Roberts Rules of Constitutional Obliteration

It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.

And that's saying something.

Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."

His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.

Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.

Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:

Definition of PENALTY

1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------

It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.

But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.

Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.

Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...

As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.

By its own edict...

In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.

This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.

And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).

From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).

This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.

Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?

Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.

They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.

Make no mistake about it....

It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...

And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...

Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.

I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...

And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.

You can't have it both ways...

Yada, Yada, Yada: Truth vs. Political Fiction

Recently I had a few moments to watch some of the prime time election coverage on two of the major broadcasting stations (Fox and MSNBC), although have attempted to insulate myself as much as possible from the coverage, such as it is.

Unfortunately, I am one of the literally millions out of steady work, or working part time or for far less than my resume would justify in this progressive, unconstitutional America we now live in.

With all the spins as one who has been majorly impacted also progressively, I'd like to add my truth as opposed to the fiction that has been the mainstay of our media low these many years, and never more so than in the past three to four decades.

The Republicans are offering up more of the same this election cycle.

More fascism in the form of corporatism.

All major contenders from that side of the two party aisle hold those beliefs when it boils right down to it in one form or another.

Even Dr. Paul with his positions of a "private" banking system in this country ala the Federal Reserve.

Which was, of course, created by Congress back in 1913 so how it could be "private" rather than publicly governmentally created, I'll never quite understand.

And this is a major position of his, and it would seem all Republicans for the total lack of accountability and control which has been exerted over the Fed's policies.

I'm experiencing a sense of deja vue this election cycle.

Even the candidates appearances look similar to the last cycle. Newt Gingrich and Calista physically could be John McCain and Cindy visually.

Mitt could be Mitt from last election.

Ron Paul could be Ron Paul from last election.

The only deviation from the script is Rick Santorum. Who could not be Mike Huckabee. But Huckabee got another gig on Fox and he isn't in reruns quite yet.

As far as the Democrats - well, let's just say that this is a rerun from last election cycle.

Mr. Obama is criss-crossing the country trying to get re-elected, and seems he is making more and more of those public news conference speeches such as the one he made at the Daimler plant in North Carolina today.

Was an interesting speech, if I do say so myself.

In it were rerun positions insofar as developing "new energy sources" and explaining away the huge spikes in gasoline prices Americans are now facing, on top of their homelessness and joblessness which was bad last election cycle, but has considerably worsened the past four years with more and more finding themselves "outsourced" or "insourced" or just plain not needed anymore.

He referenced that the United States has "2% of the world's oil, and uses 20%."

Prices are based on supply and demand, or so it was represented.

I wonder if this war actually did end, and we truly did stop our involvement in the Middle East which has gone on now for over 3 decades, if that demand would lessen.

I mean, how much oil does your average Humvee or tanker use in a week over there? Or jet fuel for those drones or fighters? Or fuel for all those ships at sea in foreign ports?

I wonder what the figures are for oil consumption for the British - the "owners" of the huge major oil company in which that billion dollar settlement for the Gulf oil spill was recently announced. Which costs of settlement, of course, will be paid by the American people once again at the pump.

Oil which is refined in Britain, and then sold back to the American people at higher prices as a result.

How much of our oil do foreign governments or foreign domiciled companies own, I wonder? How much of that precious 2%?

Also stated during this campaign stop was the huge increase in the number of cars in China now requiring fuel, and more excuses about just why we continue to remain in the Middle East for this "new" reason.

Since so many Americans have lost their jobs due to most of our manufacturing base being absorbed by China and thus raising the economies of their country's population, I guess I don't wonder much why China would need so much oil for all those new cars they are buying.

They've actually got our jobs and money, for the most part so that they can afford those cars.

But this was left out of Mr. Obama's speech.

Slams were taken at the "Republicans" who are now supporting entering another conflict in Syria, which were recently made by Mr. McCain, the senator from my former home state.

We certainly do like using that war card also each and every election.

For ones we are currently involved in, or those which we can manufacture for the future to keep all those members of the military busy for decades to come.

Somehow also tying it into protecting America from those terrorists who apparently don't like us being in their country for well on three decades and counting.

Yada, yada, yada...and so it goes...

I had been away for a few hours each day working at the only job which I could find which hardly suits my resume, but with gas now at almost $4.00 a gallon (my father remembers gas at .28 a gallon, and I when I started driving .33) I had to do what I could just to afford the gas I currently need to keep looking.

I'm helping one of those major retailers move from its old location to a new strip mall location off the interstate. It will remain nameless due to a confidentiality agreement I was requested to sign prior to being offered the job moving boxes and boxes of merchandise and stocking shelves.

My hours were recently cut, however, due to "over-scheduling."

So far I haven't seen a single item which will be sold at this particular retailer that has been American made.

All so far bear the stamp, "made in China."

And who ultimately owns this major retailer?

Bain Capital (aka Mitt Romney).

As I said...yada, yada, yada

Romney Exhibits Fascist Bent Over Felon Voting

The AP carried an article recently on the latest GOP debate, much of which is directed toward gaining ad revenues for the media, rather than highlighting any true positions of the GOP candidates that most Americans would deem worthy of watching at this point.

The latest "backbiting" argument which has been published has to do with a supposed fight between two of the Eastern GOP presidential candidates, Mitt (Used Car Salesman) Romney and Rick (Sweater Vest) Santorum. Over felon voting rights, no less.

Mr. Romney is attempting to portray Mr. Santorum as "soft" on crime, as one of those holier than thou candidates who believe any felony committed in this country is worthy of removing voting rights (not privileges) for Americans based upon their past conduct, even after they have served their sentence and paid their debt to society. Mr. Santorum believes in granting again those rights which were and are "God given" (something Mr. Romney seems to forget quite frequently) once the penalty has been paid.

If Mr. Romney was a Christian, isn't Mr. Santorum's position a little more Christ like (and Constitutional) than Mr. Romney's. I mean, redemption is inherently supposed to be a part of our criminal justice system, and with the penalties today for even minor felonies where no loss of life or personal injury is involved, shouldn't that punishment be sufficient, rather than life long punishments?

For murder or capital crimes involving loss of life, injury or property loss, I can see removing those rights while those individuals are repaying their debts to society, but that was not the position taken by Mr. Romney, nor is it a "legal" position in accordance with the common law and our Constitution (nor biblical).

So, it does seem Mr. Romney continues to exhibit his rather fascist understanding of the Constitution with respect to individual liberties and freedoms, more and more each one of these debates...unless those positions are also scripted in order to again sway this election back to the Democrats until the Republicans earn their "right" to hold the highest office in the land.

By the powers that be that put them there...which is becoming abundantly clear is not the American citizen voters at all...