Michael Savage, citing a doctor’s opinion, mused that Supreme Court Justice John Robert’s lead role in declaring obamacare “constitutional” could be blamed on the medications he takes for his epilepsy. Now that’s a stretch. But here’s a bigger stretch: that obamacare is even remotely “constitutional” because its driver is taxation which, as we all know, the federal government has abused for decades and can now, according to this ruling, be used as a club on Americans for practically any purpose and on any object it deems worthy of federal attention.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the “taxing and spending clause.” It gives the federal government the power to levy taxes. But levy taxes for what purpose?
Justice Roberts and the four other justices who sided with him recognized that passing this obamination from a mandate angle would not fly, so they, in effect, became quasi-legislators (coming to the aid of those who passed it in Congress) and verbally tweaked its “justification” for existence by calling it a “tax.”
It is clear that since Article 1, Section 8 lays out the limited duties the federal government was contracted to perform for the states, and since Clause 1 is contained within this section (and even if it weren’t), then it is plainly simple that federal taxes can only be levied to fund those enumerated purposes. How Justice Roberts and his cohorts can’t see that is beyond me. Based on this fact, I can ascribe three possible reasons for their incredible decision: (1) open hostility to the Constitution (which I believe is apparent in a few of the justices); (2) a poor legal education (apparent in most of them); and (3) plain stupidity and cluelessness. How about some of all of the above?
Michael Savage is right about one thing, but not about the effect of medications on Justice Roberts, but rather that the five justices who ruled that obamacare was “constitutional” are not in their right mind.