c56955e3   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/1/2012 6:31 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   > On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Josh  wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > As with any change, it would take time to see the effects, and yet you   
   > presume that after 200+ years without (constitutional) judicial review   
   > following on Marbury we would be here today exactly as we are. Is that   
   > your position from which you stand to which I am to respond? That   
   > Obamacare would still stand under a process of state nullification,   
   > for example, in lieu of SCOTUS review?   
   >   
   > On other hand, from a time in which a Constitutional Amendment or two   
   > would be adopted clarifying and apportioning the responsibility for   
   > Constitutional standing of federal law is the time I imagine the stuff   
   > and nonsense like unlimited power given to the federal government   
   > through whatever means  SCOTUS has given it will wither away.   
      
   Good luck with the state nullification amendment.  Until then, all you   
   have is judicial review.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)