Black Letter Day
Thursday, June 28, 2012 is a black letter day, for the USA: the abominable decision by the Supreme Court, lead by that idiotic Chief Justice, John Roberts, completely ignored the Constitution by allowing the "Affordable Care Act" (i.e. "Obamacare") to stand, "as is".
It is my belief that Chief Justice John Roberts willingly and deliberately ignored the Constitution, just so he could make himself look like his hero, Chief Justice Charles Even Hughes, and give the appearance that the Supreme Court is "independent" of politics. And while I agree that, yes, it *should* be 'politically independent', this ruling clearly was not.
A bold statement, I know; especially considering that I am not a "Constitutional lawyer", or any type of lawyer, for that matter. But here's the thing - you don't need to be. Oh sure, there are those who would like you to believe that you do need to be, but they simply want to elevate themselves, giving themselves more importance that you - the common person. But the Constitution is written in plain English (at least, "plain English" as far as 1776 is concerned); it is not that hard to read, nor is it that hard to understand. Lawyers like to play games with all legal documents - arguing over what every little word means ("It depends on what your definition of 'is', is.") when most of it really is as straight-forward as it seems. Try reading the Constitution for *yourself* (I have - several times) and see what conclusions *you* draw.
Look - the framers of our Constitution were men who wanted to *limit* the power of government - especially the Federal Government (that point is rarely argued - it's part of history). Why? Because "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". People "in control" like and want to *stay* "in control", so often they will grab as much power as they can get away with. And they will keep grabbing until they are stopped.
That is one reason many states would not ratify the Constitution until the "Bill of Rights" was added. Amendment 10 (part of the Bill of Rights) clearly says - in plain English - that any powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution are reserved for the States. I defy ANYONE to show me *explicitly* where "health care" is listed in the Constitution - it is not there. Therefore, "health care" Constitutionally falls under the purview of the States, and not the Federal Government. This alone makes "The Affordable Care Act" unconstitutional.
If you think Thursday ruling was a good thing, then you either: 1) Do not fully understand what happened, 2) Have been deceived by the liberal agenda, or 3) Are a willing accomplice to it.
What Happened
This ruling just handed our Federal Government carte blanche authority to do whatever it wants. How? By allowing the taxing of a negative.
A "tax", be definition, is "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (Dictionary.com). It is always (at least, up until now) imposed on a tangible asset or service used; if you do not own or buy the asset, or use the service, then you don't pay the tax on it. If I own property, then I must pay property tax. If I earn income, then I must pay an income tax. If I buy cigarettes, then I must pay a cigarette tax. If I use a hotel, then I pay a hotel tax. If I use an airplane, then I pay a flight-travel tax. Etc.
The problem is that the "Affordable Care Act" *does not* impose a tax for health care services; it (according to Chief Justice John Roberts) imposes a "tax" only on those individuals who choose not to have some kind of health insurance. Huh? That's right - it's not "if you don't have health insurance, but then *use* our health care system, you are "taxed", it's simply "if you don't have health care insurance, then you will be 'taxed' up yo 2.5% of your income".
Let's look at it this way - suppose the government one day decides that smoking is good for you. They would now be able to "tax" those who do not buy cigarettes. Oh sure, you say "that'll never happen"; perhaps, but what about a scenario where the government decides that wheat, corn, and broccoli are good for you and that in order to maintain 'good health', decides to "tax" every one who doesn't buy wheat, corn, or broccoli, even if they buy other grains or vegetables. Far fetched? Maybe - but this ruling would ALLOW such a "tax".
Furthermore, the Obama administration has stated, reiterated, and even gone out-of-their-way to say "this is not a tax". Even the dissenting opinion stated that, "...no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that [the penalty for not having health insurance] is an exercise of the tax power." And yet, one man said it was - Chief Justice John Roberts. One man - not even the other four supporters indicated they thought it was a tax. But Chief Justice John Roberts effectively "re-interpreted" the actual written language of the act - which is clearly outside his purview. Yet, he did it anyway.
Granted, Roberts did say that the Federal Government cannot Constitutionally mandate people buy anything - and yet, by allowing a tax on a negative, he basically gave them the way to do so.
Every living person in the USA should be livid at this. But alas, many are actually happy, and many more simply don't care. More's the pity.
Deception
If you think the "Affordable Care Act" is about health care, you are wrong. It is about the Federal Government ultimately taking control of health care, which amounts to approx. 1/7th of the country's economy. The penalties, requirements, mandates, and regulations are so draconian and so restrictive that it is intended to make private health care insurance nearly impossible - leaving only Government approved/run health care for the masses.
This is about grabbing power - plain and simple. Sure, they want you to think that they are somehow being "compassionate" and "caring". But that is a lie. All they want - ALL THEY WANT - is more power and bigger government (because bigger government is more power). After all, "they" know what is best for you and you simply are too stupid to be able to take care of yourself. And they will demonize anyone who dares disagrees with them.
*****
Believe it or not, I am not against "universal health care", per se. But I am against a Federally run/mandated health care system. Why? Because 1) it is unconstitutional - it is not explicitly stated as part of the Federal Government's power and is, therefore, left to the States, 2) Governmentally *anything* has always been the most bureaucratic, least efficient system, 3) granting them that much power is absurd and they will only corrupt things worse, and 4) probably several other reasons I cannot think of off-hand.
Put simply - it is a bad idea. Period.
So what, if anything can be done now? Long term, short of revolution, I don't know. This precedent is so mind-boggling piss-poor that it leaves "anything" they government can think of open to possibility.
Short term, the best thing any of us can do is exercise our right to vote in November and VOTE. Vote your conscience - don't just vote for someone because they are in the same party as you - that's just stupid. Do your own research - find out where the candidate really stand - not what they *say* they stand for, but how they have acted/voted. Don't believe words - believe actions.
There is always hope.
It is my belief that Chief Justice John Roberts willingly and deliberately ignored the Constitution, just so he could make himself look like his hero, Chief Justice Charles Even Hughes, and give the appearance that the Supreme Court is "independent" of politics. And while I agree that, yes, it *should* be 'politically independent', this ruling clearly was not.
A bold statement, I know; especially considering that I am not a "Constitutional lawyer", or any type of lawyer, for that matter. But here's the thing - you don't need to be. Oh sure, there are those who would like you to believe that you do need to be, but they simply want to elevate themselves, giving themselves more importance that you - the common person. But the Constitution is written in plain English (at least, "plain English" as far as 1776 is concerned); it is not that hard to read, nor is it that hard to understand. Lawyers like to play games with all legal documents - arguing over what every little word means ("It depends on what your definition of 'is', is.") when most of it really is as straight-forward as it seems. Try reading the Constitution for *yourself* (I have - several times) and see what conclusions *you* draw.
Look - the framers of our Constitution were men who wanted to *limit* the power of government - especially the Federal Government (that point is rarely argued - it's part of history). Why? Because "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". People "in control" like and want to *stay* "in control", so often they will grab as much power as they can get away with. And they will keep grabbing until they are stopped.
That is one reason many states would not ratify the Constitution until the "Bill of Rights" was added. Amendment 10 (part of the Bill of Rights) clearly says - in plain English - that any powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution are reserved for the States. I defy ANYONE to show me *explicitly* where "health care" is listed in the Constitution - it is not there. Therefore, "health care" Constitutionally falls under the purview of the States, and not the Federal Government. This alone makes "The Affordable Care Act" unconstitutional.
If you think Thursday ruling was a good thing, then you either: 1) Do not fully understand what happened, 2) Have been deceived by the liberal agenda, or 3) Are a willing accomplice to it.
What Happened
This ruling just handed our Federal Government carte blanche authority to do whatever it wants. How? By allowing the taxing of a negative.
A "tax", be definition, is "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (Dictionary.com). It is always (at least, up until now) imposed on a tangible asset or service used; if you do not own or buy the asset, or use the service, then you don't pay the tax on it. If I own property, then I must pay property tax. If I earn income, then I must pay an income tax. If I buy cigarettes, then I must pay a cigarette tax. If I use a hotel, then I pay a hotel tax. If I use an airplane, then I pay a flight-travel tax. Etc.
The problem is that the "Affordable Care Act" *does not* impose a tax for health care services; it (according to Chief Justice John Roberts) imposes a "tax" only on those individuals who choose not to have some kind of health insurance. Huh? That's right - it's not "if you don't have health insurance, but then *use* our health care system, you are "taxed", it's simply "if you don't have health care insurance, then you will be 'taxed' up yo 2.5% of your income".
Let's look at it this way - suppose the government one day decides that smoking is good for you. They would now be able to "tax" those who do not buy cigarettes. Oh sure, you say "that'll never happen"; perhaps, but what about a scenario where the government decides that wheat, corn, and broccoli are good for you and that in order to maintain 'good health', decides to "tax" every one who doesn't buy wheat, corn, or broccoli, even if they buy other grains or vegetables. Far fetched? Maybe - but this ruling would ALLOW such a "tax".
Furthermore, the Obama administration has stated, reiterated, and even gone out-of-their-way to say "this is not a tax". Even the dissenting opinion stated that, "...no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that [the penalty for not having health insurance] is an exercise of the tax power." And yet, one man said it was - Chief Justice John Roberts. One man - not even the other four supporters indicated they thought it was a tax. But Chief Justice John Roberts effectively "re-interpreted" the actual written language of the act - which is clearly outside his purview. Yet, he did it anyway.
Granted, Roberts did say that the Federal Government cannot Constitutionally mandate people buy anything - and yet, by allowing a tax on a negative, he basically gave them the way to do so.
Every living person in the USA should be livid at this. But alas, many are actually happy, and many more simply don't care. More's the pity.
Deception
If you think the "Affordable Care Act" is about health care, you are wrong. It is about the Federal Government ultimately taking control of health care, which amounts to approx. 1/7th of the country's economy. The penalties, requirements, mandates, and regulations are so draconian and so restrictive that it is intended to make private health care insurance nearly impossible - leaving only Government approved/run health care for the masses.
This is about grabbing power - plain and simple. Sure, they want you to think that they are somehow being "compassionate" and "caring". But that is a lie. All they want - ALL THEY WANT - is more power and bigger government (because bigger government is more power). After all, "they" know what is best for you and you simply are too stupid to be able to take care of yourself. And they will demonize anyone who dares disagrees with them.
*****
Believe it or not, I am not against "universal health care", per se. But I am against a Federally run/mandated health care system. Why? Because 1) it is unconstitutional - it is not explicitly stated as part of the Federal Government's power and is, therefore, left to the States, 2) Governmentally *anything* has always been the most bureaucratic, least efficient system, 3) granting them that much power is absurd and they will only corrupt things worse, and 4) probably several other reasons I cannot think of off-hand.
Put simply - it is a bad idea. Period.
So what, if anything can be done now? Long term, short of revolution, I don't know. This precedent is so mind-boggling piss-poor that it leaves "anything" they government can think of open to possibility.
Short term, the best thing any of us can do is exercise our right to vote in November and VOTE. Vote your conscience - don't just vote for someone because they are in the same party as you - that's just stupid. Do your own research - find out where the candidate really stand - not what they *say* they stand for, but how they have acted/voted. Don't believe words - believe actions.
There is always hope.
posted by TubaMeister at
15:48
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home