SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES = SURREPTITIOUS CABAL of UGLY MOLLS
BRIEFLY, MY THOUGHTS ON THE RULING
I got an email from Rand Paul* (not really him, but one of his PACs) today. I didn’t bother to read it. The subject was “The Supreme Court is Wrong.” As much as I would like to believe this, the more I think it over, the more I disagree. The Supreme Court is right. Not morally, ethically, or even Constitutionally** right. But right in its interpretation of ObamaCare (thank you Mitt Romney), or more specifically the Individual Mandate (thank you Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton), as a tax.
It is really quite easy to come to this conclusion. Even so, I was somewhat shocked when I did.
Consider the income tax. It is nothing if not a mandate to not earn money. Or a sales tax. It is a mandate to not purchase things in the above board manner prescribed by the tax collectors. How about inflation, the hidden tax? It is a mandate to not save. And when the people don’t comply with these mandates, when they earn too much money, when they make purchases, when they save and invest, they are fined and it is merely dubbed taxation. I don’t see why the same could not be said of any tariff, duty, impost, excise, levy, or frankly, regulation (I think the Austrian and Chicago Schools both agree that this is a tax).
So you see, the Individual Mandate is as legitimate as any other tax. Inasmuch as the principle of taxation is legitimate, that is. The Court could no more strike it down than it could any other aspect of the tax code or regulatory regime.
*I have heard all the apologies and I have heard all the theories, and have even had a few of my own, and no matter which one(s) you pick, I still deduce that the man is a veritable reprobate.
**There are a few modern day Anti-Federalists (Gary North, Bill Buppert, Scott Lazarowitz, Gary Barnett, Eduardo Rivera, Doug Casey, Ron Holland, Ryan McMaken, Laurence Vance, Brian McCandliss, Manuel Lora, Michael Rozeff, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Tom Mullen) who would argue that any kind of taxation or regulation is within Congress’ purview, especially when looking at, though not approving of, the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.
MY OPINION OF PRAGMATIC CONSERVATIVE VOTERS
You have heard it said something to the effect of, “Romney is far from my fist choice. He is a progressive. He is an elitist. He is authoritarian. If Obama wasn’t the alternative, I would probably just stay home. But the reason conservatives, and anyone that wants to get rid of Obama, should hold their nose and vote for Romney is that he will appoint conservatives to the courts to counterbalance the depraved leftists and weak moderates that are now the majority. That is the reason to always vote for the lesser of two evils. For, even if they turn out to be as bad as or worse than the Democrat, their court appointees will more than cancel out the Presidents misdeeds.”
I have seen/heard this logic often. My argument against it was merely a matter of degree before. But now it is one of principle. Before this ruling, my take was, “Sure, the court appointees will be a good thing, but they won’t be enough to cancel out the bad.” Now, since I have learned how much of a fraud Chief Justice Roberts is, my view has become more, “The appointees and their actions will be a net loss, and will add to the President’s tyrannies and inadequacies rather than subtract.”
Just another reason to NOT vote for Mitt Romney where a reason to vote for him supposedly existed before.
I am not saying Mitt Romney won’t, if elected, appoint some decent people. I am simply saying that I am done trusting so-called “conservative” appointees where I once held out hope.