Updated Thought: Roberts is getting a lot of grief for siding with the Liberal Supremes and finding that Obamacare was Constitutional under the taxing ability of Congress. Putting aside the argument that the tax language originated in the Senate (instead of the House where Constitutionally it must originate), I’m mulling over the idea, given other commentary I’ve seen, has Roberts actually laid in a hidden ambush (albeit, long term) by creating a virtual dead-end canyon into which Lib Big Govt-ers are going to get led into? I’m no lawyer, but are we seeing a “boxing in” strategy starting to appear – like a good military planner, willing to accept the short term (and perhaps, massive) losses in order to set the stage for an eventual judicial Originalist victory (with a wee bit of help from a helpful Congress)? I can see the two sides but not the end of canyon – at least, not just yet.
**************
In addition to the philosophy that I am paid to work and not to blog, work is REAL busy today – and my boss keeps calling with new fires to put out. But it is lunch time, and a couple of quick thoughts:
- I am generally an optimist, but to be sure, at the first blush of the news, my heart sank as the immediate reaction is: Freedom is hanging by a thread – or less. If NOTHING is done going forward, it will break. The question still remains – how far can Government go in telling us how to live our lives legislatively? Are we at that tipping point where we can be told to buy broccoli or be taxed if we don’t? What is the definition of “limited Government” now?
But there ARE some good things here:
- HUGE – Supremes finally put a stop to encroachment of Govt via the Commerce Clause. It sets the stage for a disavowal of Wickerd (that ’42 decision that denied a farmer the ability to grow his own wheat). It also can be used to set the stage for killing off the mantra that the “General Welfare” phrase means “we can do anything we want to”.
- The Medicaid clause has permanently killed part of the club that Congress has used for years to force States to do something against their own interest (leaving the discussion on 17th Amendment aside). The ruling said that the Feds CANNOT cut off funds meant for the States for vastly expanding Medicaid (and then stop the funding later on but leaving the States on the hook) if some of those States that refuse to participate in the expansion. The Feds will have to fully fund those parts that the States now engage in – the club was to be that all the funding would be pulled. This will have ramifications in years going forward
- Roberts:
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
That last part? Too often, Republican Legislators have said “not my job, man” in thinking “is this bill and its parts Constitutional” before passing that Legislation. Instead they have acted like “hey, if we get this wrong, “Teacher” (the Supremes) will correct us”. This should act like a wake up call. Yes, for this Obamacare with the Dem supermajority, it made no difference, but it is a change that has to happen so that the Supremes don’t have to save us from the elected.
In the grand scheme of things, however, we cannot just blame the elected Legislators. That’s where WE have to make sure that our elected start thinking AND ACTING in such a way. We got here because we, the voters, let them do this to us incrementally over the years.
We have to “not let them” from now on.
And that is one reason why the TEA Party was birthed and continues. And yes, there will be more of the TEA Party resulting from this decision.
Noted: Romney got $100,000 in under an hour after the decision. Updated: by 3pm, well north of $1 million? And Obama was scared of being outspent a couple of days ago? He has only himself to blame (not that he will – it’s always somebody else’s fault).
