Google+ Followers

Sunday, July 1, 2012

A Different Perspective on Chief Justice Roberts' Ruling

While I wouldn't want or condone anyone doing harm to Chief Justice Roberts and I don't want to believe that Justice Roberts ruled for
political reasons rather than legal, constitutional reasons; I believe the following essay, by I. M. Citizen is
logical and deserves consideration when assessing the current political climate.  This perspective offers hope (perhaps belief)
that Obamacare will be a thing of the past.  If so then we should turn our planning into a November rout and offer the voters
a defined approach to unraveling Obamacare and replacing it with a real plan for improving our current (not so shabby) healthcare
process with logical change to the aspects of U. S. healthcare that need improvement.  A step-by-step plan that delineates these changes
has to be presented to voters as soon as possible. The plan should be without tax increases, without mortgaging our future, in effect
budget neutral.  It should also address the healthcare needs of all American Citizens.  Finally the plan will be purely healthcare and not try 
to encompass any and all needs of society.  Separate plans are also need to address other major problems(e.g. immigration).  I would
appreciate any constructive comments and thoughts you may have about this "different perspective".  

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer 

Behind the Scenes of the Ruling-A Different Perspective of Robert's Decision

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius by I. M. Citizen


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 

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment