Alfred,Much of the constitution has been abolished? Really? Like
the bicameral legislature, the executive, the supreme court, the bill of rights,
etc.? None of these are All of these are gone? Hardly.In the
legislative process, bills originate in both houses and go back and forth. The
rest is nomenclature. If the origination of the ACA were so problematic, then
that would have been the basis for rejection by the court. It was not. The
same applies to the 10th Amendment and the tax anti-injunction act.Roberts was right (as were the founders). The real ability to limit the scope
of govt. is with the people via the ballot box.THAT is the
constitutional solution. Any other solution is outside of the constitution.We cannot save the constitution by going outside of it. That would
destroy it. If we are intent on saving the constitution, then we must always
keep our actions within the constitutional framework.Anything else
is a betrayal of the constitution and its framers.
I currently have much more confidence in the broken system in Washington than I
have in the corrupt actions coming from our own state legislative offices.
There is no balance in Utah politics, absolutely no checks in place to prevent
corruption...closed caucuses, shutting down access to public records,
@Fitz:"The headline asks the question ‘After Court's
ruling, is Congress' taxing power now unlimited?’ The answer only
takes one word. The answer is simply, Yes."So, the next question
has to be... what about the Tenth Amendment... has it been totally invalidated?
@Twin Lights:"So we should abolish the constitution and
institute a new government? Would that not be treason?"Much of
the Constitution has already been abolished.Firstly, all tax bills
are supposed to originate in the House. Obamacare originated in the Senate.
The reason Senators elected to start it in the Senate is because they labeled
the government revenue collection as a 'penalty' and not a
'tax.' The Supreme Court called it a tax. Realistically the whole
thing should have been summarily tossed by the on this point and remanded back
to the Congress to correct the action. But it wasn't.Secondly,
the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government to those listed.
This provision is basically irrelevant because, as we see with the Obamacare
decision the powers of Congress are boundless.And thirdly, the tax
anti-injunction law has been violated. This law prohibits a court from hearing
and judging a case involving taxes until the tax in question has been paid. The
'tax' in the Obamacare case will not start being paid (collected)
until 2014.These are significantly large chunks out of our
Constitution. Surely the thing is hanging by the tiniest of threads.
The headline asks the question ‘After Court's ruling, is
Congress' taxing power now unlimited?’ The answer only takes one
word. The answer is simply, Yes. And just to point out that this
answer is shared by others, there was a WSJ op-ed piece last week that agrees
with this answer.
JohnH,So we should abolish the constitution and institute a new
government?Would that not be treason?
Time for all Americans to re-read the Declaration of Independence. As for this
government it's long since time for the people to "alter or abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
@Hutterite:"It can vote on LAW, not political
affiliation."The problem is, the court didn't vote on the
law... The court rewrote the law, then voted. It changed the word
'penalty' to 'tax.'Yeah, I know. Roberts merely
stated that the individual mandate 'penalty' could be collected under
Congress's authority to 'tax.' Dah! It's fairly obvious
that Congress can tax almost any activity and that Roberts didn't have to
address Congressional taxing authority. What was expected is for the court to
tell us whether or not the government penalize (or tax) inactivity... i.e., can
the government force citizens to buy something such as a GM (Government Motors)
car, broccoli, or health insurance? Apparently it can. By the Roberts decision
America has entered into a new realm of creeping socialism and total government
control of our lives.
We need to keep things in perspective. First we needed to move forward on health
care. Kicking and screaming it is, but we needed to move forward. Second, we
need to stop expecting the supreme court to be a political lap dog. It can vote
on LAW, not political affiliation.
Stephenson would be flabbergasted at any decision that is not far right extreme.
Hardly a voice of reason. Get over it, folks, and move on.
Howard Stephenson is Grover Norquist's representative in Utah.
"Obamacare began its legislative journey in the Senate, which means its
passage may have violated the Constitution."Slick politicians
have their methods. The House originated a bill which the Senate totally gutted
except for the bill number then inserted Obamacare. So, essentially the
'bill' originated in the House but the Senate supplied all the words.
The proviso in the Constitution that all tax bills originate in the House has
been totally nullified.And, with the recent Court ruling on
Obamacare, there is no power or authority that the federal government cannot
exercise despite the limitations of federal power perceived by the Founding
Fathers as spelled out in the Tenth Amendment.
One solution to Senator Stephenson's fears of a Congress with unlimited
taxing authority would be the implementation of term limits for our national and
state legislators. As it stands now incumbents traditionally win reelection at
both the state and national level. With term limits my question is "would
legislators work more for the common good knowing they would be out in 6-12
years?" In reading the opinion I think the CJ is, in his own
way, calling out the American voting public and saying to them "If you want
this tax imposed then you will keep the status quo. If you don't then you
will vote for change". I would think that Republicans such as Senator
Stephenson would be thrilled at this decision because it is activism at
it's finest. It also represents an act of judicial restraint at the same
time,the same type of restraint that conservative Republicans have called for
from the SCOTUS for years. CJ Roberts has now shown himself to be his own man as
a CJ. I love it!
Wrong Howard, not every other court watcher was flabbergasted. An exaggeration
to make your "point?"