Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Questions remain on the Healthcare ruling of June 28, 2012 and the reading of Chief Justice Roberts sole decision that runs contrary to his alleged confirming colleagues

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision regarding the forcing of every American Citizen to either:
1)    forcibly buy Health Insurance or pay a penalty not less than $695 for those making $27,800 annually and below or 2.5 % of one’s annual income (whichever is greater) – or
2)    go on Medicaid or some other Government subsidized Healthcare if your income is 133% or less that of the poverty level.

You are given no other options…or so we are told.  But considering that there are really 3 classes of Justice dissents involved, I have to ask…why should we accept that the 5 to 4 really passed when the vote was actually 4-4 (1)?

On page 7 of Roberts Opinion, he writes:
Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner”

On page 10 of Chief Justice Roberts Opinion, he writes:       
The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. See §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage, although States will bear a portion of the costs on their own. §1396d(y)(1).

Justice Roberts and others do NOT factor in that the Insurance Industry is unhindered from raising current pricing levels by up to 300% of current costs.  The use of $695 as an expected 60% of annual costs gives us a minimum $1,390 annual expectation of premiums for a single individual; for 10 specified services in the package deal.   That is $115.83 a month roughly.  But what is to stop the Insurance Carriers from gouging the public who are now forced to buy, so as to increase their bottom line and give themselves fat bonuses?  There is no stop gap regulation to prevent cost increases to $347.50 per month per individual, and a coercive threat by these abusers to scream at their victims that “if you don’t pay your fair share, I’m calling the cops [or an appropriate Government enforcement Agency]  and you’re going to jail and lose your Citizenship. Pay up or kiss your life goodbye Mother-f**ker.”  Under the Commerce Clause as its operational justification, that is now a very possible and even probable scenario if Congress does not lawfully  scrap it, even if just by a veto proof majority.  

The majority opinion of Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan (who was biased for Healthcare as its lobbyist and was openly predetermined to rule for it, and should have been forcibly recused) state that we are to adopt the Commerce Clause in ruling on the Constitutionality of Healthcare.  They reject the Mandate argument that it is a tax.  Chief Justice Roberts says that the Court and those who enforce it should view its simply as a tax, that way you are precluded from losing your United States Citizenship rights if you refuse to buy it, which he examples as possible under the observational use of the Commerce Clause as to why it passed.

In being given option A or B, just what do you think Obama would use to enforce the Healthcare Mandate?  It will be the Commerce Clause.

 On Pages 23-24 of his Opinion, Roberts states in regard to the application of affirming the Healthcare Law on the basis of the Commerce clause, the ff.:

"Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat it as such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other.
While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal

Government. 6

6      In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individual who opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at 26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing. "

On page 25 of his Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts argues:
“The Government repeats the phrase “active in the market for health care” throughout its brief, see id., at 7, 18, 34, 50, but that concept has no constitutional significance. An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not “active in the car market ”in any pertinent sense. The phrase “active in the market” cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to “regulate the uninsured as a class.” Id., [Brief for the United States] at 42. Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class[es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 153 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in ‘extortionate credit transactions’ . . .” (emphasis deleted)).
The individual mandate’s regulation of the uninsured as a class is, in fact, particularly divorced from any link to existing commercial activity.”

On page 43 of his Opinion, Roberts cites that if we allow for the operation of the Commerce Clause to govern why Healthcare is a legal mandate, then failure to purchase or do as Congress directs, can effectually strip one of their Citizenship under the Constitution of the United States. 
"Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes."

And because of this, we should take the power of Congress to levy a tax approach, because if we do, then you lawfully pay a penalty or “higher tax” for a non-purchase, while those who buy health insurance are placed in a bracket paying “lower taxes”.  “the only thing they may not do,” says Roberts on page 44 supra of his “Opinion”, “is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.”   

Again, there is NO majority Consensus of Opinion or Decision that requires me to buy Health Insurance on any single point Constitutional Justification. 
If you can be forced to buy health care, you can also be forced to buy life (which is really death) insurance, followed by mandatory fire insurance whether you own a home, rent an apartment, live out of motels or your car.  In effect, taxes and Commerce purchase requirements could morph into an endless cycle of mandatory taxes and/or purchases that leave you penniless and in debt.  There could be a day in which you have to buy mandatory ambulatory response insurance, police protection insurance, or mandatory environmental cleanup insurance, or what have you.  In fact, under this de facto split consensus if the People of the United States allow it to stand when it does not so stand, we can expect an Agenda 21 “sustainable development” passage of a carbon Footprint tax whereby you, and your family and your pets are taxed or fined x-number of dollars a year just for breathing.

      Why pay a tax, why be forced to purchase a product you neither want nor need, why submit to a ruling that never passed by majority consensus as legal? Part III-B which commands people buy or purchase insurance based on one agreeable specificity of the United States Constitution that would so enable it, did NOT pass by majority, whether Justice Roberts separated himself from 4 concurring Justices or whether Justice Ginsburg separated herself…it still did NOT pass on any one point of Law.  

Question:  Did the Healthcare Law regarding Part III-B (the mandatory purchase or pay the fine requirement) legally really pass United States Supreme Court Muster? 

NO CONSENSUS as to what Constitutional Provision acted as the engine of Healthcare was ever decided upon in majority.  Tens of thousands of attorneys need to put down their paper, stop trusting hearsay, and read the decision carefully and thoroughly for themselves.  The Opinion of Roberts was just that, an opinion…and oddly enough, as regarding the Healthcare Law as only Constitutional when it is regarded as a tax was the opinion of 1.  Are we to take that the opinion of just one Court Justice now trumps the contrary opinions of the other 8?  No.  Of course we should NOT.

      On its face, the Healthcare law, and any law signed by Barack Hussein Obama II, not to mention his other legal names or aliases, under a non-judicial activist United States Supreme Court would be subject to automatic overturn just on the basis that he cannot meet the minimum proof requirements of being a United States Natural Born Citizen per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States; United States v. Schwimmer    279 U.S.  644 (1929) @ 649-650; Bute v. Illinois 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653; anyone who can successfully sue Obama based on Article III standing [1], could under the Rule of Law have Obama forcibly resign from Office.  But we are no longer under a Judicial Court, we have 5 Judicial activists (two illegally appointed by a Usurper), with the Supreme Court Justice now legislating and rewriting laws from the Bench as a runaway Progressive, a rogue, a traitor to the Constitution of the United States.

[1]  An example of who has Article III standing to sue, is the Brian Terry Family, the family of the slain border agent killed as a direct result of Obama restarting a border program with all the safeguards removed, hindrances to the direct safety of our own Law enforcement attached by Obama or his Administrators, and then engaging in illegal operations in order to create a pseudo-crisis to strip United States Citizens of their Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.  

June 25, 2012 letter of Representative Issa to Obama

Rpresentative Issa with Sean Hannity the ff. day.

There are an additional 130,000 pages of information yet being WITHHELD by Obama and Holder, now under the color of authority as an "executive privilege" that does not apply to Criminal Activity, Criminal Conspiracy, and Treason.

The Daily Caller reported in September 2011 that:

... emails obtained by the Los Angeles Times appear to show senior Obama administration and White House officials were briefed on the gun-walking operation. The three White House officials implicated by the LA Times’ reporting are Kevin M. O’Reilly, the director of North American Affairs for the White House national security staff; Dan Restrepo, the president’s senior Latin American advisor; and Greg Gatjanis, a White House national security official.

The emails were sent between July 2010 and February 2011, before the scandalous ATF program was exposed, according the LA Times.

The LA Times says a senior administration official denies that the emails which lead Fast and Furious ATF agent William Newell sent to O’Reilly — who later briefed Restrepo and Gatjanis –included details on “investigative tactics” used in the program. By “investigative tactics,” the White House means how ATF agents facilitated the sale of firearms to drug cartels via “straw purchasers,” or people who could legally buy guns in the U.S. but did so with the intention of selling them to individuals who would traffic them to Mexico.

Those emails apparently show Newell and O’Reilly discussing how the program was affecting Mexico.

Another explosive new detail that emerged on Thursday was a set of documents showing senior officials in Phoenix attempting to cover up a connection between Fast and Furious weapons and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s death.

In a letter sent to Ann Scheel, the new acting U.S. Attorney for Arizona, House Oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote that high-ranking Phoenix officials tried to “prevent the connection [between Terry’s death and Fast and Furious weapons] from being disclosed.”

Did the Court see to a Consensus of Affirmation  Aequam Servare Mentem (a Consensus of Affirmation keeping an even mind)?  No.  A minority opinion said that it can be legal if you rule that only this part of the Constitution over here is used, but not that part over there; while another minority opinion said, No, you must use that part of the Constitution over there but you cannot use this part of the Constitution over here.  Effectually, by majority, Healthcare as a mandate, when challenged by closer examination, I would argue, appears to have been more  struck down than not, regarding the forced purchase or pay mandate…despite claims to the contrary, even by what the Media has thus far gleaned from the syllabus and Opinion of the Chief Justice.

[Page 3] “ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
     The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.  But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.”

On page 1 of the Opinion of Roberts, C.J., we read that:
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-C,

An opinion with respect to Part IV, in which JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN  [whom should have recused herself or been forced into recusal] join,

And an opinion [by himself, alone] with respects to Parts III-A, III-B, and III-D.

That is, in respect to Parts III – A, III-B, and III –D, the Court voted it down 8-1.  In respects to Part IV, the vote is defeated by 6 – 3, and because Justice Ginsburg and Sotomayor join in direct conflict of what Constitutional Provision and total conflict of what the application of the Law is in regard to Healthcare, we must view that Parts I,II, III-C fail also.
In the Opinion of Ginsburg, J., we find that JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN “join as to Parts I, II, II, and IV” with the exception that Justices Ginsburg (and Sotomayor) while agreeing to Parts I, II, III –C and joining Justice Roberts opinion, Ginsburg then goes on to make a dissent as to what Law and Provision of the Constitution by which any concurring opinion she has would be based on.  In effect, Justice Ginsburg (and Justice Sotomayor joining her) cast a defeated vote of 2 against 7 that by the Commerce Clause alone is Healthcare Constitutional.

On page 59 of his opinion,  in 567 U.S. ________  (2012), Justice Roberts writes:
“The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to the Court the duty of enforcing those limits.  The Court does so today.  But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act.  Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”

If by one vote, or even a minority vote, you can have the Commerce Clause go into effect, the regulation of inactivity of not giving a tithe tax to this or that Progressive Special Interest pot, whether you are penalized for not buying gas because you do not own a car, or not buying milk every time you buy groceries because you do not drink that much of it, or not buying whatever the Government mandates you should buy even if you have no need or want of it…where does it end?  And what of the effect of activating all previous Supreme Court dissents as lawful interpretations, so that if a Justice in minority says any one thing at any time in the past, we may now take that interpretation as in equal force?  This is anarchy, and that will be John Roberts’s legacy as a Progressive subversive that needs to be removed from the Bench as being in violation to his oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution of the United States and rule within those bounds.

By his own admission, in the first page of his dissent from Justice Ginsburg on page 31, Roberts states:
“…it is well established that, if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”    
First of all, Courts should adopt the meaning by a majority consensus; otherwise the meaning that is in debate as to what is or is not constitutional fails.  Further, by majority, both the tax iso-interpretation (that interpretation which is read into the text) and the exegetical interpretation using the Commerce Clause are BOTH defeated as unsound.    Roberts continues.
 Justice Story said … 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.”  Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448-449 (1830).  Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.”  Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).”

Consider this: By a Majority Vote, whether we attribute it as 8-1, or 5-4, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Healthcare mandate as a tax. The absolute dissenting votes were Justice Ginsburg, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito.   And yet, whether by a single vote by a Chief Justice or a minority vote not enough for passage, we are supposed to call the Healthcare Mandate Law as long as we call it a Tax?  Chief Justice Roberts cited Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, of the right of Congress to “lay and collect taxes”; the majority of the Court’s 9 Justices of the Court REJECTED that analysis.

Justice Ginsburg in her opinion very clearly and specifically specified that she did NOT vote for passage of Parts I, II, III-C of the Healthcare Mandate except it be interpreted as legal by means of the use of the Commerce Clause, not as a tax. Even if arguing for a passage of the Healthcare Mandate, as a Dissent on the mechanics of how and why the Healthcare Mandate should be legally interpreted in direct or in a diametrical opposition to the view of John Roberts, it is still a DISSENT against Roberts’ view, and places Roberts, again, in the minority.

 In other words, I would argue that Justice Ginsburg’s vote of distinction invalidates the Healthcare Mandate enforcement and the decision did NOT de facto pass under jurisprudence.  You cannot have a decision that says this is legal only because it is a tax over here, and an arguing decision that opposes the decision saying it is legal only because of the Commerce Clause over there.  They must entirely agree as to at least the legal citation for reason of its passage or both opinions will illegally be enforced as Law.  The “only” actuality handcuffs and prevents a legal application of the Healthcare Mandate as Law of the Land.  There is no claim that it is legal because of BOTH reasons by Justice Ginsburg, which would push it pass the threshold as legal because it is a tax AND….   There is no claim by Justice Roberts that the Healthcare Mandate is legal for both reasons, that because as Ginsburg argues the Commerce clause kicks in AND…  That did NOT happen.  Clearly, no majority opinion passed the Healthcare mandate as a law by one legal citation of the United States Constitution or another.  Roberts spent more than 14 pages, from page 31 -45,  arguing this point AGAINST Justice Ginsburg’s justification based on the Commerce Clause only and NOT by any reasoning Roberts was taking, wherewith only by means of a tax, and the power of Congress to tax, could Congress have the legality to pass this legislation and expect it to be upheld as law…(even if it was not their intent, that is how I John Roberts am re-intending their idiocy for not having the right intent in the first place).

On Wednesday, March 28, 2012  10:19 a.m. ff.
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. 11-393
Page 4 -
MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the Act cannot stand. As Congress found and the Federal Government concedes, the community-rating and guaranteed-issue provisions of the Act cannot stand without the individual mandate.

Page 5 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel….[i]n one instance -- and we might or may not say that it's unconstitutional -- Massachusetts passed the mandatory coverage provision.

Page 6 -
MR. CLEMENT: … Finding (I), which is 43a of the Government's brief, in the appendix. Congress specifically found that having the individual mandate is essential to the operation of guaranteed issue and community rating.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: … I'm looking at it. The exchanges. The State exchanges are information gathering facilities that tell insurers what the various policies actually mean. And that has proven to be a cost saver in many of the States who have tried it. So, why should we be striking down a cost saver –
Page 7 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I guess, on the bottom line, is why don't we let Congress fix it?

Pages 7 to 8 –
Congress could look at it…and… could choose to fix what it has.    We're not declaring -- one portion doesn't force Congress into any path.

Page 8
JUSTICE  SCALIA: Well, there's such a thing as legislative inertia, isn't there?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, that's exactly –


MR.CLEMENT: -- what I was going to say, Justice Scalia, which is I think the question for this Court is -- we all recognize there's legislative inertia. And then the question is what's the best result in light of that reality?

Page 9 -
MR. CLEMENT: And I agree. We're simply asking this Court to take on, straight on, the idea of the basic remedial inquiry into severability which looks to the intent of the Congress -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, I wanted to ask you about that. Why do we look to the -- are you sure we  [should] look to the intent of the Congress?


So what was the intent of Congress in reading and discussing the language of the Bill?  Or is it that the majority of those who voted for it had no clue as to what the 2,700 plus page Bill entailed? 

June 28, 2012 
On Page 12 of his Opinion, Roberts states:
“Congress, however, chose to describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a “penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).”

But DID Congress act intentionally on the specificity of language so as to distinguish tax from penalty, et cetera?   NO.

Then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:  “We have to pass the
[Health Care] Bill so that you [we]  can, uh, find out what’s in it”

Like many other members of Congress whose refusals to read the Healthcare Bill along with Nancy Pelosi’s condescending arrogance spawned the creation of the TEA Parties as a counter-protest movement to Representatives who felt they had dictatorial powers and that WE THE PEOPLE were to serve them, Representative John Conyers had no intention of ever reading the Healthcare Bill he would vote passage for to know what was in it.

John Conyers states to the effect that Congress refuses to read every bill.

Therefore, the intent of Congress in regard to the Healthcare Bill signed into Law (without being read) is then what?

Answer:  Unconstitutionality by means of Criminal Negligence and Irresponsibility.  Or in the vulgar: “We don’t know what the **** we’re passing, but let’s pass it into Law anyway.”

And that is what Chief Justice John Roberts re-legislated from the bench, a non-intent intent of Congress by Judicial Activism. 

Congress didn’t know what was in the Healthcare Bill…
Congress didn’t care what was in the Healthcare Bill…
Congress as run by the Democratic Party stifled debate and in lock-step passed a bill with language they refused to read or familiarize themselves with.  The only thing that mattered was its passage, damn the consequences inside the language of the bill or outside the language of the bill.  Someone other than Congress wrote it, so it must have made sense to them, therefore we had to pass it to see what someone else could re-regulate was actually in it.  Constitutionality was IRRELEVANT in the mind of Congress in its passage, and NO intent toward use of either the Commerce Clause or a Tax power can be implied as the intent of the language or passage of the bill.  The entire Soviet Constitution or the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx could have been contained in this Healthcare Bill and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would have seen to its passage, oblivious or apathetic to its presence.

On Page 26 of his Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts states:
“Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.”
So how then is it possible for us to view 4 Justices out of 9 passing the Healthcare mandate solely on the basis of Constitutionality, if and only if it is viewed as being authorized by the Commerce Clause…and only 1 Justice out of 9 passing the Healthcare Mandate if, and only if we call this Mandate’s penalty a tax, thereby granting authorization by a convoluting (a twisting) out of context the words used or misused by the Statute which renders it as unconstitutional?   Effectually, they did NOT agree in their vote as to the basis of Mandate’s Constitutional claim to standing.  That FAILED.    

Of interest in brevity is Justice Thomas’ 2 page dissent to the use of the Commerce Clause, which appears on pages 192-193 of the pdf.   Effectually there were 5 Justices ruling against the use of the Commerce Clause as activating legality for the Healthcare Mandate, which by all reason should require us to say that the Mandate was defeated under Marbury v. Madison @180. 

Justice Thomas wrote:
I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate “economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a

‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545
U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.

It seems to me that Chief Justice Roberts in a claim of aiding passage of the Healthcare mandate, IF that is the case…and questions remain as to if this is so, and whether the Commerce Clause is what shall de facto and de jure be followed over Robert’s own view as a tax authority …the Chief Justice Roberts has violated enforcing the bounds of the limited powers upon the Federal Government so egregiously by the enforcement of minority decision and the action of his Judicial Activism in doing an editorial rewrite of the Healthcare Mandate reserved only for the Legislature and a do-over with a submitting of bills and new castings of votes; which demands it should by all means be struck down as unConstitutional.

This decision highlights a different kind of Constitutional Crisis than what most of us saw what was coming, an Executive Branch and a Judicial Branch with chief executives, one a usurper and one an experienced Chief Justice, who have ignored the Separation of Powers of their Branches of Government from the Legislature.  We now have the Executives of the Executive and Judicial Branches now usurping the Legislative authority of Congress – one by Executive Fiat, the other by rewriting language and intent of otherwise unconstitutional Legislation before Judicial Editorial Re-writes in order to preserve the unlawful as law.   Two Branches of Government that now encroach and infringe upon that Congressional Legislative authority granted Congress exclusively by the Constitution of the United States of America.  We saw it coming from Obama, but while we were untrustingly watching Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, a Progressive Usurper of the Legislature, really blind-sided most of us.  

Questions remain as to the validity of Healthcare mandate enforcement, and by what engine of operation (as a Tax or as Commerce) if it does remain.

That's my input.  -- Brianroy

No comments:

Post a Comment