a3891edb   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/1/2012 5:49 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   > On Jul 1, 5:19 pm, Josh  wrote:   
   >> On 7/1/2012 5:16 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Jun 29, 10:50 am, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/28/2012 1:36 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> ObamaCare is still the law of the land, and we blame George W. Bush.   
   >>   
   >>>> No.  Blame those that enacted the law and upheld the law.  None of them   
   >>>> understand the just purposes of government.   
   >>   
   >>>>> So what we have here is another 5-4 decision ...   
   >>   
   >>>> Divided we fall.   
   >>   
   >>>> Divide and conquer.   
   >>   
   >>>> Split decisions (and the power to even have them) is a simple recipe for   
   >>>> destruction in any branch of government.   
   >>   
   >>>> The founders missed this point, or presumed that we'd make the necessary   
   >>>> Constitutional changes (they were wrong).  It should be super-majority   
   >>>> in legislative issues, unanimity in judicial issues.   
   >>   
   >>> And yet conservatives will continue on and allow this never-   
   >>> articulated in the Constitution process of judicial review to   
   >>> continue.   
   >>   
   >> If it weren't for judicial review, the law couldn't even have been   
   >> challenged   
   >   
   > Isn't that exactly the only thing Chief Justice Roberts cared about?   
   > That "judicial review" means nothing to restrain unlimited federal   
   > power, in the final conclusion? But rather to expand it infinitely   
   > through any taxation whatsoever?  I'm sorry, but there is a HUGE   
   > difference between taxing an item or an activity and taxing doing   
   > exactly nothing and buying nothing.  He just shifted unlimited federal   
   > power by use of the Commerce Clause to unlimited federal power using   
   > taxation, and quite frankly, because the American Revolution was   
   > fought over British extension of presumed unlimited imperial power to   
   > do anything by commerce (mercantilism) and taxation (a remote   
   > government usurpation) the consequent USA Constitution can never have   
   > been to do just that.   
      
   That was a wonderful non-response to my critique of your position that   
   judicial review should not be continued.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)