George Will Only Imagines Congress' Power Has Been Limited, But It Hasn't

Here:

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution . . . the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

The fact remains, however, that with the stroke of a pen the Court has changed the locus of unlimited power-seeking from the venue of commerce to the venue of taxation. Congress' power "to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior" hasn't been diminished one bit, just shifted.

I can now be penalized (!) with a tax (!) for not buying whatever Congress' decides. This used to be a power reserved to the States, which can force you, say, to purchase a gun. Now the Court has given that power over you to the Congress, by-passing the States.

The issue was well-framed for us already, in the dead of winter, during the Republican primary debate about RomneyCare, here:

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare's unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. ... As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws -- including laws banning contraception -- without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally. The only reason the "individual mandate" has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product. ... States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive. There's no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today's world to equip themselves with health insurance.


But now the Congress has this power, under the taxing authority, at least until some enterprising citizens challenge healthcare premiums they actually pay as a form of unapportioned direct taxation, and win.

Until then, we have no place left to hide. The whole country has become Massachusetts.

"Congress Can Now Tax People For Not Buying Broccoli"

So Randy Barnett for The Washington Post, here:

"Congress can now essentially tax people for not buying broccoli."


The trouble is, that is a penalty, not a tax. 

Forward Comrades!

EU Deal Spikes Both Gold And Oil, Ratio Remains Near 19

Gold shot up on Friday to about $1,604 the ounce, as did oil to almost $85 the barrel, in doing which both proved that neither gold nor oil really believes in the concurrent and dramatic stock market gains, nor that Merkel's concessions to Italy and Spain are fundamentally positive.

The Shiller p/e ratio is elevated over 35 percent above the mean of 16, as the Standard and Poor's 500 itself lagged both gold and oil and was up only 2.5 percent. In other words, it's closer to its upper bound than is gold, which vaulted 3.5 percent, and oil, which spiked over 9 percent. In the only contest that counts, hard assets won again.

Spain and Italy need to borrow more cheaply than the bond market is allowing at the moment, and now we are told both countries are going to be allowed to borrow from the European Stability Mechanism, which doesn't yet exist, hasn't been approved by all members, has so far very little capital, and both Italy and Spain are themselves supposed to be contributors to it at the same time they need help from it.

As others have pointed out, the ESM will fail because it will not provide an infinite pool from which to borrow. Once its limited reserves have been tapped, the bond market will come calling again.

It is noteworthy that this time the sovereign borrowing will not subordinate other borrowers. This is being viewed as a way to de-link the sovereigns and the banks and maintain the value of the bond pool and hence subdue rising yields, making it easier for the sovereigns to borrow. What it really represents is the further debasement of the sovereigns.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the borrowing will not be counted against EU fiscal requirements, and will be lawfully conducted off balance sheet. This amounts to a step toward less transparency, not more, and resembles nothing so much as the gigantic global banking operations who seek sovereign protections while carrying structured investment vehicles off the books.

All of which amounts to Germany giving its approval to cheating by Spain and Italy because they are too big to fail if the euro is to succeed. Portugal, Ireland and Greece were not similarly treated. So much for the rules.

"Europe" is still a fiction, except to the extent that this deal looks hastily cobbled together so that everyone can go enjoy their 6-week summer vacation.

Pretty shabby.

Obama Can Crawl Around In The Gutter With The Worst Of Them

Dissenting Supremes Affirm The Principle That Coercion Voids Contracts

Here:

When federal legislation gives the States a real choice whether to accept or decline a federal aid package, the federal-state relationship is in the nature of a contractual relationship. See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U. S. 181, 186 (2002); Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 17. And just as a contract is voidable if coerced, “[t]he legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power . . . rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’” Ibid. (emphasis added). If a federal spending program coerces participation the States have not “exercise[d] their choice”—let alone made an “informed choice.” Id., at 17, 25.

However, nowhere in the opinion do I see a discussion of how ObamaCare is a coerced contract between the government and the individual, and thus no contract at all. The dissent instead focuses on how the States are being coerced into a contract with respect to the Medicaid expansion.

The reason for this is that the Court is deciding a case brought by the States which think they have been wronged in that respect. The Court is not responding to hypothetical individuals who believe they may be wronged in future, and who cannot bring suit until the provisions of ObamaCare have taken effect and they become actual individuals and victims of the law.

It may be surmised that the Court's dissenting opinions in this and other areas are intended to telegraph possible avenues for future challenges to which they may be sympathetic.

Dissenting Supremes Decry "Verbal Wizardry"

Here:

"That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

"Tax" is spelled with a "t", "penalty" with a "p".

As the country song says, "Look it up."

Dissenting Supremes Question Whether ObamaCare's "Tax" Is A Direct Tax Which Must Be Apportioned According To Population

I told you so.

Quite apart from the problem of the Court rewriting the legislation's penalty as a tax, which amounts to rewriting the dictionary, will every man, woman and child in the country pay the exact same insurance premium, and the exact same tax if they do not purchase?

HELL NO, in violation of the constitution's direct taxation provisions if the mandate is a tax and not a penalty as the Court now declares. What the Court's legerdemain on the penalty has done is transformed health insurance premiums themselves into unequal direct taxes, in violation of the constitution.

From the opinion, here:

Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration than the lick-and-a-promise accorded by the Government and its supporters. The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Reply Brief 25. At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words. Tr. of Oral Arg. 79 (Mar. 27, 2012). One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.

Joshua Kurlantzick Totally Ignores Theft And Corruption At Heart Of State Capitalism

To know how far we've descended along the path to global fascism, with authoritarian technocrats in partnership with ideologues like Barack Obama pulling the levers and picking the winners and losers, consider this opening to a puff piece on the rise of state capitalism by Joshua Kurlantzick of teh Council on Foreign Relations for Bloomberg Businessweek, here:

Over the past five years, as much of the developed world has staggered through crisis, a new type of capitalism has emerged as a challenger to laissez-faire economics. Across much of the developing world, state capitalism—in which the state either owns companies or plays a major role in supporting or directing them—is replacing the free market. By 2015 state-owned wealth funds will control some $12 trillion in assets, far outpacing private investors. From 2004 through 2009, 120 state-owned companies made their debut on the Forbes list of the world’s largest corporations, while 250 private companies fell off it. State companies now control about 90 percent of the world’s oil and large percentages of other resources—a far cry from the past, when BP (BP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) could dictate terms to the world.

Kurlantzick spends not one moment considering the massive European and American efforts to prevent creative destruction in the banking and housing industries through the use of bailouts and monetarist central banking interventions, which represent state capitalism already in practice at the expense of hostage populations. Well, why would he spend any precious column inches on an utter and abject failure?

There's no room for that in a propaganda piece for the status quo.

Chief Justice Roberts Is Epileptic, Had Unprovoked Seizures In 1993 And 2007

So says the New York Times, here:

Even though his two seizures occurred 14 years apart, they meet the criteria for epilepsy because they were “unprovoked,” meaning that they were not caused by a head injury, a drug reaction or another known factor.

About 2.7 million people in the United States have epilepsy, and in 70 percent of the cases the cause is unknown, according to the Epilepsy Foundation. Neurologists sometimes describe seizures as an electrical storm in the brain, a brief episode of heightened activity that can cause mild symptoms that are barely noticeable, or loss of consciousness and convulsions, as in the case of the chief justice.

Is this man, appointed by George W. Bush, fit to decide the fate of freedom in America?

Did George W. Bush Appoint A Chief Justice Who Suffers From Epilepsy?

Michael Savage says so, here:

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying."

No, We Don't Miss You Anymore. Your Guy In The Supremes Just Screwed Us.

Change It Back

Freedom's Death Panel

Words Mean Whatever They Say They Mean: It Wasn't A Tax, Now It Is

STEPHANOPOULOS:  That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA:  No.  That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. ... 

STEPHANOPOULOS:  I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA:  George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

-- 9/20/09, here

Our Enemy, The State

Supremes Uphold ObamaCare 5-4. George Bush's Liberalism Carries The Day.

George W. Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts, voted with the liberals 5-4, redefining the mandate as a tax, which the Democrats denied it was to get it passed, but argued it was to get it upheld. He agreed.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

This just proves once again how unreliable are the appointees to the courts by Republican presidents. Conservatives they rarely are. But, of course, as we've said before, Ronald Reagan wasn't a conservative. He was a Democrat in recovery. George W. Bush was just in recovery.

So the Supremes have put the stink of raising your taxes on the Democrats, where it belongs. But just as the Democrats rammed the bill down our throats, the Supremes have just shoved it up your ass.

Was it good for you, baby?

Will someone now challenge this on tax grounds? If everyone must have health insurance, isn't it a poll tax which must be equally shared by every man, woman and child? To be constitutional, it must be apportioned according to population, which it will not be.

By the way, anyone remember Roberts defending Kagan's integrity, leaving it to her to decide whether she should recuse herself from this case?

Boy, was that ever a clue.

Q1 2012 GDP, Third and Final Estimate: 1.9 Percent

A decline from Q4 2011 of 36 percent.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis report is here.

Hey President Obama! Keep on sucking until you do succeed!

Gold To Fall To $700?

Yoni Jacobs thinks so, here, based on the gold price having broken the 300-day moving average:

“Just like you see oil falling from $115 to $80 – we will see the same thing with gold and it’s already underway.”

With a normal ratio of 15 barrels of oil to one ounce of gold, a $700 dollar price for gold also implies further deterioration in the price of oil ... to about $46/barrel.

"The euro crisis is first and foremost a banking crisis."

"The euro crisis is first and foremost a banking crisis."

-- Barry Eichengreen, 3/2/2011, here

"The eyes of our citizens are not yet sufficiently open to the true cause of our distresses. They ascribe them to every thing but their true cause, the banking system; a system, which, if it could do good in any form, is yet so certain of leading to abuse, as to be utterly incompatible with the public safety and prosperity. At present all is confusion, uncertainty and panic."

-- Thomas Jefferson, 6/22/1819, here