Do You Agree With the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision?

No. The Commerce Clause was written to make the federal government the arbiter of trade between the states, to prevent them from establishing trade barriers against each other like tariffs. (As unbelievable as it sounds, interstate tariffs were a serious concern back then: That's how sovereign the individual states were at the time of ratification.) At the time it was written and ratified by the states, the plain meaning of the language did not establish arbitrary regulatory authority over all business that might possibly be considered "interstate," or anything even remotely close to that.

Unfortunately, the perceived meaning of the language has shifted over time, and it didn't take long for statists and slippery lawyers in and outside of the Supreme Court to exploit this and seize any excuse to start expanding the powers of the government. Even the "conservative" judges pervert the meaning of the Constitution to ensure their own political agendas are upheld. This is why, bit by bit, the general thrust of the Supreme Court has been to uphold more and more power grabs as "constitutional."

Regardless of what a bunch of robed despots may say, Obamacare is an unconstitutional abuse of the Commerce Clause, like MOST of the legislation Congress passes. As such, any tax appropriated for the purpose of Obamacare is also unconstitutional, because Article I, Section 8 only allows for taxes that exclusively fund the powers enumerated further down. ("General welfare" is not a power in itself but a descriptive preamble to the following enumerated powers. If I were incorrect here and "general welfare" meant the government had carte blanche to do anything it thought was a good idea, the enumerated powers below it never would have needed to be written in the first place. Since they were written, "general welfare" therefore must not mean what the statists say it does...proof by contradiction.)

That's completely aside from the fact that the individual mandate cannot be considered a "tax" at all without grossly distorting and expanding the meaning of the word beyond reason. Notice that duties, imposts, and excises were specifically differentiated from taxes by the Constitution: They are far more similar to taxes than an individual mandate, so considering the Constitution considers them different enough to be separately addressed, it would also consider the mandate to be profoundly different (again, proof by contradiction).

I'm glad the Supreme Court at least recognized that forcing someone to engage in previously nonexistent economic activity (in the general sense) would be a precedent-setting abuse of the Commerce Clause, but being right on a single point isn't enough for me to say they know what they're talking about. It's a crying shame that Andrew Napolitano isn't on the Court, because he's one of the only judges around who consistently treats the Constitution with respect instead of circumventing it with sophisticated but dishonest arguments.

Look, it is clearly not Constitutional as the Constitution was written and Intended. There are CLEAR measures in the constitution to change the constitution, yet our supreme court and legislature show time and time again, that they have no regard for the constitution and violate it every chance they can. Politicians try to change the meaning of words instead of changing the Constitution as is possible and was clearly intended. The ENTIRE purpose of the constitution was to protect us from an overreaching federal government and preserve our freedoms. This health care mandate is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution and our individual rights, not to mention toe rights of the state. We are becoming a country of mob rule and beating up on minorities instead of a country of the individual and cherished individual rights. The premise our entire country was founded on.

The Constitution was written to protect our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Using mob rule to violate the rights of individuals is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone can have health insurance. Those that do not, CHOOSE not to. I did at 18 with just a HS diploma. It was a priority of mine. Their CHOICE to be irresponsible is not my fault.

Maybe instead we make health care bills like student loans where they never go away and you can not declare bankruptcy for them. We garnish wages, and go after personal assets (Including trusts and any personal assets transferred to a relative within the past 10 years). If there are actual consequences to not having insurance, many more people will carry it. Health care like anything else is only as important to one as they make it. If it is not their priority, why should everyone else be punished?

Red Rain, You would think, but unfortunately, the government does NOTHING as efficiently or as effectively as the private sector. Everything the government does skyrockets the price. You will have all union govt employees, birth control and abortion will be covered for political reasons, but the funding will have to come from cancer drugs. The personal decision is gone and only political expediency remains any time the government gets involved. Look how long we have been buying car more C-17's than we need because of all the unions making them. The same will go for health care. Open your eyes and wake up to reality.

No.. I emphatically disagree with the ruling and I particularly disagree with the apologists on the right..

ONE of them,, O’Rielly,, actually came out last night and blasted those on the right,, like ME,, who criticized Roberts for his position on this case.. He ACTUALLY said that Roberts was being “Conservative” by NOT striking down the law and he played INTO the LEFT’S redefinition of the term,, “Judicial Activism”..

The SUPREME COURT is there for a reason.. To judge the Constitutionality of the LAW.. It is NO MORE a case of Judicial Activism for that Court to strike DOWN an Unconstitutional law then it is for them to uphold a Constitutional one.. The LEFT would have you believe otherwise.. It’s ONLY “Judicial Activism” when the court upholds a Law passed by Republicans OR is struck down when a law is passed by Democrats..

I have ALWWAYS defined “Judicial Activism” by the SCOTUS in the Simplist’s of terms.. IF the court makes a decision based on how the law stacks up to the Constitution,, then a ruling EITHER way is Judicial Responsibility..

IF the Court compares the law to the Constitution and “Interprets” the Constitution so that IT stacks up to the LAW,, THAT is “ Judicial Activism”..

Roberts went a LONG way to do the latter.. He REDEFINED the term “Tax” to find a way to MAKE the Constitution support Obamacare.. To the BEST of my knowledge,, THIS is the FIRST so called tax in ALL of the HISTORY of America where the American People are required,, BY the MANDATE,, to AVOID having to pay..

Are we NOW to pay a “Tax” when we run a red light?? DO we pay a “Tax” now when we are late paying our taxes???

No.. THIS isn’t a tax.. It’s a PENALTY pure and simple..

And I don’t buy into this BS about Roberts being clever and shutting the door on the recent power grabs,, BY the Government,, justified by the Commerce Clause.. THIS ruling had ZERO effect on the Commerce Clause OR the way the Democrats are using it to usurp POWER over the people..

The ONLY thing that Roberts did was to OPEN yet another door to the Government’s CONTINUING campaign to exert totalitarian control over the FREE people of America..

Don’t LIKE it?? TOO damn bad.. Won’t STAND for it??

Pay another TAX…….

if Roberts made THIS ruling because he was worried abut the IMAGE of the Supreme COurt as SOME have suggested then he should NEVER have been put on the COurt and certainly NEVER should have been placed in the lofty position as Chief Justice..

He's NOT there to make UP for the ruling made in 2000.. It's a LEFT WING LIE that there is anything to MAKE up with that ruling anyway..He's NOT there to balance the books..

He's THERE to protect the American People from Unconstitutional LAWS.. If EVRY law was Constitutional JUST because it was passed by COngress,, WHAT need would there even BE for a SCOTUS???

IN the end,, The Court isn't there to LOOK good.. It's NOT there to win a popularity contest..

It's THERE to do the right thing.. The CONSTITUTIONAL thing..

Look, it is clearly not Constitutional as the Constitution was written and Intended. There are CLEAR measures in the constitution to change the constitution, yet our supreme court and legislature show time and time again, that they have no regard for the constitution and violate it every chance they can. Politicians try to change the meaning of words instead of changing the Constitution as is possible and was clearly intended. The ENTIRE purpose of the constitution was to protect us from an overreaching federal government and preserve our freedoms. This health care mandate is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution and our individual rights, not to mention toe rights of the state. We are becoming a country of mob rule and beating up on minorities instead of a country of the individual and cherished individual rights. The premise our entire country was founded on.

The Constitution was written to protect our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Using mob rule to violate the rights of individuals is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone can have health insurance. Those that do not, CHOOSE not to. I did at 18 with just a HS diploma. It was a priority of mine. Their CHOICE to be irresponsible is not my fault.

Maybe instead we make health care bills like student loans where they never go away and you can not declare bankruptcy for them. We garnish wages, and go after personal assets (Including trusts and any personal assets transferred to a relative within the past 10 years). If there are actual consequences to not having insurance, many more people will carry it. Health care like anything else is only as important to one as they make it. If it is not their priority, why should everyone else be punished?

Red Rain, You would think, but unfortunately, the government does NOTHING as efficiently or as effectively as the private sector. Everything the government does skyrockets the price. You will have all union govt employees, birth control and abortion will be covered for political reasons, but the funding will have to come from cancer drugs. The personal decision is gone and only political expediency remains any time the government gets involved. Look how long we have been buying car more C-17's than we need because of all the unions making them. The same will go for health care. Open your eyes and wake up to reality.