So the Supreme Court has spoken.
Based on the Dissenting Opinion as well as on the Majority Opinion, it would appear to this American that the honorable justices did something pretty weasel-y. They rationalized their final Opinion by picking for themselves which of the arguments presented by the regime was the one which best fit their decision: this "law" is a "Tax" not a "Mandate."
A "mandate," supposedly would have been "unconstitutional," but imposing a "tax" that punishes American Citizens by further destroying the economy, threatens Citizens with huge fines and even jail, needed to have an additional 16,000 new "enforcers" in the IRS to make sure we submit . . . this type of bill has been determined, by the highest court of the land, to be not only "acceptable," but constitutional.
A few months ago, Mr. Obama was ranting about the nerve of a "bunch of unelected" guys in robes to dare even consider the constitutionality of his masterpiece. To this layman's eye, it appears that Justice Roberts, as the deciding majority vote, wanted to want to show Mr. Obama that he was wrong . . . they really would not dare to declare his masterpiece unconstitutional, regardless of the evidence.
Yet, I take hope in the opinion of some who point out that the fact of having to redefine this disaster from the description officially given it by the regime ("mandate," meaning to impose, force upon; which is strangely unobjectionable, under certain circumstances, apparently) to something supposedly more acceptable (a "tax"), also places it in a realm much easier to repeal.
Congress can impose taxes, Congress can remove taxes. Fine. The next Congress should have enough of a majority of reasonable Citizens tired of witnessing the destruction of their country to immediately prepare legislation to remove this outrageous monstronsity from the necks of the American people.
The question, however, remains . . . and is frightening, to me, in terms of believing we still live in a thriving Republic is: why the hell did the U.S. Supreme Court provide an "out" for this administration by essentially showing them how to get their bill determined to be constitutional?
A naive, frustrated explosive response would be: "Whose side are they on, anyway??" Can't possibly be the side of the American people if they have to create an excuse almost out of whole cloth to assist this administration to get their law "constitutionalized."
Either the mandate -- the core of the law, without which none of the rest can survive -- is constitutional, or it is not.
The Court should in no way have told the Administration: "Look, you presented your case so badly in front of us we feel sorry for you . . . you should have declared it from the start as a tax, and there would have been no question. Even though you touted for months (years) that this is not a tax, the only way we can legitimize it is to deem it a tax, no matter what you want to call it. So, we'll help you out, since your ability to present the supposed merits is a bit weak -- we'll determine for you what your argument needs to be in order for us to support it. Voila! It's a TAX, and therefore constitutional."
Some slight of hand, huh?
If the majority had decided to support the core contention that the mandate is unconstitutional, I suppose all thought inside our own heads would be drowned out by the howls of the administration's screaming about a "bunch of unelected men."
But, that lovely thought is not applicable today. We currently live in an upside-down world, the Constitution is constantly gutted, the elected leaders of our country abrogate their responsibility to the majority of their constituents to submit not only themselves, their standards, but also our own to the control of the government.
In my not so humble opinion as an American citizen, by allowing this atrocity to stand in toto, the Supreme Court has legitimized the fundamental transformation of our Country into a totalitarian nightmare.
November 2012, can't get here too quickly, Lord willing!