was not from the House should have been part of this case. If it was not, then it is waived.

Just like on appeal you can't raise new arguments. They have to be brought at the trial court level for you to be able to appeal an adverse ruling.

It would be nice if it could be set aside for that reason. Whatever their reasoning opponents did not raise it.

We just have a mess on our hands.
July 2, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNo Name Attorney
hmmmm this makes a lot of sense to me. similar analysis fm glenn reynolds and john hinderaker both constitutional law experts.
July 3, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterfred
Although the argument: that the bill was unconstitutional, because it did not originate in the House of Representatives was waived on account of the fact that such argument was not raised in this case, does not mean that another party cannot challenge ObamaCare and rely on that argument for why the bill is unconstitutional.
July 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSteven Hankin
Perhaps, in another case challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, it could be argued that given the tax conclusion, ObamaCare is now invalid as being in violation of due process, the proper process of enacting legislation. More specifically, Congress approved this bill based on the bill's statement that the mandated payments were not taxes. That is to say, Congress in effect, voted for a different piece of legislation--a bill in which the mandated payment was claimed not to be a tax,
July 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSteven Hankin
The Supreme Court is supposed to be about the law and foremost, protecting the Constitution, not about playing politics and trying to get the public to kick out a socialist, communist or tyrant, whether you think that of the current president or any president.

Yes, with elections, people get what they desire and deserve. But the Court is supposed to protect them when what they seek is against the Constitution. Going against the Constitution lacks wisdom, discernment and is erosive to the best governmental document ever given to any nation in the history of this world.

Once the Court considers political implications, then what is the difference between them and Congress, except that they are appointed for life and are not elected.

That’s why they were given an appointment for life, so they would not be concerned with the politics. Duh.

Th author is searching for needles in a haystack.

Roberts could have called Obama out on this, pointing out that Obama misrepresented this to the public but ruled that because the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the tax or penalty was unconstitutional. Instead Roberts is saying you can get taxed even if the law is unconstitutional.

Explain how that upholds the Constitution.

Think about that!
July 4, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNo Name Attorney
"The Supreme Court is supposed to be about the law and foremost, protecting the Constitution",
I could not agree with you more.

Traitor Roberts should have ruled with Conservatives on the court against "Obamacare". Then he could have written the opinion stopping the perversion of the Commerce clause, by the Progressives.

Using this as a teachable moment about the "original intent" of the founding fathers. He could have explained to the American people how and why the Constitution was designed to restrict the power of government. And that are rights are not man made. But come from God through Natural law.

Instead he did the absolute worst thing. His decision and his opinion, which I have heard has no legal value, come off looking like pure politics.
July 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterReaganite
Such tortured analysis to give undeserving credit on something that wouldn't work even if J. Roberts had some sort of mad hatter forward thinking to derail Obamacare in the future.

The court can use any reason in it's decisions, not just argued points, to come to it's conclusions. The majority opinion chose to uphold Obamacare as constitutional as a tax and had ample opportunity to slap it down as it wasn't presented as a tax. However the majority reached out to save Obamacare despite it's poor drafting and despite the government's arguments that it wasn't a tax.

If you think that the court will overturn Obamacare in some later case because the bill didn't originate in the House of Representatives you have no understanding of the Supreme Court.

The analysis by the author is hogwash deserving of a spanking.
July 7, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNegroponte
Although I understand the author's desire to try and salvage something from what has happened, I have to agree with Negroponte that he's just flat out wrong.

Considering the situation our country is in, it is WRONG to give people FALSE HOPE. After all, isn't that what Obama does and politicans of his kind, whether republican or democrat?

We're at a point that we can't stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich or we risk getting it cut off. We have to face the music and deal with the mess. Kicking things down the road is what the status quo has done for years and look where that's got us.

Yes, you could try to win both the House and the Senate and hope that Romney wins. However Romney seems as though he is "Obama lite".

I think we need to face the music is that the only "person" who can save this nation, without tremendous financial turmoil, is God. We, individually and as a nation, need to repent for turning our back on Him. He's giving us now what we want, a country and a world without Him. He can change things in a twinkling of an eye, so to speak. Do you want to put all your eggs in the basket of "man", who is very flawed, selfish, sinful, envyous, etc.? Or do you want to put your eggs in the basket of the Creator, who is fair and just?

If we don't severe judgment is coming. It's our choice.
July 7, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNo Name Attorney
The decision was coerced with Leahy's floor show directed at Roberts where Roberts was clear prior to show time what the rhetoric coming from Leahy was all about. Leak or no leak. How about I have dirt on you and that decision better go the way I want it or I will not only expose the dirt--I will initiate investigation and have the House impeach you. Senator Leahy was more than aware of corruption; evidence supported corruption in the Supreme Court where they aided and abetted the lower courts and the Administrative Offices of the US Courts in a cover-up of Title 18 criminal law violations. Serious criminal violations that if exposed would take down a number of high level third branch officials. Senator Leahy was more than aware that the Supreme Court of the United States routinely covers corruption in the lower courts by simply denying Petitions only this time the DENIED was an attempt to cover up corruption that had strong evidence of racketeering, extortion and dishonest service fraud as well as other Title 18 violations. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!! The corruption involves Judges, Clerk of Courts and outside attorneys as well as multiple lower level court staff. This time the corruption coming from the Supreme Court itself invalidated four acts of congress and the first and fifth amendment to the constitution. The evidence showed any means to the end where court rendered opinions and the court dockets themselves were evidence of crime. Did you know that when racketeering includes conspiracy and a homicide occurs that all involved in the conspiracy are charged with the homicide? My Scribd site only brushes the evidence against these taxed paid scum and the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AIDED AND ABETTED CRIME!! The lower courts need to be SHUT DOWN--they are ran by criminals; Impeachment of Roberts and possibly other justices needs to take place and each and every clerk that worked the 2011 term needs a serious sit down with federal law enforcement. I hate quoting Nancy Pelosi but guess what 3rd Branch scum, "THE PARTY IS OVER". No more subjecting the average Joe's here in America to perversion of law and rule while ignoring evidence supported fact to achieve illegitimate judgments that rob the average Joe of property. No more common place violation of constitutional rights from the branch of government that is set aside from other government to ensure rights are not violated. Our court system is set up as a huge racketeering enterprise for attorney profit and quid pro quo benefits for court staff. The Supreme Court of the United States by denying my petition proved it has absolutely no intention of engaging its supervisory powers over the corrupt lower courts and that the Administrative Offices of the US Courts are set up to cover and promote the corruption. The oversight committees have ignored the American people who have been telling them for over a period of years that without fear of consequence the third branch has been aiding and abetting, not only civil rights violations, but crimes against the American people. Now we the people know why we have been ignored; the Congress and Senate simply use what they know as bargaining chips to achieve their own means to an end. We have no government! We are being ruled by alleged criminals! The Petition http://scr.bi/L1h9yQ http://www.scribd.com/tired_of_corruption
July 7, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterrebelready

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.