The Constitutional Importance of the ObamaCare Ruling

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Pages: 1 2

The United States Supreme Court has finally spoken on the constitutionality of Obamacare, particularly its core provision – the so-called individual mandate under which most Americans must buy health care insurance with at least the minimum amount of coverage stipulated by the federal government or pay a fine.  The Supreme Court upheld the mandate on the grounds that it is within the taxing authority of Congress (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Chief Justice John Roberts provided the swing vote to give the liberal justices on the bench the majority they needed to uphold the controversial law.

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, he concluded that “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Although the Obama administration had tried to characterize the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under the separate Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, §8, clause 3), Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion rejected that approach and opted to call the fine, imposed on individuals who decide not to buy health insurance despite the mandate, a tax.

This sets up a very interesting political dynamic for this year’s presidential campaign. President Obama can claim a victory on the substance of his health care law. His most significant domestic policy achievement has now been declared constitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court led by the normally conservative Chief Justice.  On the other hand, Obama can no longer duck the reality that Obamacare is built on the foundation of huge tax increases that affect virtually all Americans. Furthermore, the left’s incessant attacks against the court and the right as of late — that the conservative Supreme Court has become corrupted by “politicalization” and “activism” — have suddenly become obsolete and exposed as hypocritical. After a slim 5-4 ruling, of the kind leftists typically scorn as illegitimate, The New York TimesEthan Bronner is now opining on the Roberts court’s “balance” and judiciousness. Robert Shrum at the Daily Beast praised the split decision as “clear and compelling,” where before he was anxious to lead the offensive against the “Tea Party Supreme Court” and the “five horsemen of  the judicial right.” Much has changed in a single day.

The first impression, and the one that is being played out in the mainstream media, is that Chief Justice Roberts had some sort of epiphany and saw the logic of the left’s arguments in upholding Obamacare. Yet while the outcome supported by Chief Justice Roberts certainly looks that way and is disappointing to many conservatives, the Chief Justice included a number of nuggets in his opinion that will serve conservatives well in future cases.

Indeed, although the Obama administration won the day in terms of the constitutional validation of Obamacare by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion lays down some important markers regarding the core constitutional principle of enumerated federal powers. This may be useful in the event of any future attempts by a left-leaning Congress to push beyond discernible limitations on its power under the Commerce Clause in order to regulate the everyday lives of the American people.

“If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.”

Chief Justice Roberts also lays down a marker on the principle of federalism – the relationship between the federal and state governments:

Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed.

The federalism issue comes into play on the separate constitutional question dealing with Medicaid expansion and penalties placed upon states that decline to spend more of their own money to pay for expanded health insurance coverage. His opinion places limits on how far the federal government could impose its policies on the states.

Thus, while the final outcome of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare is disappointing and was reached by the circuitous route of relying on Congress’ broad taxing authority (even though Congress and the Obama administration had labored to avoid the tax nomenclature in the statute in favor of the term “penalty”), in the long run Chief Justice Roberts accomplished two key objectives. He shielded the legitimacy of the Supreme Court from partisan attacks that would have been generated from the White House, Congressional Democrats, the mainstream media and their colleagues on the Left accusing the Court of unbridled judicial activism.  Second, as discussed below, he used the opinion as an occasion to reinforce core conservative constitutional principles regarding limitations on congressional power affecting individuals and the states.

In first dealing with the argument that the Commerce Clause provided a constitutional basis for the Obamacare individual mandate, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion rejected this argument but walked a fine line. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the precedents greatly expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause over economic activities that individually, or in the aggregate, may have an effect on interstate commerce. He did not seek to reverse or erode any of those precedents – a demonstration of respect for well-established Supreme Court precedents (stare decisis) and judicial restraint. However, he declared for the first time in a major Supreme Court opinion that there is a substantive difference between regulating activity and inactivity, which has constitutional significance:

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce”…The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous…. The language of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated.

Based on this reasoning, Justice Roberts’ opinion concluded that since the individual mandate did not regulate existing activity, but instead “compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,” it could not be justified as a valid exercise of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause (emphasis in the original).

Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him

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.

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.

The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”

The Chief Justice’s opinion also concluded that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, §8, clause 18) as an essential component of the health insurance reforms. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

As he did in dealing with Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause, Roberts did not seek to reverse or erode any Supreme Court precedents interpreting the reach of the Necessary and Proper Clause. He acknowledged that these precedents have been very deferential to Congress’ determination that a regulation is “necessary.” However, like the Commerce Clause, there are limits on what Congress may do under the Necessary and Proper Clause. He held that the individual mandate went too far.

Pages: 1 2

  • Steeloak

    Don't you think Joe, that Robert's twisted reasoning in upholding Obamacare by finding that the penalty is a tax & under the taxing authority of congress leaves the barn door wide open to any future congress to pass unconstitutional mandates, as long as they have a penalty for non-compliance?

    Indeed, my reading of the opinions was that even the dissenters had no problem with a mandate if it is specifically promoted as a tax – ie, you can pay this tax, or you can do x if you don't want to pay the tax. To word it in terms of Obamacare – if you don't have insurance, you must pay this tax or you can buy this government approved insurance if you don't want to pay the tax. Written that way, the court would have found no problem with a mandate as I read the decision & dissent.

    • jazz

      Like Obama ordering everyone to buy a Chevy Volt ?

      He won't be able to make it a law but could he add a $10,000 penalty /tax per year for those that don't buy a Volt ?

    • Steve Chavez

      Just thought of this: I thought Obama and the Democrats were PRO-CHOICE? "IT'S MY BODY NOT YOURS!"

      • Roger

        Yes. And if you always make the right choices you can avoid their punishing taxes. Thank you Roberts, you are a disgrace. The only thing you could do worse than the damage you did on these rulings last week is to resign so Obama can put an even more obvious hack in.

  • Jim

    So a penalty is a tax. If he wanted to save the Supreme Court's reputation did he have to mangle the English language to do it? But if it is a tax like all taxes we pay we are assured that it brings a benefit. So what is the benefit? Does the penalty or tax payer now get free health care ? Does he just pay the penalty but get no health care?
    If he gets nothing for his penalty or tax he will still get free health care. Suppose he reports to the emergency room so sick that his costs are more than the penalty or tax.

    What if he has no money to pay for the premium or the tax or the penalty?
    Perhaps he goes to jail. Good solution he can get medical care there even can go to the hospital.

  • Anamah

    So the infamous so called Obama Care was not about public health care… but yes, about taxes, despite the president specific and repeated denial! So we have here, in reality a new Obama Tax, clearly an obvious a new big fat presidential lie, unmasked … for everybody to see! So has Judge Roberts today sent the ball in return to the Congress to take charge of this one so massive and expensive tax under disguise; as they should treat all taxes legislation, or not??? Am I dreaming?

  • oldtimer

    I don't understand the use of tax. I thought a tax was on something like realestate tax, income tax, sales tax. How can you tax nothing?

    • oldtimer

      To clarify, I am against Obamacare. No one should be forced by the government to buy anything. I am glad that the SC said it was a tax because it hurts obama and his promise not to raise taxes on middle class.

      • Roger

        Clearly you would never be a good justice under this dictator.

    • jazz

      The term tax was applied by the SCOTUS. It is a penalty of $3,800 you pay 1 time a year if you seek medical treatment and have no insurance .If you carry insurance there is no direct tax/penalty.

      BUT in 2014 all new taxes associated with Obamacare will be ineffect.Info is scattered on these since many don't fall under departments of HHS.I keep reading there are 12-17 new taxes associated with Obamacare.From food to luxuries ,alcohol,smoking,insurance companies ,medical equipment and supplies,birth control,car insurance ………..rumors are rampant right now so the truth can be avoided in an election year .

      • oldtimer

        What your are saying is that there are many "hidden" taxes within this law, so, this may be how the SC determined that this is a tax. Good to know about this. Only proves the whole thing to be one big lie, and a disguised huge tax increase on everyone, and the breaking of Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Show your outrage in November!

        • akreynin

          You made a good point, oldtimer.

        • johnnywoods

          Hey oldtimer, you are not just discovering that our PODUS is a liar, are you. He is a communist ,mooslim and a democrap so yes he is a liar and his promises come with expiration dates.

  • RonaldCarnine

    I'm a retired law enforcement officer. I live on a 1500 a month disability pension (lost a leg in the line of duty). I do not have health insurance. Why? because first of all I can't get anyone to insure me and second, I couldn't afford it even if I could get it. So where does that leave me? I can't afford anything else coming out of my pension so I have no intention of buying it. I was at least hoping that there would be a jail sentence for not buying into Obamacare so that I could get medical care from the prison authorities. So guys and gals, what do I do now?

    • jazz

      Hospitals cannot refuse to treat you.
      Insurance under medicaid or medicare should be available to you now.You have to know your state's medicaid rules.

      The tax/penalty is $3,800 per person,per year .Once you are assessed the penalty (IRS manages it) you should be able to get treatment .

      Obamacare promises no one can be denied insurance on preexisting conditions.BUT insurance premiums are going to rise up to an average of 1/4 of a family's income because of multiple new taxes on insurance companies ,premiums etc..I have no idea on single rates but there will be 4 levels of cost/care.

      Becareful if you are 65+ .They are hitting different types of policies at different increase and tax rates.My 75 year old father carries good healthcare and nursing home insurance .It went from $350 a month to almost $500 already.It will rise again when the new taxes ( tax on insurance companies and premiums )kick in 2014.

      There is no cap on insurance premiums.

    • Trickyblain

      You get a federal subsidy. That's what the individual mandate pays for and a big reason it was an essential part of the act.

    • mlcblog

      get a job?

    • kendrick1

      There is one debilitating disease running rampant in this nation that Obamacare doesn’t cover – the degeneration of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!

    • Steve

      OK, I am going to call it…Liar, liar, pants on fire!!! In what state or county is a "Law Enforcement" officer, wounded and disabled in the line of duty, just getting $1,500 per month pension? This guy is a fake and so is his story. Unless of course you were a deputy for some small hick town, population of 3. Give me a break!

    • pxxat5

      Apply for disability , under Social Security. The loss of a leg , a hand, a foot, an eye constitute a partial payment of your life insurance policy benefits , carried by most municipal employer

      • amused

        glad somebody's bullshheet detector went off on that phony violin story . btw SSDI applies no matter what the age or how small a town nor the circumstances of how the physical condition came about . You are automatically eligible for Medicare .

  • Bobby195

    This is a very important decision in that as Joe stated has basically thrown the ball back into the Democrats court. The mandate remains illegal and instead makes it a tax in which the President and the Democrat congress tried so hard to claim it wasn't. President Obama now owns the AHA lock, stock and barrel and it is now the largest tax increase ever placed on the American taxpayer. The ruling cuts to the core and exposes it as the tax it always was, talk about a trojan horse……..and the Dems are already riding it around the Whitehouse. AMAZING………
    Obama and the Democrats are the problem and it is up American people to vote the SOB's out of office in November and take care of the law then. If the SC would have declared the AHA unconstitutional we would have had another Bush/Gore scenario and we are still hearing about that. Another words folks, Register and Vote as if your country depended on it, because it does!!!!!!!!!

    • johnnywoods

      Bobby, If the average American was not govt. educated down to the level considered to be "brain dead" we would never have had this case as this law would not have seen the light of day.

  • davarino

    Yes, twisted logic. Its twisted logic to tax the nation and dole the money back to us, after they take their cut, and say we can have it for Medicare if we pitch in more of our own money. And then take it away, which was our own money, if we dont abide by this new twisted 2000 page laviathan. Ones head can explode if you try to keep up with the lawyerly mindset. Oh well, its left to us to protect ourselves by taking down this monster on our own.

    Oh, I just remembered, wasnt it Roberts that had to swear in Obama a second time behind closed doors? Hmmmm interesting

  • Jay

    If the BIGGEST tax mess in America's history does not get the TEA PARTY fired up I do not know what will!

    • BS77

      Yes, this is what our society needs(sarcasm intended)….more taxes!! We pay income tax, property tax, sales tax, state tax, permit and .license fees (taxes)…we pay enormous fuel and energy taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes and on and on it goes. Now we will have to pay MORE for this out of control Orwellian Nanny State. THe taxes paid less than 100 years ago were a pittance compared to today's Euro Socialist levels…..Also, the same old hard working middle class and working poor will be footing the bill, as usual, to pay for the freeloaders, the "entitlement" types, the welfare addicts and the fifty million on food stamps….not to mention all the illegals. Is this the same country that won world war II????????

      • BS77

        I apologize for ranting…sorry for the remarks about entitlement types, welfare addicts and so on…..I could be right there….
        life is very hard for millions of Americans these days….it can be tough!!! Sorry.

      • kendrick1

        “The vast majority of current programs (126 in all) are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.” “Poverty rate has remained constant.” From a study By the Cato Institute, released June 2012

    • Fred Dawes

      The tea party is owned by the obama monkeys see it for what it is.

  • Adam

    Enough of the Bull Sh**. People trying to frame this as a win for America or Conservatism are full of sh**. What happened here was more unification of the three branches under the Executive control. We for the first time in US history got to witness the President's Solicitor General make and influence a ruling from with in. How this is a good thing is beyond my comprehension. No one will be swayed with the argument that Obama raised taxes because those who dislike higher taxes don't have the PR machine that those who support higher taxes have. We have a crappier version of the RINO McCain running who will barely scratch the surface of these atrocities of Freedom.

    • richard


    • Roger

      The dictator consolidates power.
      Our last hope was the courts, we know better than to trust Boehner.

      And that's been taken from us too.

      Roberts is a disgrace, not just for this ruling but the other ones as well. On the EPA and Arizona too!

      • Looking4Sanity

        Actually, our "last hope" is the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment. I have been anticipating this eventuality for many years now. It's only a matter of time. The lid cannot possibly stay on this boiling cauldron for much longer. Patience is NOT a limitless resource, and good will toward usurping traitors is NOT a "civil right". Eventually these Commies are going to learn the REAL meaning of "social justice"…and they aren't going to like it one bit.

        • Roger

          The liberals do have a strange sense of 'justice' don't they?

          • Looking4Sanity

            When TSHTF, little turds like him will get flushed right along with all the other garbage in this country, and around the world for that matter. I can't get too worked up over someone that stupid when I already know what their fate is going to be. There's only one Muslim that concerns me right now, and we need to concentrate on getting him out of the White House this November.WeeWienie made himself irrelevant long ago and is not even important enough to have earned the title “small potatoes”. He is not really very good for amusement purposes. He's just an offensive little venereal wart that everyone wishes would just go away but never does.

          • Roger

            Yes, you have wee wee down perfectly!

          • Roger

            Why? Outside the muslim sphere of influence we have willing women.

  • rtbwood

    So this "good news" is now we have basically an ignorant electorate who watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC and they are going to save us from Obama. Really? Add to that SEIU, NAACP, LaRaza, and thousands upon thousands of dead voters and you think we will survive this massive voter fraud? You're dreaming and not in the real world. This is why Republicans MUST have voter id laws to keep the Dems from stealing this election.

    • lovethyneighbor

      Not only do they feed off the flesh of the living, they also vote for candidates you don't like and watch real news, instead of the opinion/junk that Fox News churns out! Be prepared for the horror of…. Election Day of the Living Dead!

      • rtbwood

        I don't watch Fox News. Can't stand O'Reilly, Shep Smith. I get all my news off the internet. So the others are "real news"? They didn't even cover Fast and Furious until the AG actually got held in contempt of congress.

        • kendrick1

          From your tone you are either a government employee, or have a job with a non-profit organization that is funded, at least partially by the government, or are on the "draw"! Which are you?

    • Mach1Duck

      Don't bash the dead voters or Holder will be at your doorstep.

  • tagalog

    If the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a tax, then the Obamacare statute began as a revenue-raising bill in the Senate. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, such bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Isn't Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate part, unconstitutional because of that?

  • Steve Chavez


    *I just got in a CAR ACCIDENT so I had the tow truck driver take my car to my insurance company. "I just got in an accident and I want to buy a policy under 'pre-existing condition' and you can't turn me down thanks to ObamaCar."—- "Oh, okay. Your first monthly premium is $86 and your deductible is $500. So I will now total out your car and here's your check for $40,000. Thank you for signing up with us. NEXT."

    ***I had to call 911 this morning and the ambulance took me first to a Health Insurance provider. "I just had a heart attack and I need to buy a plan under 'pre-existing' condition and I might even need a heart transplant."—"Oh, okay. Your first month premium is $300 and you will now be able to get a heart transplant at $300,000 that we will gladly pay for. Thank you NEXT. Another heart transplant? Sure, here's your $300,000. Thank you NEXT."



    • Adam

      They will go out of business per the design of this bill. Once the last one folds, Nana Government will be their to rescue the country with Socialist bandaid.

    • Roger

      All that makes sense, but facts have nothing to do with this.

      Ask any liberal.

    • kendrick1

      And after receiving those proceeds, they will pay for a month or so and then cancel their policy!

  • Asher

    Justice Roberts just gave the GOP a huge megaphone in determining that Obama care is a tax…Well it always has been a tax that penalized the Middle Class and the rich forcing them to pay for Obama care for other people who don’t pay taxes or have jobs, plus costing employers through the nose, hurting the economy even more. Saying Taxation in this economy is fatal for the Democrats….and lack of transparency in passing this bill, by not reading it first. Now, those who are getting Obama care will use the ER as their primary care for a hangnail or a cold, crowding out others will real emergencies who will have to wait in line for care…This does not provide quality care for all…What a deception.

    • Roger

      Roberts is there to protect the constitution and our rights under it.

      Politics never should enter the picture where the courts are involved.
      That's why he is ruined as far as any sort of credible jurist.

    • kendrick1

      Half of the population of the U.S. is FORCED to support the other half. The middle class is in the half that supports the other half with money TAKEN from them. The middle class VOLUNTARILY spends much of their remaining money with the half that does the supporting.

      Which are you happier doing — being FORCED to spend or VOLUNTARILY spending?

  • Asher

    Justice Roberts just gave the GOP a huge microphone for their elections by stating Obama care is a tax, and kept the Constitution in place. Well Obama care has always been a tax from the beginning and was not passed with transparency by not reading the bill first, the burden has been laid on the Middle Class, and the rich to pay for those 13 or 14 million who don't pay taxes or have jobs to get free care….. Say Taxation in this economy with food, gas, clothing, and durable goods prices going up, and the people will rebel…not good news for the Dems. Now those that now have Obama care will go to the ER for their primary care, for a hangnail, or cold, crowding out others who may have real emergencies, who will have to stand in line…This is not quality healthcare for all…what a deception.

    • Roger

      Perhaps, in the same way Dredd Scott gave the abolitionists a microphone against slavery.

      It's still a horrible ruling and Roberts should have resigned before handing this down. I don't know why he went against everything he has previously stood for, but he is now a disgrace and will never be able to salvage his legacy beyond this.

  • clancy

    Social Security was also approved by the Supreme Court. Look where we are now with that program. Goodbye America, It was nice knowing you.

    • kendrick1

      This upcoming election will produce no different conditions if we don't get out and campaign! Donate! Go door to door! Ask people to vote! Ask if they are registered to vote! Register them yourself! Drive them to the polls! A click of the mouse won’t do it! We can't just sit at our internet! We may not have it much longer if we get a Deja Vu!!!

      I don’t want to live on my knees, do you?

      If we don't quit straightening the deck chairs while the ship is sinking, I'm afraid our nation is sick to death!!

      • WilliamJamesWard

        You are right kendrick 1 and I push people to take active interest in our political situation
        and get out the vote for conservative candidates and positions………………William

  • linda cooper

    This decision by Chief Justice Roberts is silly.
    All the Democrats have to do is change the nomenclature from "tax" to another nice sounding
    name. And they will certainly do this.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Obama care will have us all sick before it is all over, November the voters should show him the
    door. The uninsured use emergency rooms and never pay a dime as it is, having us pay their
    way with taxation bails out the Hospitals but even with insurance the cost is a heavy burden.
    Medical care is out of touch with financial reality, I doubt it is worth the cost………..William

  • Linda Rivera

    INFERIOR OBAMACARE doesn't cover alternative health treatments! Inferior Obamacare wants you to have severely damaging treatments for cancer: CHEMOTHERAPY and RADIATION.
    Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, "Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells," published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy…

    A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality. The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

    • kendrick1

      Another debilitating disease running rampant in our nation that won't be covered by Obamacare is the degeneration of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

      e.g., “The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.” “Poverty rate has remained constant.” From a study By the Cato Institute, released June 2012

  • Linda Rivera



    Is this REALLY our AMERICA??????

    Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 – Key Points

  • Linda Rivera


    Massive spending as if there is no tomorrow. Fighting wars we have no money for. Massive borrowing.

    The Massive giving away of BILLIONS of dollars every year to other countries, including the OIL-WEALTHY Middle East, Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Palestinian Authority organization who fill their war chests, build mansions and LAUGH all the way to the bank with FREE INFIDEL MONEY. Whilst in America, homeless shelters are filled to capacity; tent cities have sprung up all over the U.S. filled with desperate, jobless, homeless Americans.

    Massive debt. The MASSIVE printing of paper money out of thin air to DELIBERATELY create out-of-control inflation. There is no question that the total DESTRUCTION of America's economy is PLANNED. The results will be horrifying. In the once wealthy and great nation of America, millions of Americans will become destitute, hungry and homeless with no money or resources to help them.

  • Linda Rivera

    Organic, non-GMO avocado, fruit and nut trees and berries must be planted in all of our nation’s cities’ and towns’ parks to help the many millions of Americans who will soon be in a desperate struggle to survive because of the frightening, highly destructive economic policies of our government.

    Watch it. And weep for our great nation and people:

    FALL Of The Republic – The Presidency Of Barack H Obama – The Full Movie HQ

  • Linda Rivera

    Awesome One Minute VIDEO REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!
    America Crossroads: Operation Hot Mic

  • Linda Rivera

    Mike Adams of

    Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want.
    Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.

    Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."

    Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural
    remedies or the healing arts.It forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery…

  • hajid

    So the mandate is a penalty tax for people who don't comply to the Obama care and the other taxes (income, medicare, social security, etc.) are penalty taxes for people who abide by the law. Apparently submission to the left is a political disease that's spreading all over the government.

  • Paul M. Neville

    All of that great language is just dicta which can be ignored by the lower courts.

    • Roger

      Can you explain that?

  • Fred Dawes

    "Its over", the country is in the hands of our enemies from this point on the powers to be will tax us to death and the bankers will just take what the bankers want.
    People like the LaRaza monkeys will just take you down a road to the camp system for reeducation and to transform us all into good little communists, its time for Real Americans to start to see it for what it is total Fascism and the rule of the monkey mob.

  • effemall

    Maybe this is, in the end, good for the country. It will now wake up and enrage enough Americans to throw the bum out in November.

  • Old_Blue_64

    Nice try, Joe, but it doesn't work. All of the "restrictions" Roberts put on the federal goliath are completely overturned by what he said, in effect, that the restrictions don't count, since we can override them by calling any part of the law something other than what it is. Thus, he shuts a window, but opens the barn door. In my view, Roberts has disgraced both himself and the court. For the rest of his career, even if he votes with the conservatives every time, he will not undo the damage to his reputation that this has done. He's now the Bill Buckner of jurisprudence. Buckner was a very good ballplayer who got lots of hits and fielded well, but all he will ever be remembered for is the botched ground ball in the World Series. It will be the same for Roberts. His reputation is in ruins, and cannot be repaired.

  • James Denney

    The problem with this defense of Roberts is that it ignores the central problem: Roberts has furthered the judicial activists' damage to the Constitution. It's not about Obamacare, it's about the Constitution. Now, the taxing authority can be substituted for the commerce clause, and the statists can be assured that there is no originalist majority on the Supreme Court that will do anything to stop them in their efforts to establish utopia. WHat ever happened to the concept that the Constitution was a document that LIMITED the authority of government?.

  • Amused

    Oh the whining and handwringing ! For months y'all were screeching Obama care "UNCONSTITUTIONAL " , and that the Supreme Court would surely strike it down . Well NOW that it has been ruled CONSTITUTIONAL , now comes the backspin and denigration of SCOTUS , not to mention the demeaning remarks about Roberts . He was ONE VOTE , was there not a MAJORITY that deemed it Constitutional ?
    NOW the SCOTUS is "activist " ?? But when it ruled corporations are people too …..that was not activist ?
    I've never seen such a concentrated clump of hypocrites , that is unless I go to the Lefty blogs , where the hypocrisy is just as evident . Well WHINE ON whiners . We got a way to go before we'll get to see what Republicans have to offer in the way of solving the BROKEN health care system .

    • pxxat5

      Yes we whine when the fundamental principals of the Constitution is mangled by a SCOTUS judge to reach a decision that is not even plausible…YOU CAN NOT CHALLENGE CONGRESS AUTHORITY TO TAX, the federal courts will not hear the motion, your suit would be vacated and not heard. ObamaCare was ruled on in several lower federal courts as an over reach of the Commerce Powers of the United States , before being accepted by the SCOTUS, No other federal court or judge , and eight of the SCOTUS judges saw a Congressional Tax authority issue, neither did the POTUS, The DEMS ,legal scholars, or any other party to this case….Only in the Mind of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the Honorable Justice Roberts DOES IT EXIST;
      And business wise Corporations have always been considered legally to be persons under the laws of the United States, and are due the full legal, property and commerce rights of any citizen.

      • amused

        yea so they can behave like ALEC .And NOI , they have not been considered persons in regards to campaign contributions , until the "today much derided "SCOTUS , made the ruling .Following your reasoning , then we should be happy that corporations join groups like ALEC ,and literally pay huge sums to buy legislation across the country [yea thats right ACROSS THE COUNTRY ] from price regulation , environmental , trade , and anything else that is advantageous to their profits .
        I'm amazed at how people in this countyry juist bend over before the Southern Elitists .LOL…and ask for more . btw …THAT'S what SCOTUS did when the made the ruling on said campaign contribution .

  • kbs55

    Obama’s war against the poor, elderly, and disabled by increasing taxes is because of the Obamacare regulations, and Cost Control Panels (Death Panels). Obama talks class warfare, but he is actually after the middle class, the working poor and those on fixed incomesEnter text right here!

  • MKS

    In order to support the U.S. livestock and dairy industry, a citizen must buy 75 pounds of fresh meat and 20 gallons of milk per year, or face a ruinous penalty (i.e., a tax) – regardless of the fact that the citizen is a vegetarian.

    In order to support U.S. higher education, a citizen must buy 100 tickets from any state lottery that contributes to scholarships, or face a ruinous penalty – regardless of the fact that the citizen is opposed to gambling.

    One tax is paid to private companies. Another to state governments. And all as federal "mandates".

    The illustrations are abundant. The ramifications are troubling.

  • fmobler

    Roberts reasoned that the 'penalty' is within the taxing power of the Congress. To make this step, he needed also to reason that politicians can lie about their intentions and still tax us even while saying it is not a tax. This (Roberts') reasoning seems very conservative to me. He does not care what comes out of a politician's mouth. He only cares about the legislation itself. And, for him, there is enough in the Act to convince him that it involves taxation.

    I think the fact that the Dems lied about their own intentions should be a scandal. But Roberts did not make it into a scandal. The conservatives on the court, on the other hand, chose to take Obama and the others at their word — treating them as if they were being honest. I don't see how that's better.

    I think the Act is a horrible idea, but not all horrible ideas are unconstitutional. I intend to do everything I can to defeat Obama and put an influential block of conservatives (within a Rep majority) into the two houses of congress. Then we can go about reforming health care in a way that does not break us. We already pay more per capita on health care than most developed countries. Obamacare makes that sharply worse. We need to toss it out politically, not via the court.

  • Ronald Johnston

    This judicial activism by roberts is illegal because the supreme court is duty bound to only interpret the constitution, not creats new laws!!!! This does not address the fact that all funding for anything by the federal government is by law started by the house of representatives.

  • Maxie

    ". . . Obama can no longer duck the reality that Obamacare is built on the foundation of huge tax increases that affect virtually all Americans."
    The tax burden will be only on the wealthy and the middle class and only the latter will suffer as a result.

    '. . . the left’s incessant attacks against the court and the right as of late — that the conservative Supreme Court has become corrupted by “politicalization” and “activism” — have suddenly become obsolete and exposed as hypocritical."
    Hypocritical is synonymous with Leftism. The Left will just shift its' anti-conservative hatred to some other trivial gripe.

    " Much has changed in a single day." No, substantively, nothing has changed.

  • giatny

    It might be comforting to dig for the positives but the fact remains that
    this ruling will keep Obama in the WH. There will be nothing left of
    freedom to save. The country seems to be sleeping through the complete annihilation of America. Obama has transferred near
    absolute control to the executive branch through his executive orders
    and regulations from agencies. He has usurped control of health care,
    mortgages, consumer credit, every drop of water, oil/gas development,
    student loans, immigration (i.e. amnesty), housing, banks, media and soon what little is left of freedom on the internet. In addition he is using the FBI, EPA, FCC, ICE, INS, et al as a police force in a manner that would make Stalin and Putin proud. The stupidity of the American people as a tyrant has taken over the country without a bullet is terrifying. Just as appalling he is sacrificing sovereignty to illegal
    immigrants, the U.N. and secret treaties with other nations.

  • Amused

    Fear mongering and paranoia , the nuts and bolts of the conservative machine .No solutions , no alternatives , just contemptuous contentiousness .That's all you got . Maintain the status quo of corporations raping the country, and bending people like you over . The corporations are making your legislation vis-a-vis organzations like ALEC , and now exposed watch the cockroaches exiting that "alliance " . All those US jobs that went overseas didn't leave at the start of this Administration , nor did the huge trade deficit wth China . They repealed Glass/Steigle and look what resulted ? You mention "the stupidity of the American people " yea you're right , the Southern elitists have got you bent over a barrel and you scream for more ! LOL…."it's your G_D given right …aint it ? That which almost brought down the country's economy in '08 is being played again right before your eye's AND WITH IMPUNITY as Jaimie Diamon still demands less regulation as his firm's losses now approach 9BILLION !! And you blame WHO ? What drugs are you on ?

    • mah29001

      Newsflash to Amused, Jaimie Diamon's corporation JPMorgan Chase was praised by Obama…..yep, the same Obama that wants this healthcare law passed, how much does one want to bet he's making deals with the same insurance companies he demonized to benefit off of his law? Yep, that must be fine, anything Obama does wrong is fine.

  • Amused

    Yea this country IS in trouble allright , as long as so many brainwashed conservatives keep shooting in the wrong direction . Thats what happens when they embark on a 4 yr nationwide pisssing contest .

  • mah29001

    I wouldn't have cared about the law in question….if we were not FORCED to have healthcare for those who could afford their own plans. I guess breaking due process is okay toward the folks on the Left, so long as it's in the name for equality for all. I'd rather have the law be rewritten so that only insurers won't drop people from their coverage, that'd have been fine.

  • Alexander

    Actually Roberts language in the opinion is a very strong message to congress that the Supreme Court will no longer tolerate expansion of Federal power under the guise of the commerce clause.This is a of critical importance ,because since the Roosevelt Administration ,the 11th Amendment has been the primary “Highway”under girding the vast expansion of federal power ..If progressives wish to expand the scope and reach of the central government they must do so under the blazing glare of a general taxing power (ie raise taxes).A far more dubious and difficult political proposition,for the left.Roberts majority opinion builds also on the Lopez and Morrison cases,and is that much more definitive and far more important then the nessecary and proper clause with regards to precedent.

  • Roger

    You muslim trolls just can't get the concept of sarcasm can you?

    And all because you didn't want your sexy goats sold as regular milk goats. Wee wee, you make this way to easy.

    Please, can't you just put the flask down and try to post your hate calmly?

  • Roger

    Poor wee wee, you just can't get that parallel profile right.

  • Jesusinator

    Yeah, listens and does what I say well

  • Roger

    Hey wee, you need to relax and have some laughs.

    Oops, did that get you all hot and bothered?

  • Sane

    Seems to me when you're called on your venom you hold it against them for years.

  • Sane

    You are so funny. Do you think anyone takes you seriously?

  • Roger

    You silly muslims. Just can't look at a naked goat without being bothered by it.

  • Roger

    I don't bother. I say what I mean and stick to it.

    One profile is enough, either you have brains or you don't.
    Silly wee wee.

  • Sane

    You really want him to mock you, don't you?

  • Sane

    Yes, the giggle of little girls embarrassed and not smart enough to realize it.

  • Sane

    You remind me of someone. But I don't want to insult them just because they're a bit dense.

  • trustfunded

    Have you considered training monkeys as a side job? Monkeys may be a little more difficult than Roger though.

  • Jesusinator

    Really? So I have this guy whi replies to all my comments even when I ignore him for days and you call it my venom?

  • Jesusinator

    The smart ones do.

  • Sane

    And most don't.

  • Jesusinator


  • trustfunded

    There's a meaningless comment. Grow a set and quit beating around the bush.

  • trustfunded

    The more Roger opens his mouth, the more of his foot he can consume.

  • Sane

    And who exactly is we?

  • Jesusinator

    Thanks for clearing that up. I have not seen him on here. Probably still complaing how he hates this country

  • Sane

    Yes, based on your comments.
    Go ahead and explain your hate for Jews and Christians.

    Your comment stream is amazing, even besides the way you reacted to the goat comments.
    It seems your goats mean a great deal to you, more than I can see you explain rationally.

  • Sane

    The two of you seem to speak with one voice.

    That's what Roger kept saying, that you were the same person.

  • Jesusinator

    You're welcome

  • Sane

    The more the three of you speak, the more you seem to be one voice.

  • Sane

    It's only meaningless by those too dense to comprehend.

    I guess we can tell the three here speaking as one voice are on that short list.

  • Sane

    Yet, you seemed to be trained properly.

  • Jesusinator

    I have. I started with roger to see how easy it was.

  • Jesusinator

    I don't like thieves.I don't have a thing against the Jewish people.I don't like the hypocritical christians. Like yourself. YOu are judging me

  • Roger

    Is that the best you can do?

    I joke about his goats being missing, and he knows exactly why he got so defensive.

  • Roger

    Actually I was busy laughing. For a non muslim you seem to get awfully defensive about them. I've been trying to expose that your hate isn't based on atheism but on a muslim slant. And that did it perfectly.

    The temper issue, that's another tell.

    Why do you come here and want to attack religion instead of discussing the real issues? If you advocate violence then rip on Christianity for violence, it just doesn't make sense on the face of it.

  • Roger

    I don't think so.

    Normal people aren't ruled by intense bigotry and call a small nation trying to defend itself against hostile neighbors 'child killers' the way he does.

  • Roger

    So you don't have a thing against Jews other than the ones that defend themselves from people approaching military checkpoints with a full bag of who know's what?

    Then it's fine to call them child killers?

    What other muslim rants are you going to use before you just admit that you have goats as a cultural thing as a muslim?

  • Roger

    Yes followed by another one that frankly didn't rate so high.

    Why don't you actually ever discuss issues? That's why the rest of us are here.
    Instead of being a parallel profile simply to prop up wee wee, why don't you broaden the profile and have it discuss issues?

  • Roger

    You're still pretending that declaring jihad on Christians makes you smart?

    Probably to the people who also care for their goats as much as you do.

    Are you still pretending Hitler was a Christian too?

  • Roger

    Another comment not designed to discuss the issues that this site is designed for.

    I would guess that put's you down with Wee's goats.

    The constitutional issues here in the story really should be the focus, if you can handle that as a parallel profile.

  • Roger

    Well, you were asking about the Bell curve further up. Know I know why it's such an issue for you.

    I'm sorry, I'm sure you do the best you can.

  • Roger

    Not unless wee allows them for you as a parallel profile.

    And yes, it's obvious he has trust fund profile simply so he can vote on comments again.

  • Roger

    And all you show is that you really care a lot about those goats.
    And you really care a lot about attacking Christianity and Jews.

    Why don't you just admit your muslim beliefs?

  • Jesusinator

    I have a problem with the israeli goverment. And that 13 year old school girl (who was not a threat) did not deserve to be shoot 30times at point blank range in the face after the guard post wounded her and said she was not a threat

  • Roger

    Any person carrying a bag full of anything towards a military checkpoint in time of hostilities is a threat.

    And where would you want the Jews to live? Inside the camps in Germany?

  • Jesusinator

    Are you still stealing?

  • Roger

    Sure, how nice for her.
    Too bad it doesn't carry over to debate style.

  • Roger

    Stealing what?

    Your thunder and ability to smear and attack the values of the west?

  • Jesusinator

    I realize that. So did they which is why they shot the bag and determined it was not a threat then shot her and wounded her then walked over to her and emptied an ak-47 in her face.The Jews can live in israel. Just get rid of their goverenment.

  • Roger

    If only she had stopped instead of appearing to act like a person with a suicide vest.

    Those darned muslims, don't they value life at all?
    Or do they save that for their goats?

  • Jesusinator

    She did stop moron. She was lost and scared. You're a f u cking POS for even defending them

  • Roger

    Eventually she did. But not soon enough or far enough away. But the IDF knowing how muslim militants are in using women and children took steps to protect themselves.

    Why are you defending the militants in Gaza that demand suicide bombers for tactical reasons instead of valuing their people?

  • Jesusinator

    People have a right to know what you are.Bye Roger. I will go enjoy the rest of my week off

  • Roger

    The rest of your week? This is friday and you always have weekends off.