FWIW, I agree with you. . . I was trying to interpret where Roberts may be sitting and tried to find some silver lining. At the end of the day, the final sentiment is my conclusion. . .VMI77 wrote:It does clearly violate the Constitution. Without even getting into the other elements of law as they relate to Congress, if you accept the penalty as a tax, then it must be initiated in the House because the Constitution requires revenue Bills to originate in the House. Also, aside from the income tax, the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a tax on individuals that isn't apportioned by census. Furthermore, the logical contortion necessary to call it simultaneously a tax and a penalty doesn't meet the interpretive doctrine you allude to. And anyway you look at it the decision allows Congress to force people not engaged in commerce to buy a product they don't want or need. This is unprecedented.fickman wrote:2) The people elected the lawmakers and the law-signer, unless they clearly violate the Constitution, the people have to live with the consequences of that vote. We made our beds. . .
That's not our history but that's our future. I won't even argue the claim that we had representation, though a good argument can be made that we really don't....however, we don't have any practical recourse, only serendipitous recourse. The SC just removed all limits on Congressional power by enabling it to coerce any activity by labeling it a tax. There are only two ways to change that: 1) a court ruling that overturns that decision (which suggests the appointment of a new justice favorable to such a decision; and 2) a Constitutional amendment.fickman wrote:Congress can essentially tax anything. There is no revolution to be had. . . this time (unlike under King George), we had representation. If we don't like it, we have recourse.
That's a nice theory but the system is rigged to prevent it.fickman wrote:I really think this is the conclusion Roberts is hoping to drive us to. I don't like the results of his vote, but he might have been right to cast it. We shouldn't cross our fingers and hope the courts protect us from the people we elect. We should elect better people.
The SC isn't the childproofing mechanism to save the electorate from those we elect. People (preaching to the choir here) need to realize that what they do in the ballot box really does impact life, our future, and our vitality as a nation. The masses were very flippant with their votes in 2008, and we don't presently have a mop big enough for the mess it created.