Why Chief Justice Roberts Made The Right Long Term Decision with Obamacare

By now I'm sure almost everyone interested in the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare is aware that Chief Justice Roberts is the "Conservative" (and I use that word very loosely) judge that jumped ship and voted to uphold it. All day I have been a little down about the ruling. I have heard the opinions of almost every talking head out there regarding the ruling, and yet I still felt that I was missing something.

There is much more to this ruling than meets the eye. While Liberals around the nation celebrate their "victory", and focus on the fact that the health care law was ruled Constitutional, they are failing to realize what exactly was deemed Constitutional. The original argument for the mandate was the Commerce Clause, and Obama, along with EVERY Progressive Liberal in the nation swore up and down that the penalty for not complying with the mandate WAS NOT a tax. Well, SCOTUS ruled today that the individual mandate was indeed unconstitutional, so there's one mark against Obama. This ruling means that the U.S. Government will NEVER be able to mandate that Americans buy anything... ever. Instead, the court ruled that the penalty was indeed a tax, and because the federal government has the constitutional power to levy taxes, that the law was constitutional. This is a very important distinction, and it makes Obama and the other supporters of the law look like liars and hypocrites, and the best thing is that now there is a SCOTUS ruling that verifies that, and it will be there forever. The other interesting outcome is that before today's ruling, some individual states said that they would not participate in Obamacare. The federal government then threatened to with hold a states Medicare/Medicaid money as a result. Well, that was deemed unconstitutional today in the ruling, so now a state can decide to not participate at all, without any penalty. Basically, what Chief Justice Roberts did today was brilliant, in the long run, and liberty loving Americans everywhere should be thanking him.

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 threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner. Brilliant.

Link to article

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Is this saying, then, that each state has the option of not enforcing this cataclysm on it's citizens?

If so, then we have roughly two years to write/call/visit our Senators, Representatives and Governors and strongly encourage them to reject it.

Just for argument's sake, what would happen if, against the odds, all 50 states opted out of this plan?

edit: Since it's unconstitutional for them to withhold Medicare/Medicaid money for non-compliance, does that also mean that they cannot withhold funding for roads, schools and other stuff that they have strong-armed states with in the past?

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Is this saying, then, that each state has the option of not enforcing this cataclysm on it's citizens?

If so, then we have roughly two years to write/call/visit our Senators, Representatives and Governors and strongly encourage them to reject it.

Just for argument's sake, what would happen if, against the odds, all 50 states opted out of this plan?

Yes...

It also means that if you don't like what your state does to support the law, elect different governors and representatives, or move to another state.



~Namaste

reply to post by N3k9Ni


That's the big question... if several states opt out, or more accurately tell the FedGov to go screw themselves, then it isn't national healthcare. I can't wait to see how this unfolds.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Is this saying, then, that each state has the option of not enforcing this cataclysm on it's citizens?

If so, then we have roughly two years to write/call/visit our Senators, Representatives and Governors and strongly encourage them to reject it.

Just for argument's sake, what would happen if, against the odds, all 50 states opted out of this plan?

Yes...

It also means that if you don't like what your state does to support the law, elect different governors and representatives, or move to another state.

~Namaste

Exactly right!! This ruling just gave the states back a lot of their power, that is if the state legislatures and Governors see it. I think there will be many states voting to nullify the law altogether, and without ANY penalty!

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Just for argument's sake, what would happen if, against the odds, all 50 states opted out of this plan?
?

edit on 28-6-2012 by N3k9Ni because: (no reason given)

That would be epic. And Obama/ his colleagues would be royally humiliated.
But I would say they would find some other way to force it upon us.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


This sounds vaguely familiar to the National ID Act that Bush tried to push on us a few years ago. Last I heard, nobody would do it and, as far as I know, it kinda withered on the vine.

reply to post by N3k9Ni


IT is only the current levels of Medicaid money that cannot be withheld. The Government gives the States loads of other funds that can and will be withheld. Need a new prison? Need a new highway? Your bridge needs repair? Well then when you start to comply with the ACA we will discuss it. That is about how the conversation will go.