I had planned to comment on the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision yesterday but had to attend a funeral. I now feel like I should say Kaddish for the United States of America.
I am disgusted. This is results-oriented jurisprudence at its absolute worst. Roberts' opinion rewrote the law, which its backers insisted all along was not a tax. Now, it's the largest tax increase in the history of, well, ever.
Nearly as bad as the decision are comments from Republican pundits casting this either as a master Machiavellian move by Roberts to make Obama and the Congressional Democrats look bad by having implemented the largest-ever tax increase, or that Roberts was fearful of having the Supreme Court being seen as a partisan political instrument. To those pundits: Please STFU. Only morons are buying your spin.
Fine, the Dems think that despite their prior protests that it's sufficient to justify Obamacare as a tax. I say that once the Republicans obtain control of Congress and the White House, we pass the following legislation:
1. 26 USC Section 53 et seq, the National Firearms Act of 1934, is hereby REPEALED.
2. Title 10 USC Section 311, Militia: Composition and Classes, is hereby ammended:
(c) Each member of the unorganized militia is required by this act to purchase and maintain in proper working order
(i) a rifle of the pattern then currently in use by the United States Army (heretofore "service rifle", and
(ii) no less than six magazines or ammunition feeding devices compatible with the service rifle, with a capacity of no less than twenty cartridges, and
(iii) a maintenance kit for the service rifle, and
(iv) no less than five hundred cartrdiges for the service rifle.
(d) Each member of the unorganized militia who fails to comply with Part (c) of this section shall be taxed no less than $1,500.00 for each year not in compliance, and such tax shall be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.
{Hat tip to Arfcommer "NagOrzo15-1" for the idea.)
Bad idea? If justifying Congress's forcing the individual mandate down our throats under the guise of a tax is acceptable, why not this?
Posts
4 comments:
The more I actually read the decision itself,(I'm only 30% through at this point) the more I'm inclined to believe that the pundits seeing "cloaked victory" are grasping at straw shadows.
Where, exactly in the decision is Wickard v Filburn overturned? {crickets}.
So far, it looks like Roberts lists out the precedents under which Commerce has been upheld, including W v F's magic incantations "travelling in or affecting", and shows that the individual mandate doesn't fit.
So far, the very best that can be said is that Roberts has told congress that you just can't shout "Commerce Clause!", you have to show how it fits existing precedents, which isn't terribly hard for most things.
cheers,
geekWithA.45
If you’re going to repeal NFA 34 how about 18 USC 922(o)? [That’s the part of the gun owners protection act that bans ownership of machine guns not registerer before 1986}
Wickard v. Filburn not overruled, remains in all its sinful malodorous infamy.
TeeJaw, agreed on both comments.
Post a Comment