 |
| See, John, it all depends on what the meaning of "tax" is. If anyone asks, use this . . . . |
Charles Krauthammer, who, along with Hugh Hewitt, is giving credit to the Chief Justice for being a subtle genius, had to admit that Roberts used semantic sleight-of-hand to join the treasonous Left side of the bench in ruling in favor of Obamacare, noting that he was:
"finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law . . . ."We know what Roberts did, but we don't know why. Perhaps Krauthammer and Hewitt's speculation is correct, but they're not mind-readers, and Roberts isn't talking.
This is a better assessment of the issues at stake:
“It was disturbing that we made the case to Justice Kennedy, who embraced the concept of limited government, only to have it overshadowed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who envisioned the entire issue simply of one over the ability to tax,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas . . . .What's to stop Congress from calling everything it wants a "tax"? Our malfeasant Representatives and Senators have the power to tax, but they don't have the ability to mandate, to force free citizens into commerce. Neither does Congress' power to tax include the power to tax inactivity.
This "law" and the court decision upholding it is Leviathan. It's big government. It's socialized medicine. Therefore un-Constitutional in every sense of the word.