In essence, I think this is what Roberts is saying. "It's not my job to repeal this thing. It's Congresses job." He's right, insomuch as his job is to decide whether or not the law violates the Constitution. I think he's way off on his opinion that it isn't ... because what he essentially did is let the Obama Administration's lawyers re-write the law right there in the court room. The word "tax" does not appear anywhere in the bill, and it doesn't appear there because its crafters knew that if it was perceived as any sort of tax it would never have passeed. More on that in a minute.
It's not over. Laws can be repealed. The House is voting on a repeal bill in July. It may very well pass, but they have to know it will never make it through the senate as long as it's Democrat controlled. So it's a campaign vote, in essence, but they should take it anyway. Lines need to be drawn.
Romney has vowed to repeal it Day 1. Well, the way I see it, Romney can't really officially do that in the long run. It'll have to be repealed by Congress. So get out there and vote in people who will vote for repeal. Presidents can wield influence. But they need help.
While lamenting the final nail in the coffin of the American Experiment, a friend of Morgan's said it was over the moment the 17th amendment was passed. While I think that's an overstatement, there's a lot of truth to it.
The senate was instituted to represent the states' individual interests, and I do mean "State" in the incorporated sense of the word, as in the governing body and structure of, say, Missouri and not directly the people of Missouri. That is what the house is for. The state legislatures voted for their Federal senators. It was designed this way for a reason.
What the 17th amendment did was turn the House and Senate and turned them into two lower chambers, in essence. Two congresses, elected by direct vote of the people. It basically neutered the states in the balance of power between the states and the federal government. This is a bad thing, and it has been for a long time.
What's even more insidious is that, in this day and age of sending protesters and money from one state to another to effect the campaigns for the house AND the senate, is now it's not even just the people of Missouri fighting among themselves as to who the voters send to the Senate, let alone the House ... you've got Canadians like Michael J Fox and national Democratic party money behind him advertising Claire McCaskill to Missourians to retroactively save the late Christopher Reeves (I kid you not, this happened!)
But the long and the short of it is that the bulk of the burden of Obamacare falls on the states, and the states, as structural entities, would never have gone for that. And on top of that, this bill of goods was sold as definitely NOT a tax, NOT a tax, NOT a tax, and anyone who says it is is a knuckle-dragging racist conspiracy theorist.
Then Nancy said we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
What's in it?
Apparently, A TAX!!!!!!
There's a word for this. It's FRAUD.