Conservatives Forum.com The #1 Conservatives Forum on Google.com
Conservative News and Discussion Forum. Home of the Sisterhood Of the Sacred Skillet of Justice.
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Page 2 - Page 3 - CF Forums - Conservative News Source - Newsmax TV
Constitutional Issues - Candidates Action - Economy - Talk Radio Conservative News - Conservatives Directory
Sports - Health - Poetry - Entertainment - Cook, Crafts - Activists Forum - Conservative Activist - CF Chat
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority? (Read 7,172 times)
Cameron Reddy
CF Newbies 4
*
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 4
Joined: 06/27/12
Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
07/12/12 at 11:38:05
Print Post  
Joseph Story, the preeminent constitutional law scholar of the 19th century wrote, in 1833, in in his Commentaries on the Constitution:

Quote:
Yet cases may readily be imagined, in which a tax may be laid, or a treaty made, upon motives and grounds wholly beside the intention of the constitution. The remedy, however, in such cases is solely by an appeal to the people at the elections; or by the salutary power of amendment, provided in the constitution itself. (Emphasis supplied).


I wrote about this on American Thinker last week but no one commenting seemed to realize the import.

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, writing what was arguably the most important opinion in the last 50 years, missed this incredibly authoritative justification for exactly what he ruled! Simply put, Story's quote couldn't have been more relevant.

Roberts quotes Story elsewhere in his opinion. Indeed, it's safe to say that no legal opinion written by any judge in any court in the nation would fail to cite Story when on point.

So, did his clerks just miss this?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #1 - 08/05/12 at 10:35:01
Print Post  
I have a serious, fundamental problem with Story's quote, which relies "solely" on remedy to unconstitutional law or treaty by resort to elections or an amendment.

The real effect of Story's view, and the opinion argued by Justice Roberts, is that we no longer are a Republic, ruled by law, but are subjected to tyranny at the whim of the legislating elite, and relying on the populist majority to overturn transgressions against our freedoms.

Furthermore, such a view would thoroughly invalidate the Court's authority for Constitutional review, with the Court becoming only a complicit white-wash mechanism, validating legislative transgressions, and nowhere upholding the Constitution itself ... which is pretty much Robert's own view.  

However the truth in both the Constitution itself and the Federalist Papers indicate otherwise.  

Article 1, Section 8 creates Congress and limits its action to enumerated powers and insists that their actions be both " necessary AND proper", or in accordance with the constitution tenets.  While the health care reform might be "necessary", the usurpation of the health care industry under Congress, and the individual mandate, are nowhere powers afforded Congress, and therefore are not "proper".

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, supports this view for both laws enacted by Congress, and treaties as well:


  • The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Only the Laws and treaties which are made "pursuant to" the Constitution itself are to be recognized as the Law of the Land. Any law or treaty not made pursuant to the Constitution is not made "under the authority of the United States", and are not to "withstand" against the Constitution itself.  These laws and treaties are null and void at face value - inherently invalid.



Hamilton indicates in Federalist #78:

  • There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.


Right now we have the "servants", our legislators and judiciary, declaring themselves above "the master", the people.

The overall effect of Story's and Robert's perspective is we are no longer a Republic, no longer have any guaranteed rights, and are subject to the whim of the majority, or even the will of the minority legislative elite.... and the Constitution itself becomes meaningless.  

The result is and can only be tyranny.

As a  response to this problem in which we now find ourselves,  here is a video well worth the watching. In fact Robert's response indicating it was not his job to protect us from our bad voting, necessitates that this is our necessary remedy:

NULLIFICATION: The Rightful Remedy (1hr 12mins)




  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #2 - 08/05/12 at 19:13:00
Print Post  
The unanswered question, which Justice Robert's reply offered to satisfy, is "What is a tax, and does an assessment constitute a tax, in spite of what it may be called"?

This would be the textualist's take on it.  Certainly the people of the period understood that mandatory extraction of money from them was a tax.  The Roberts decision has served notice on the people that it is their responsibility to keep control of their Congress.  Who else is authorized to do that?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #3 - 08/05/12 at 22:23:27
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/05/12 at 19:13:00:
The unanswered question, which Justice Robert's reply offered to satisfy, is "What is a tax, and does an assessment constitute a tax, in spite of what it may be called"?

This would be the textualist's take on it.  Certainly the people of the period understood that mandatory extraction of money from them was a tax.  The Roberts decision has served notice on the people that it is their responsibility to keep control of their Congress.  Who else is authorized to do that?



Roberts' appraisal, is basically that hte government can tax us for anything it chooses, and that his job (the court's) is not to protect us from the outcome of our bad political choices.  Somehow "a vote" for a person, has turned into to justify and validate any act they might carry out, in the form of legislation of directed action against us.. And the Court's job is not to interpret the constitution.


How anyone might look at this and believe it to be somehow reasonable, in this country (not a banana republic) really boggles my mind.

How is it "a tax" when there is mandatory extraction of money from them when they arent doing anything? They're not even taxing behavior (like smoking) but non behavior!  .. non-action!

That's not reasonably any sort of tax, and it's not the legitimate authority of government to dictate our behaviors, any more so than it is for that government to pick winners and losers!    That's nowhere in government's job description!   If it is to be considered "reasonably" a tax, then we're nothing but sheep and government can do whatever it chooses to us  (fleece us) for whatever reason, or no reason whatsoever!

Basically if we accept Robertds' response, it becomes a "no holds barred" consideration for government, and we're about to enter into utter chaos and unrestrained tyranny! THAT  is the "green light' which Roberts and the four other members of the court gave the rest of government; they can do anything they want.

And God help us...   God help us if we're not smart enough to recognize the monstrosity of Roberts actions.









  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #4 - 08/05/12 at 23:22:52
Print Post  
One may disagree with Roberts, that money which the government takes from us is a tax, but in doing so he has established a definition which will serve as a reference in future cases.

The need to define what is a person and what is a religion remains a task for the future.  Such definitions, if and when established, would greatly assist the Court in future cases.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #5 - 08/05/12 at 23:44:17
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/05/12 at 22:23:27:
Roberts' appraisal, is basically that hte government can tax us for anything it chooses, and that his job (the court's) is not to protect us from the outcome of our bad political choices.  Somehow "a vote" for a person, has turned into to justify and validate any act they might carry out, in the form of legislation of directed action against us.. And the Court's job is not to interpret the constitution.

Bad political choices, if they run up against the Constitution, are proper candidates for SCOTUS study and findings.   Otherwise, such choices are outside of their purview.  That is the crux of Roberts' reasoning.


How anyone might look at this and believe it to be somehow reasonable, in this country (not a banana republic) really boggles my mind.

The authority for rewarding or punishing the Congress for actions affecting the people lies with the people.  Where does it say otherwise?

How is it "a tax" when there is mandatory extraction of money from them when they arent doing anything? They're not even taxing behavior (like smoking) but non behavior!  .. non-action!

That's not reasonably any sort of tax, and it's not the legitimate authority of government to dictate our behaviors, any more so than it is for that government to pick winners and losers!    That's nowhere in government's job description!   If it is to be considered "reasonably" a tax, then we're nothing but sheep and government can do whatever it chooses to us  (fleece us) for whatever reason, or no reason whatsoever!

Basically if we accept Robertds' response, it becomes a "no holds barred" consideration for government, and we're about to enter into utter chaos and unrestrained tyranny! THAT  is the "green light' which Roberts and the four other members of the court gave the rest of government; they can do anything they want.

It is up to the people to restrain the Congress.  To assume otherwise is to either ignore or to misinterpret that document.

And God help us...   God help us if we're not smart enough to recognize the monstrosity of Roberts actions.

If you can find anything in the Constitution which gives SCOTUS the authority to dictate to the Congress, I would like to study it.









  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #6 - 08/06/12 at 00:55:55
Print Post  
[quote author=t1eaiburi6 link=1342107485/0#4 date=1344223372]One may disagree with Roberts, that money which the government takes from us is a tax, but in doing so he has established a definition which will serve as a reference in future cases.

The need to define what is a person and what is a religion remains a task for the future.  Such definitions, if and when established, would greatly assist the Court in future cases.[/quote]

This is not just a matter of opinion. This is a matter of facts. Some choose to not recognize the facts either because they are not sofficiently familiar with the "lay of the land", or they don't want to recognize how things are changing and what is being done to us.

It's not whether I myself disagree with Roberts. The Constitution disagrees with Roberts. and provides no [i]legitimate[/i] authority  for government to exercise this tax.  

Chief Justice Roberts, the alleged leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, said this in his decision:
[list][*]  "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
[/list]

Uh, John, actually, on the most fundamental level, that is your job, and the job of the Supreme Court.

The Court's primary charge is not to ensure the Congress's authority to tax, but it spent a day of an extraordinary 3-day hearing on considering that it did not interfere with the federal government's authority to collect a tax (Anti-Injunction Act), and another day considering Medicare, another day dismissing the claim that the government didnt have the authority for the mandate.

However nowhere in the hearing was concern given over ObamaCare nullifying a full 70% of the Bill of Rights. More importantly the Court ignored the law fundamentally and profoundly changes the relationship between the citizen and the federal government.  

No 9 people have the authority to grant this sort of change.  Not even an Amendment can grant this sort of change. The Constitution must be gutted and discarded for that. What we witnessed was a bloodless coup and nullification of the Bill of Rights, and Constituiton as a whole, whose primary purpose defined as ensuring the protection of unalienable indivdual rights. And all of this was championed by obfuscations by Chieft Justice John Roberts.

Some blind Republicans actually think that because Roberts was appointed by Bush, that his actions must be reasonable and supported, and have sought to validate and even praise ROberts in all of this.


Some need to beg, borrow or steal "a clue".   THat is as diplomatically as I'm able to phrase it. Roberts is not a friend of the Constitution,and his actions are not supportable.

We don't need to define what a person is as the law has done that itself. If corporations are able to be sued, and their money taxed, and their industry legislated, even with the open intent of driving that industry out of business, then those corporations have the right to represent themselves.  And Congress has no business defining what is a religion, even though there be some that are not bona fide religions.


This country is in grave trouble, and far too many Americans still have yet to open their eyes.  However, even recognizing that fact, a great many Americans have already resolved that they will not relinquish there rights and freedoms.

[b]No, "bad" political choices are not the subject of SCOTUS purview, as this is just a matter of opinion, but rather ouright transgressions of the Constitutional boundaries are under SCOTUS purview, and that is what we have here in the extreme.[/b]

[b]No, it is NOT "up to the people to restrain  Congress" as the terms of that restraint to Congress has already been agreed upon and ratified by the states, and is known as the U.S. Constitution. [/b] What you promote is the legitimizing of Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is by deliberate resolve not the method of this country.
« Last Edit: 08/06/12 at 02:56:44 by Trip »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #7 - 08/06/12 at 01:00:37
Print Post  
And I submit that if you yourself cannot find anything in the Constitution giving SCOTUS the authority to limit and prohibit the acts of Congress, particularly after I've already referenced 3 primary areas, then you do not have even a passing familiarity with that Constitution.

I'm quite certain you would have difficulty finding he people's authority to overrule SCOTUS too, but my first post in this thread references a movie that will help with that.


What we've seen from Roberts and four other Justices, is nothing short of an open assault on the Constitution and the  unalienable individual rights which that document guarantees, which they all have sworn oaths to uphold. The others were not a surprise because they have each in their own way indicated their adamant determination to dismiss the Constitution. However Roberts was a Brutus betrayal of astonishing proportions. There really is no other legitimate way to characterize it.


And please do not edit inside my quote box.  It is  at minimal distorting, if not misrepresentative,  to what users have written, confusing to other readers, and not promotive of a clear exchange of ideas.  Many forums  outright prohibit such intra-quote edits.


« Last Edit: 08/06/12 at 02:15:57 by Trip »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #8 - 08/06/12 at 08:21:53
Print Post  
[quote author=Trip link=1342107485/0#6 date=1344228955]

This is not just a matter of opinion. This is a matter of facts. Some choose to not recognize the facts either because they are not sofficiently familiar with the "lay of the land", or they don't want to recognize how things are changing and what is being done to us.

It's not whether I myself disagree with Roberts. The Constitution disagrees with Roberts. and provides no [i]legitimate[/i] authority  for government to exercise this tax.  

Chief Justice Roberts, the alleged leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, said this in his decision:
[list][*]  "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
[/list]

Uh, John, actually, on the most fundamental level, that is your job, and the job of the Supreme Court.

The Court's primary charge is not to ensure the Congress's authority to tax, but it spent a day of an extraordinary 3-day hearing on considering that it did not interfere with the federal government's authority to collect a tax (Anti-Injunction Act), and another day considering Medicare, another day dismissing the claim that the government didnt have the authority for the mandate.

However nowhere in the hearing was concern given over ObamaCare nullifying a full 70% of the Bill of Rights. More importantly the Court ignored the law fundamentally and profoundly changes the relationship between the citizen and the federal government.  

No 9 people have the authority to grant this sort of change.  Not even an Amendment can grant this sort of change. The Constitution must be gutted and discarded for that. What we witnessed was a bloodless coup and nullification of the Bill of Rights, and Constituiton as a whole, whose primary purpose defined as ensuring the protection of unalienable indivdual rights. And all of this was championed by obfuscations by Chieft Justice John Roberts.

Some blind Republicans actually think that because Roberts was appointed by Bush, that his actions must be reasonable and supported, and have sought to validate and even praise ROberts in all of this.


Some need to beg, borrow or steal "a clue".   THat is as diplomatically as I'm able to phrase it. Roberts is not a friend of the Constitution,and his actions are not supportable.

We don't need to define what a person is as the law has done that itself. If corporations are able to be sued, and their money taxed, and their industry legislated, even with the open intent of driving that industry out of business, then those corporations have the right to represent themselves.  And Congress has no business defining what is a religion, even though there be some that are not bona fide religions.


This country is in grave trouble, and far too many Americans still have yet to open their eyes.  However, even recognizing that fact, a great many Americans have already resolved that they will not relinquish there rights and freedoms.

[b]No, "bad" political choices are not the subject of SCOTUS purview, as this is just a matter of opinion, but rather ouright transgressions of the Constitutional boundaries are under SCOTUS purview, and that is what we have here in the extreme.[/b]

[b]No, it is NOT "up to the people to restrain  Congress" as the terms of that restraint to Congress has already been agreed upon and ratified by the states, and is known as the U.S. Constitution. [/b] What you promote is the legitimizing of Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is by deliberate resolve not the method of this country.
[/quote]

I have asked you for specifics.  I get generalities.  Sorry about editing inside your box.  I was unaware that it is improper, and was trying to be specific.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?
Reply #9 - 08/06/12 at 10:25:08
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/05/12 at 10:35:01:
I have a serious, fundamental problem with Story's quote, which relies "solely" on remedy to unconstitutional law or treaty by resort to elections or an amendment.


The real effect of Story's view, and the opinion argued by Justice Roberts, is that we no longer are a Republic, ruled by law, but are subjected to tyranny at the whim of the legislating elite, and relying on the populist majority to overturn transgressions against our freedoms.

Furthermore, such a view would thoroughly invalidate the Court's authority for Constitutional review, with the Court becoming only a complicit white-wash mechanism, validating legislative transgressions, and nowhere upholding the Constitution itself ... which is pretty much Robert's own view.  




Story does not quarrel with the Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation.  Unless one can find, in the Constitution, a described mechanism for the Court to enforce its ruling, Story is correct in his opinion that only the Congress can correct a mistake that the Congress has made.

In the case of the health care mandate, that would still be true regardless of which way the court came down.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Did Justice Roberts simply miss this authority?


ConservativesForum.com
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5


Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
TruthUSA
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Hotair
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules