Did the Supreme Court Violate the Constitution When They Rewrote Obamacare?

I like many of you waited in anticipation for the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. What I thought should have been a slam dunk, turned into incredulity. If this abomination were to pass, we all thought it would be Justice Kennedy who would’ve stabbed us in the back; not Roberts.

Waves of anger flushed through every fiber of my being. How could the Chief Justice stab us in the back like that? Do we have another Souter on our hands? What’s worse, this man conspired with the fascist on the court to rewrite the law in order to “comply” with the Constitution. The commerce clause simply didn’t allow the federal government to mandate that we “citizens” buy a product. But in rewriting the law, the justices violated Article One Section Seven: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Obamacare was not introduced in the House of Representatives as a tax. It was purported to be a mandate. The Supreme Court violated the Constitution by dismissing the individual mandate for what it was: a mandate. Instead, they INTRODUCED the law as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts and his confederates subverted the process. They became legislators.

The anti-federalist Brutus warned us of the unchecked powers of the Supreme Court and what that means for the states and federalism in general:

I have, in the course of my observation on this constitution, affirmed and endeavored to shew, that it was calculated to abolish entirely the state governments, and to melt down the states into one entire government, for every purpose as well internal and local, as external and national. In this opinion the opposers of the system have generally agreed — and this has been uniformly denied by its advocates in public. Some individuals, indeed, among them, will confess, that it has this tendency, and scruple not to say, it is what they wish; and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that if it is adopted without amendments, or some such precautions as will ensure amendments immediately after its adoption, that the same gentlemen who have employed their talents and abilities with such success to influence the public mind to adopt this plan, will employ the same to persuade the people, that it will be for their good to abolish the state governments as useless and burdensome.

Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accomodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only; so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the mean time all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion. The people will be told, that their state officers, and state legislatures are a burden and expence without affording any solid advantage, for that all the laws passed by them, might be equally well made by the general legislature. If to those who will be interested in the change, be added, those who will be under their influence, and such who will submit to almost any change of government, which they can be persuaded to believe will ease them of taxes, it is easy to see, the party who will favor the abolition of the state governments would be far from being inconsiderable. — In this situation, the general legislature, might pass one law after another, extending the general and abridging the state jurisdictions, and to sanction their proceedings would have a course of decisions of the judicial to whom the constitution has committed the power of explaining the constitution. — If the states remonstrated, the constitutional mode of deciding upon the validity of the law, is with the supreme court, and neither people, nor state legislatures, nor the general legislature can remove them or reverse their decrees.

And how prescient is that?


Source: http://constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm