It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Libertas on November 07, 2014, 02:44:37 PM
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/obamas-week-just-got-worse-scotus-rule-obamacare-subsidies (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/obamas-week-just-got-worse-scotus-rule-obamacare-subsidies)
Gosh, what will the crew of the SS Dread Traitor Roberts do?
::thinking::
Chain us and toss us overboard is my guess...
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/obamas-week-just-got-worse-scotus-rule-obamacare-subsidies (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/obamas-week-just-got-worse-scotus-rule-obamacare-subsidies)
Gosh, what will the crew of the SS Dread Traitor Roberts do?
::thinking::
Chain us and toss us overboard is my guess...
A Tax isn't a penalty, but Roberts found it so.
I think a clear statement in the law that subsidies are for States only will seem to Roberts to be a giant Unicorn pooping skittles and reading Stone Tablets and declaring that the Supreme Court has duty to fix a bad law for congress in the ways it thinks best.
There is no hope coming from there. I just hope that eventually Roberts finds his government repair kit
-
If Roberts is a stealth Leftist, or if he truly is compromised with damning intel as some (myself included) suspect, he will rewrite this aspect of the law in the same manner he rewrote the penalty/tax aspect.
If he does so, it will be the final nail in the sovereign state coffin. In order to come to the conclusion that the national regime can supplant the state when the statutory language is specific to the state, the court will have to set a precedent that will open the door to federal control over every state law.
-
::guillotine::
-
Actually
In order to come to the conclusion that the national regime can supplant the state when the statutory language is specific to the state, the court will have to set a precedent that will open the door to federal control over every state law.
Actually it's worse than that.
If they find for Obola they will be saying that words don't mean anything. Now that's an interesting precedent to set.
-
Actually In order to come to the conclusion that the national regime can supplant the state when the statutory language is specific to the state, the court will have to set a precedent that will open the door to federal control over every state law.
Actually it's worse than that.
If they find for Obola they will be saying that words don't mean anything. Now that's an interesting precedent to set.
They did that already with "penalty" means "tax", so the precedent is set. Now we're waiting to see just how far down the Rabbit Hole they're willing to go.
-
Actually In order to come to the conclusion that the national regime can supplant the state when the statutory language is specific to the state, the court will have to set a precedent that will open the door to federal control over every state law.
Actually it's worse than that.
If they find for Obola they will be saying that words don't mean anything. Now that's an interesting precedent to set.
They did that already with "penalty" means "tax", so the precedent is set. Now we're waiting to see just how far down the Rabbit Hole they're willing to go.
It's quite obvious that they don't otherwise the streets would be puddled with blood.
-
I am wondering how we might, in a future restoration of a constitutional republic, go about restoring the states to their rightful role in federalism. For one, the composition of the Senate should once again be decided by the legislatures of the states. We don't need senators elected by popular vote. That's what the House is for.
I think we should perhaps go further and make the presidency a creation of the states. The president could be chosen by state legislatures (or perhaps by state governors, being an executive position and all). Maybe the presidency could be set to rotate amongst the states.
-
You have to be careful with this or you could end up with a moribund creature like the confederacy we had under the Articles of Confederacy before the Constitution took effect, lots of state power, to the point of agreeing to anything of a legitimate national interest became near impossible. I see nothing wrong with the representative republican model the Founders gave us, but for sure there has to be a super-explicit statement of meaning agreed to at the formation of the New Republic that nails it down.
I would take the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights) and combine them into a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Specific and Enumerated Limitations of State Power, and unless people agree to every single word of this charter and agree to its commonly understood meaning and know that no part of this can ever be overturned by any judge, by any legislature or any executive...we could have what we once had at our Founding. I would get down to the minutia of the very size and scope of government and any deviation from that (as well as for any public expenditure of public monies) be required to meet a super-majority approval. And there would be term limits, very little pay and very little per diem, no army of staffers, no lobbyists or advocates (it would be legal to shoot them should they even approach a sitting politician, judge or current officeholder), stuff like that...
-
You have to be careful with this or you could end up with a moribund creature like the confederacy we had under the Articles of Confederacy before the Constitution took effect, lots of state power, to the point of agreeing to anything of a legitimate national interest became near impossible.
So what would be wrong with a do nothing federal government? Isn't that what we want?
A federal government really has very few "legitimate" things it should be doing. I would rather have those things be hard to do rather then the ever growing unstoppable federal government we have.
-
You have to be careful with this or you could end up with a moribund creature like the confederacy we had under the Articles of Confederacy before the Constitution took effect, lots of state power, to the point of agreeing to anything of a legitimate national interest became near impossible.
So what would be wrong with a do nothing federal government? Isn't that what we want?
A federal government really has very few "legitimate" things it should be doing. I would rather have those things be hard to do rather then the ever growing unstoppable federal government we have.
True, national defense would be one of those things, and the only "large" federal department of note, you would still need a foreign minister of some sort and ambassadorial postings, but no department head would have a vast staff, there would be none of the huge bureaucracy we are burdened with today. I am all for making it harder to impinge on our liberty, but we would not last long in the current world as a confederacy, the vultures would descend and tear us apart piece by piece, so there has to be some structure in place to respond to immediate threats from the outside, the presumption being we have our inside in order. The states would be sovereign like they used to be, provided nothing they experiment with threatens individual liberty in any way or freedom of movement. All domestic law enforcement would be local, period. Only Marshalls would be federalized and chartered to handle only federal crimes, apprehensions and protection. If they were invited by locals to assist, fine, but the locals retain control. No FBI, no ATF, no DEA none of that individual liberty trampling bureaucracy. Any foreign intelligence work would be run out of the War Department, yes, I like the old term, none of this peacekeeping mission-creep bullsh*t, back to basics! Stuff like this OK?