Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another POV on the Robert's Decision - hmmmmm ....  

By: DueDillinger in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Mon, 02 Jul 12 5:47 AM | 90 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner 		Msg. 18792 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 18787 by monkeytrots)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Lots of delusional opinion out there, mon. Revisit the Levin vids. The commentary regarding the Commerce Clause is NOT precedent.

OBAMACARE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND SUPREME COURT DECISION

by Mark Levin

This may seem a little technical, but it is necessary.  So follow along with me.  A number of politicians and commentators are claiming that the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case "limited" the reach of the commerce clause, i.e., five justices held that individuals cannot be mandated to buy insurance under the commerce clause.  Actually, the five justices did not limit anything.  They simply did not accept the Obama administration's ridiculous argument that inactivity is commerce.  The status quo stands.  However, the bigger point is this.

 

When a court issues an opinion, it is said to be the "Opinion of the Court."  The Opinion of the Court is the controlling precedent.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court for Parts I (background on the Obamacare law), II (the Anti-Injunction Act is not a bar to the lawsuit proceeding and being decided) and III-C (Obamacare is valid under the tax power).

 

But respecting Parts III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section,  Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority.

 

Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is Not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.

You can’t say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which isn’t formally joined Robert’s writing), is writing for itself.

Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:

 “The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause (or necessary and proper clause).

If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause) to be controlling as the majority view, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others' parts.  They didn't.  So, while we can cobble them together, as a formal legal matter, it is a troubling issue.  While the status quo stands re the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause), there was no formal majority on those issues.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/obamacare-the-commerce-clause-and-supreme-court-decision/10150883505015946

Here's an interesting comment from Jeffrey Lord:

In the fallout over this, it seems instantly clear that John Roberts has elected Mitt Romney. The rebellion launched yesterday will have long lasting effects, and electing Romney is clearly going to be one of them, but not the only one. There are races for House and Senate all over this country that will now get a fresh infusion of cash and energy from angry conservatives. In fact, Romney's campaign says that once the understanding was out there of what Roberts had done, the Romney campaign had donations of four million dollars before the sun set.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/29/mark-levin-on-john-roberts-reg

Uploaded Image

∆∆




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another POV on the Robert's Decision - hmmmmm .... chewing seriously on this one ....
By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 02 Jul 12 12:21 AM 		Msg. 18787 of 21975

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen

Bookmark and Share Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Might have to finely parse the actual decision ... and the minority dissenting opinion.

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next