Chief Justice Roberts and the House of Ill Dispute

By:  Jack Kenny
07/02/2012
       
Chief Justice Roberts and the House of Ill Dispute

Last Thursday's Supreme Court decision on "ObamaCare" and its individual mandate was a supreme act of political, intellectual and judicial prostitution — otherwise known as the "supreme law of the land."

Last Thursday's Supreme Court decision on "ObamaCare" and its individual mandate was a supreme act of political, intellectual and judicial prostitution — otherwise known as the "supreme law of the land."

The pace of modern education is frightful, so in case there are any pre-law students in nursery school, here is a summation of last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on the nation’s health care law:

Johnny Roberts took a dive, e-i-e-i-o

ObamaCare is still alive, e-i-e-i-o

There is a lot of “buzz” on the Internet about yet another constitutional infirmity in the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that held the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act to be constitutionality permissible. The chief justice, recall, said that what the statute called a penalty is really a tax and therefore the legislation is valid under the taxing power of Congress. But the Constitution explicitly says, in Article I, Section 7, that all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The “ObamaCare” bill was hatched in the Senate. Ooops!

Oh, picky, picky! What difference does it make? The language of the statue itself said the charge to be levied against uninsured people for not purchasing health insurance would be a penalty, not a tax, despite the fact that the same legislation requires the fee to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. President Obama publicly argued it was not a tax, as did members of Congress. So we all know this tax bill originated in the Supreme Court of the United States and if you don’t like that you can, as Archie Bunker used to say, “Write a letter to Dear Abie.” (sic)

Some of the commentary about the Roberts ruling that has been published over the last few days is really laughable. One argument is that Roberts, knowing full well of the firestorm that would follow if the Court struck down a national health care program that promises so much to so many for so little, wanted to preserve the legacy, the reputation and the integrity of the Supreme Court. Well, the Court has a legacy and a reputation, God knows, so I guess two out of three’s not bad.

Click here to read the entire article.

Jack Kenny (photo)

The JBS Weekly Member Update offers activism tips, new educational tools, upcoming events, and JBS perspective. Every Monday this e-newsletter will keep you informed on current action projects and offer insight into news events you won't hear from the mainstream media.
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed