PDA

View Full Version : The Moron's Warning to the Court



llotter
04-03-2012, 09:18 AM
The Moron makes the claim that for the SC to overturn the ACA would be unprecedented and undemocratic and it makes you wonder just who he is talking to in making such an absurd statement when most everyone knows that overturning legislation that is not compatible with the Constitution is precisely their main function.

Here is a theory; He is talking to his base, those who voted for him in the first place, knowing that they are not very smart and that if the Court overturns The Moron's centerpiece legislation it is cause to riot and undermine America and its government in preparation for an overthrow.

Soflasnapper
04-03-2012, 09:34 AM
Their main function, which is in no way mentioned in the COTUS? That they invented themselves in an overreach of delegated powers?

Originalists and 'will of the Framers' types are fairly blind to real issues, such as the Court having this say, on their own say-so, by the old Madison v Marbury precedent.

I think what Obama was referring to was the now admitted fact that had only the 'penalty' have been framed as 'a tax,' which is then rebated to those with insurance, there is absolutely no question that the mechanism would meet Constitutional muster. He's questioning whether a mere SEMANTIC question ought to see the Court destroying this difficult legislative accomplishment, sought by Republicans and Democrats alike for over 50 years, when the subject area of this law is 16% of gdp and the most imminent threat to this nation's fiscal solvency in the long run.

llotter
04-03-2012, 11:15 AM
As it happens, I agree with you but I'm in a very small minority. I was expressing the majority view that has been in operation since marbury and the one that is in play today.

Soflasnapper
04-03-2012, 02:01 PM
You are correct about the majority view of this precedent, and also what it doesn't consider (that the court's jurisdiction in such matters is self-appointed, and without textual support in the COTUS).

Since the court is unelected, I think it should show deference to the elected branches of government, in the legislative and executive branches. Certainly a modesty of action, and parsimony, doing as little as possible instead of a wide scope, should be the court's goal.

Which is to say, IF everything in the ACA would have been just jake if phrased as part of the taxing power (and that appears to be the case), a mere formality of what something is called or not called should not void the entire law, or even the particular part in question.

It is no forbidden overreach if the identical ends could be obtained in wholly allowable ways that cause the same results.

llotter
04-03-2012, 02:25 PM
The Constitution was intended to prevent tyranny of the majority. It has been to our great harm that the Court has too often shown deference to the other branches. That is precisely why we now have two-thirds of our federal budget redistributing wealth instead of protecting our liberty.

I really cannot understand why anyone who cherishes liberty would condone unlimited power residing in Washington. The two are simply not compatible.

cushioncrawler
04-03-2012, 03:52 PM
But i thort that 9o% of the fed tax woz itself, striktly speaking, nonconstitutional -- every year.
mac.

Soflasnapper
04-03-2012, 04:00 PM
That's a good point there.

We get so wrapped up in a corner of the question that we neglect the criminality that has been rampant directly in such things as the alleged ratification of the 16th amendment, which apparently did NOT occur.

Much of what is accepted in America is a lie at best, treason at worst.

llotter
04-04-2012, 10:47 AM
I am surprised that you are ever aware of the Ohio ratification problem, in that there is a paucity of info on the public record concerning this.

I note that Rush is taking up my argument almost exactly in his monologue today.

An alternative to the 'riot' scenario might be the 'unexpected' death of one or more of the conservative judges.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2012, 11:14 AM
I have been reading on the fringe before it was on the internet, back to the mid- to later-'70s, when it was only a few newsletters or publications like 'The Spotlight.' These sources were mainly on the far right, so I learned the 'patriot' and 'sovereign citizen' and 'tax protestor' arguments a long time ago. I think a lot of that is both credible and true, but almost wish it were credible and untrue, as the dire conclusions one reaches when you decide it IS TRUE are quite unnerving. Not to mention, bad for your civil health, as such theoretical positions get conflated with actual terrorism.

But really, many have long noted that going either to the far left or far right finds you meeting the other side in the middle of that Moebius strip. Rep. Ron Paul is the guy you find there, most prominently well known among the various personages.

Several times I've mentioned that although the two parties both represent fascist powers, I'd take soft fascism, or fascism LITE (TM), the velvet glove over the chain-mailed fist, in preference to the ungloved chain-mailed fist. Not happy that those are the choices, but it appears so.

I also agree with the scriptures that we contend not only with flesh and bone human opposition, but with powers and principalities on a spiritual dimension. Who happen to have accreted most earthly power unto themselves, temporarily, but now for a long time.