Even Roberts's apologists admit his dishonesty

See, John, it all depends on what the meaning of "tax" is. If anyone asks, use this . . . .

The Marxist-in-Chief and his persons of hench repeatedly denied that the mandate was a tax. Until it was.

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.

Roberts' treasonous plunge left a nail in someone's coffin

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Well, we've given our political elites enough chain to hang someone.

Either the Republic will go the way of Greece, or this unconscionable, unconstitutional power-grab by our elected tyrants will motivate citizens to reclaim their Constitutional rights and beat back Cerberus into its proper, specified limits.

Liebau notes Obama's subversive mendacity here:

1. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton saying that he would not support an individual mandate.

2. After he won, he said he would support an individual mandate -- but it wasn't a tax.

3. In the Supreme Court, to make his legislation constitutional, he instructed his Solicitor General to argue that it was a tax, after all -- thereby violating his pledge against a middle class tax increase.