President Says Obamacare Decision a Victory for Freedom

By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

President Barack Obama hailed the US Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 decision to uphold his signature Affordable Care Act as “a victory for freedom.”

“By affirming the legality of our health care plan, the Court has ensured that every American will be free from the worry of having no insurance,” the President said. “By compelling everyone to purchase insurance we are freeing them to enjoy the benefits of medical coverage and relieving them of the necessity to plan ahead and decide for themselves whether get this insurance.”

The president attempted to reconcile the compulsory nature of the health care mandate with the concept of freedom. “Don’t be led astray by those who would have you believe that their notions of freedom are a match for what every American needs,” Obama warned. “Just think back to the times when your parents made you eat your peas. In your kid’s mind you probably saw this as an imposition on your freedom. But your parents were only trying to give you the gift of good health—freeing you from the consequences of a bad diet.”

“We’re doing the same kind of thing with our health care plan,” he continued. “By taking the issue of whether to buy insurance off your list of things to do we are freeing you from having to spend time figuring out what to do. That time can now be used in whatever way you want. On top of this, you’ll be healthier. And can there be any question that a healthier person is freer than a sick person?”

Press Secretary Says Contention that Obamacare Is Tax “Idiotic”

Press Secretary Jay Carney sought to get out ahead of the GOP’s campaign rhetoric alleging that Obamacare is a huge tax imposed on the middle class.

“There’s no way this is a tax,” Carney insisted. “The President doesn’t call it a tax. The legislation doesn’t say it’s a tax. Calling it a tax is idiotic. The President has made it quite clear that the $2,000 a person has to pay for refusing to buy health insurance is a punishment for disobedience, not a tax.”

The fact that the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was founded on Chief Justice John Roberts’ finding that the so-called penalty is a tax is irrelevant, according to Carney. “Roberts’ convoluted logic isn’t binding on anything,” Carney said. “All that matters is that the Court voted to sustain the law. Whatever reasons he or any other Justice might give are irrelevant.”

To further bolster his case against Obamacare being a tax, Carney cited the waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Secretary Sebelius has no authority to waive taxes,” Carney pointed out. “She does, however, have the authority to excuse persons from complying with the mandate. Those who think the mandate is oppressive ought to be trying to get on her good side. I don’t think that castigating the Affordable Care Act for political advantage is a course likely to achieve that.”

Thus far, Sebelius has issued over 1,000 waivers—most of them to organizations and businesses supporting the Administration’s political agenda.

In related news, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) suggested that, based on the Court’s decision, the government might mandate the consumption of tofu or the purchase of a Chevy Volt under threat of being assessed a penalty for noncompliance. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) dismissed such fears as “misplaced. It is the government’s job to promote the general welfare. If eating healthier food and driving non-polluting vehicles is deemed the appropriate way of promoting that welfare who is Mr. Jindal to say that the government shouldn’t penalize those who won’t cooperate?”

Contempt Vote Neutralized by DOJ

The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice informed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that it would not honor any request for enforcement of it’s finding that Attorney General Eric Holder is in contempt of Congress for his refusal to hand over copies of DOJ correspondence.

“The President’s declaration of Executive Privilege has already ruled that Congress is not entitled to these documents,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole asserted. “This preemptively exonerates Attorney General Holder and vetoes any action Mr. Boehner might contemplate taking in his effort to obtain this information.”

Cole called Congress’ efforts to secure DOJ correspondence on Operation Fast and Furious “a clear violation of the Constitution’s protection against self-incrimination. Under the Fifth Amendment no one may be compelled to testify against himself. Just because the President has acted to shield the Attorney General from having to invoke his right against self-incrimination doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.”

In related news, Attorney General Holder told a federal court that Texas GovernorRickPerry’s claim of executive privilege in a case concerning voter ID is invalid. “Why would he object to sharing his correspondence unless he has something to hide?” Holder asked. Holder speculated that “the something to hide is the racist intent of the Texas law requiring voters to show proof of identity before being allowed to vote. It is an established fact that a disproportionate number of undocumented persons are of Mexican descent. If Texas is permitted to proceed with its voter ID plan it will have a discriminatory impact on these people.”

Abortion Clinic Offers Sunday Discount

The Orlando Women’s Center in Florida is offering a $50 discount to patients for abortions performed on Sunday.

NARAL spokesperson Adora Slaughter praised the clinic’s “progressive marketing campaign. The frontal assault on the notion that somehow Sundays ought to be sacrosanct is a stroke of genius. I mean, consider the contrast. Instead of sitting in a church worshiping a nonexistent god a woman could be contributing to the health of the environment by reducing the Earth’s future population. If a $50 coupon is all it takes to shift our culture’s focus in this way I’m very encouraged about the progress we’re making.”

If the $50 discount isn’t enough to enable a woman to afford an abortion, the Fund Abortion Now website ( offers additional aid. “No one should be forced to forgo an abortion just because she can’t pay for it,” Slaughter declared. “Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act is on track to secure this right for everyone in America. In the meantime, we’re grateful that alternate sources of funding are so readily available.”

Feds Cancel Cooperation with States on Immigration Enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security has unilaterally revoked an agreement with Arizona and refused to initiate one with Virginia to cooperate in enforcing the country’s immigration laws.

“We were never very enthusiastic about these agreements,” Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted. “Communicating the Administration’s nuanced policy to the local governments has always been a problem. At the same time, we felt it was important to convey an impression that we could work together. After all, the President was telling everyone that he had no choice under existing law.”

“Now the situation has completely changed,” Napolitano boasted. “The President’s Executive Order has wiped out the previous law and established a new policy for how we treat those who are in the country illegally. Since we’re no longer going to be enforcing the old laws it would be a waste of time for us to simulate cooperation between us and the local governments on enforcement issues.”

Napolitano didn’t totally rule out possible cooperation between her agency and local governments. “If states want to help us issue work permits to these people I’m sure we could figure out a division of labor amenable to both sides,” she said. “The faster we can get new IDs into as many hands as possible the happier the President will be. Ideally, we’d like to have 800,000 new IDs in place within the next four months.”

In related news, the Department of Justice has set up a new “hotline” illegal aliens can use to complain about local government harassment. The hotline phone number is 1-855-353-1010. “We wanted to let this oppressed minority know that we’ve got their backs,” Attorney General Holder explained. “If any local cops even look at them crooked we want to know. There’s a new law now. Locals who won’t conform will be sanctioned.”

Obama Adviser Urges Democrats to Take Offensive on Taxes

White House adviser David Plouffe urged fellow Democrats to take the offensive on the tax issue in the campaign to reelect the President.

“The GOP is trying to twist Justice Roberts’ words into a campaign slogan implying that we favor imposing taxes on average Americans,” Plouffe contended. “The truth is that the President and the Democratic Party are not in favor of raising taxes on everyone. We are in favor of raising penalties on the non-compliant.”

Plouffe emphasized that “it is absolutely critical that we clarify this distinction to the electorate. Those who are cooperating with the President’s agenda—whether it be through buying the mandated health insurance, signing up for food stamps, hiring an undocumented worker, or whatever—have nothing to fear. They will get waivers, subsidies, and pardons as needed. All they have to do is help make sure the President is reelected.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens Archives

Please do us a favor.  If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.

Message Received: Repealing Obamacare up to We the People

By Cathi Herrod, President
Center for Arizona Policy

Many were surprised by not only the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare” yesterday, but by the legal rationale and the vote composition as well. The Court’s majority opinion upheld the health care law as a tax on the American people therefore Congress and President Obama had the constitutional authority to enact a tax.

The message the Court sent was heard loud and clear – as Governor Brewer said, “repealing Obamacare is now up to the American people.”

Erick Erickson of points out that we can disagree with parts of the legal precedent set by this case, but we have to recognize the court is saying that this is a political matter, and elections have consequences. Simply put, elections matter more than court rulings and this decision by the court very distinctly shows the choice that you will be faced with in this election.

A Similar Message 20 Years Ago  

We see a picture of the importance of elections when we look at the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Today marks the 20th anniversary of this ruling from which we need to learn its lessons, and apply them to Obamacare.

Planned Parenthood hailed the Casey decision as a reaffirmation of Roe v Wade (the case that legalized abortion on demand throughout our nation). Pro-lifers mourned the decision as the missed opportunity to overturn Roe. Read one view about the disastrous legacy of Casey at Public Discourse in a two part series (part 1/part 2).

Yet Casey also set the road map for us to address the horror of abortion over the last 20 years – by passing important clinic and informed consent standards to protect the health and safety of women and inform them about the dangers of abortion. The incremental approach to addressing abortion has at least enacted measures that appear to be bringing the abortion rate down thereby saving lives of preborn babies and their mothers.

It’s because elections have consequences, and because YOU went out and elected prolife candidates that the Arizona legislature has passed pro-life laws.

Similarly, if you don’t want this Supreme Court decision to be the final say on Obamacare, you must be registered to vote, be informed, and vote our values.

Still Questions to Be Answered  

One question the nation’s highest court left undecided is the impact Obamcare will have on religious freedom. There are at least 15 different lawsuits pending from nearly 50 individuals and organizations challenging Obamacare’s negative impact on our religious liberty.

The infamous “HHS mandate” requires that employers provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, and contraception, even when those products violate the employer’s religious beliefs is still up for grabs. The supposed exception for religious organizations is incredibly weak and protects very few faith-based groups.

The CAP-supported new Arizona law protects religious organizations from being forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance plans will enable our state to fight back against the complete disregard for our First Amendment freedoms. Thank YOU for supporting our efforts to stand for this measure at the State Capitol.

Two Great Events in July  

July 20-21, 29th Annual Arizona Home Education Convention & Curriculum Fair (Phoenix). Whether you are already educating at home or just curious about it, this convention is something you won’t want to miss! Details online.

July 20-21, A Weekend for Educators (Phoenix). eleven11 is bringing together a dynamic team of speakers to bless the educational leaders of Arizona. Encourage the teachers that you know to come be refreshed, equipped, and inspired. Details online.

Pastor, Grijalva, Giffords Voted for Largest Tax Increase in American History

It’s official now: Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history. The United States Supreme Court says so.

And Arizona’s three Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for the “unaffordable act” also voted to raise your taxes more than anyone has ever done since the founding of this nation.

They are Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, and Gabby Giffords, the latter now retired but nevertheless a Democrat who voted for Obamacare.

President Obama campaigned on a promise that couples making less than $250,000 a year would never see a tax increase if he was elected. Call this the biggest of his many whoppers. It was a lie of epic proportions. And Chief Justice John Roberts caught him.

Let the voters of Arizona make this a major campaign issue in the fall of 2012. This mother of all tax increases cannot be lost on the hard-workingcitizens and families burdened with the economic and employment woes which have characterized this presidential administration.


Why Didn’t John Roberts ‘Stretch’ to Find Arizona’s Law Enforcing Federal Immigration Statutes Constitutional?

Rush Limbaugh

If you gotta go into all kinds of contortions, if you got to go outside the bounds of the law to save the act, and that’s what the New York Times quotes Justice Roberts saying. Justice Roberts suggested that even he didn’t find the tax argument especially plausible, but he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid,” Justice Holmes wrote, that would be Oliver Wendell, “our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”

This is the New York Times reporting that Roberts, “Gosh, I got to save the act. I got to save the act.” So he went back and found Oliver Wendell Holmes: “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”

Well, excuse me, Mr. Justice Roberts, but how did that work in your Arizona finding?

RUSH: It’s almost as if the chief justice thinks if you can imagine that the law is constitutional, then you have to rule that it is. So now we’re told that the guiding principle on the Supreme Court is we got to move heaven and earth to make sure the act is constitutional. We have to save the act. If it’s the worst piece of crap ever to come out of Congress, we have to save this piece of garbage!

So if you can imagine that a law could somehow be constitutional if you do this or you do that, then that’s what you do. This is insane. I do. Folks, I feel like the police chief in my town just had a press conference and said, “We have changed our mission. We are now going to be facilitating people who wish to break into your property, because it’s not right that you’ve made it so hard for them.”  There’s nowhere to go here. There’s nowhere to turn. I have people saying, “Hey, rush, tax bills have to originate in the house. This thing originated in the Senate.” It really didn’t. Harry Reid took a House bill and gutted it and put Obamacare in it.

But the point still is, okay, let’s say that that hadn’t happened. Let’s say that the bill was unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate. I hate to tell you, where do we have to go to get that determined? We have to go right back to the SCOTUS. What are they gonna do, rule it unconstitutional because that happened? No. You really bring this case to us simply because the thing originated in the Senate, not the House, that’s a minor point. Everybody knew that they wanted to spend the money anyway, so who cares. Well, we do. The Constitution says that this stuff has to originate in the House. Well, it’s not our job to find this stuff unconstitutional. So we’ll look the other way. We got nowhere to go is my point.

Now, it doesn’t appear to me, I know the two cases are different, but it doesn’t appear to me that the chief justice went out of his way to find Arizona’s immigration law constitutional. Now, I know that the Arizona law, that case was a case that was Arizona versus the regime and there was no congressional legislation per se that was being argued. But at the end of the day, it was. Federal immigration law was not being enforced. Arizona is falling apart because of it. They passed their own laws which mirrored the federal governments laws so they can enforce them. And the court said you can’t.

So it’s not consistent. We’re gonna do everything we can to make sure the act is upheld. No. Only certain acts. But in both cases, they’re legislation from the people. Obamacare was legislation that came from the elected representatives of the people. And the Arizona case came from the people and their elected representatives in the state. State legislation didn’t count, federal legislation. Anyway, I’ve about said all there is to say on this. I just wanted to get it off my chest.

Great to have you back here, folks. Open line Friday. Rush Limbaugh at 1-800-282-2882.

“It’s not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” You see, in Arizona, you know what, political choices, we don’t agree with your political choices, we’re gonna reject your choices in Arizona.

Russell Pearce: A Victory For Arizona

By Russell Pearce

Imagine if the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in Affordable Care Act tomorrow, but for some reason found that minor provisions such as the tax on tanning salons or the requirement that chain restaurants display caloric content unconstitutional. There is no doubt that President Obama would consider the decisions a resounding victory for his bill. After all, the crux of the debate over the healthcare bill was the individual mandate. If a few provisions of the 2,000 page bill were overturned, no one would deny that the decision favored the Obama administration.

Yet when the Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of Arizona’s SB 1070 in Arizona v. U.S., but overturned some minor provisions, President Obama, his allies, and even some conservatives think that decision was a blow against Arizona.

The biggest misconception is that the court overturned most of the bill. According to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, “The Supreme Court was right to strike down the vast majority of the Arizona law. With three out of the four provisions being struck down, the ruling shows that the Obama administration was right to challenge this law.”

In fairness to Sen. Reid, it’s not just liberals making this mistake. Fox News reported that the Supreme Court “Struck down the Arizona law with the exception of one provision”.

These statements ignore that the most of the law was not even challenged at the Supreme Court. Although they struck down three of the four sections that were appealed to the Supreme Court, SB 1070 has 12 sections. The law banned sanctuary cities, strengthened enforcement against employers of illegal immigrants, and cracked down on human smugglers and illegal alien gang members. None of these measures were blocked at the district and appellate level, and the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change this.

Of course, from the very beginning, the most important and controversial aspect of SB 1070 was section 2(b) which requires local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of an individuals who they reasonably suspect to be here illegally that they lawfully encounter.

When I wrote and introduced SB 1070, I knew that this provision would be the teeth of SB 1070. I had heard too many stories of Americans who had been victims of violent crime by illegal immigrants who had previously been stopped by police, only to be set back loose on the streets.

In his criticizing of this bill, President Obama focused almost all his opposition towards this section. Obama famously suggested that old women taking their grandkids for ice cream will be forced to show their papers.

It is not just opponents of immigration enforcement who mistakenly claim that the bill is a defeat. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, who has long been one of the champions of immigration control in congress issued a press release stating that the “ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration.”

While I usually agree with Rep. Smith, he far off the mark here. Even if they had overturned the entire bill, last year the Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which I also introduced, that mandated E-Verify in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. Without the threat of litigation, state legislators across the country will introduce laws that incorporate the Legal Arizona Workers Act and Section 2(b) and other parts of SB 1070 that have been found constitutional.

While I would have preferred for the Supreme Court to uphold all of SB 1070, their ruling on Monday was a resounding win for the state of Arizona and all Americans who support a state’s right to fight illegal immigration.

Cong. Quayle Determined to Repeal ObamaCare

By Cong. Ben Quayle

What a spectacularly busy week this has been in Washington, DC. I usually like to wait until the weekend before sending out this newsletter, but with such important events transpiring, I wanted to get in touch earlier than usual.

The Supreme Court dominated the headlines after coming down with two rulings of vital importance to the people of Arizona. First, on Monday the Supreme Court ruled that it would uphold the main provision of SB 1070, also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Today, in what was perhaps one of the most heavily anticipated and scrutinized cases of the past decade, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare and its individual mandate are constitutional.

An important nuance is that the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is in fact a tax. That directly contradicts President Obama’s earlier statement that the mandate is “absolutely not a tax increase.” In times of economic turmoil, Arizonans cannot afford another unwelcome increase in their tax burden. This bill is bad for our healthcare, bad for our economy, and bad for the limited government that our founders envisioned.

I’m not deterred by this incredibly disappointing ruling. If anything, it has fortified my commitment to repeal this disastrous bill and replace it with real, market-based reforms. My Republican House colleagues and I have supported more than 30 pieces of legislation to repeal Obamacare in whole or in part. I’ve sponsored a couple bills of my own. The fight against Obamacare doesn’t end now. It’s just getting warmed up.

As you know, the Supreme Court’s SB 1070 ruling struck down three of its provisions, but upheld Section 2B, the bill’s core, which I consider to be a victory for the people of Arizona. With this defeat in hand, President Obama and his Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, felt compelled to retaliate; not against the Supreme Court, but against the people of Arizona. On the same day as the SB 1070 ruling, Secretary Napolitano announced the termination of the vital joint local and federal immigration enforcement task force known as 287(g). This action was taken solely against the state of Arizona as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Plain and simple, this political maneuver puts Arizonans at risk and is entirely unacceptable. As a result I wrote a letter to House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King requesting that he call Secretary Napolitano to testify before his Committee. It is particularly astounding that in her role as an Obama-appointee, Ms. Napolitano would go so far as to betray the people of her home state.

On another note, today, after weeks of calling for a contempt hearing, I am proud to have voted alongside both Republican and Democratic colleagues in voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with inquiries into his role in Operation Fast and Furious. This is a meaningful reproach of the Obama administration and its tactics of denial and obfuscation.

Next week I will be back home in Arizona. I look forward to spending the week meeting with my constituents and most of all, celebrating Independence Day with my wife and daughter. This might be America’s 236th Independence Day, but it’ll be Evie’s first! I hope all of you will have a July 4th that is just as meaningful. Have a wonderful week.

Republicans Hand Attorney General Contempt Citation

Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) made the following statement today after he joined a majority of his colleagues in the House of Representatives and voted to find U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Holder has been stonewalling Congress for several months and refusing to submit documents crucial to the investigation over the Fast & Furious scandal.

Schweikert said:

“It is a sad day when the House of Representatives is forced to cast a vote finding our country’s top legal official in contempt of Congress.

“However, because of the stonewalling, lies, and concealed facts by this administration, we have been left with no other option.

“We were promised the most open and transparent Administration when President Obama took office. Though he may have intended to ‘drain the swamp,’ he has since converted it into a cesspool.

“It is time to stop the lies. Brian Terry’s family and the American people deserve 100 percent of the truth.”

Terry was a Border Patrol agent killed by Mexican drug cartel members with a gun supplied by the U.S. government.

Reactions to Shocking Decision on ObamaCare


Governor Jan Brewer

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court flies in the face of what most Americans know to be true: ObamaCare is an overreaching and unaffordable assault on states’ rights and individual liberty.

“For defenders of freedom and the free market, the decision to uphold ObamaCare is nothing short of disheartening. The ramifications are sure to be vast, including a new tax on middle class Americans and the erosion of individual liberty as Americans begin to see their health insurance choices dictated by an overbearing federal government.

“Everyone recognizes that the American health care system is not perfect. Costs are too high, and accessibility remains a hurdle for many Americans. But the answer to rising health care costs is not – and will never be – Big Government. We need real, responsible reform. We need the innovation of states like ours – states that have enacted leading health care models promoting private sector competition, consumer choice, quality coverage and controlling costs. True reform will spring from sovereign states that are free to provide the coverage that best meets the needs of their citizens at a price they can afford. I stand ready to work alongside Congress, state legislators and stakeholders alike in developing sound proposals that enhance choice and competition and bring stability and predictability to our health care marketplace.

“If nothing else, today’s decision officially sets the stakes for the November election. It is now up to the American people to save our country from the fiscal and regulatory nightmare known as ObamaCare. Come November, we must elect a President who understands the economy, represents free enterprise and respects the Constitution and individual liberty.

“If Arizonans are to have access to the health care they need from the provider they choose, ObamaCare must be fully repealed.”

Arizona Congressman David Schweikert

“When the Democrat controlled Congress passed ObamaCare over two years ago, it was the single most economically devastating government mandate our country has ever seen.

“Today, after the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare’s individual mandate a tax, it still remains the most economically devastating government mandate our country has ever seen.

“If the Supreme Court will not repeal this job-killing, tax-hiking mandate, then I will fight until every ounce of ObamaCare is repealed and replaced.”

U.S. Senate Candidate Wil Cardon

“Constitutional or not, ObamaCare is dead wrong and absolutely must be repealed. The President’s massive expansion of government hurts small business, stifles economic growth and impinges on the freedom of every American.

“This is a pivotal moment. Under ObamaCare, millions of Americans stand to lose their employer-based health care. We need to move toward market-based health care reform – reform that lowers costs, improves the quality of care for patients and protects Americans’ freedom to choose for ourselves. Now, more than ever, we need Washington outsiders who understand that ObamaCare is adding an additional burden to business, a burden that makes it more difficult for the private sector to grow and create jobs.

“Wil Cardon opposes ObamaCare and won’t stop fighting until it is repealed.”

Congressional Candidate Kirk Adams,

“I am shocked that the court has upheld the president’s health care law. In 2010, the people of Arizona passed the Health Care Freedom Act in opposition to being forced, by the government, to buy a product that they either don’t want or can’t afford. This is the biggest tax increase in history. The people of Arizona and America do not support this bill.

I am the only candidate in this race that has fought Obamacare from day one. As Speaker of the Arizona House, I joined the lawsuit against the law. I fought Obamacare in Arizona, and you can be sure that as your representative in Washington its repeal will be my top priority!”

Congressional Candidate Travis Grantham

“I am extremely disappointed that the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the individual mandate as a tax today in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

“This disastrous bill is anything but affordable and will only act as a burden on the American people. Never before has there been such an immense effort on the part of any American President to implement such a crippling law on America’s economy. This is a 2,700 page bill that was not read by anyone who voted in favor of this monstrosity. There are ways to solve the problems within our health insurance laws but never should these solutions share the same foundation upon which Socialist policies are derived from.”

“ObamaCare continues to be an economic burden for not only the United States but for all working families. We must work together to replace those in Washington D.C. who refuse to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety. If elected to Congress, I will make the repeal of this tax and the full repeal of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act my top priority. We must repeal ObamaCare before the crushing aspects of this bill take effect.”

Florida Congressman Allen West

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by extending the power of the United States Congress to tax Americans’ behavior. This is a sad day for Americans, as they will be taxed to pay for benefits they may not need or want as part of the insurance they are forced to buy. With this decision, Congress has been granted infinite taxation power, and there are no longer any limits on what the federal government can tax its citizens to do.

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hit the middle class especially hard, as hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as businesses try to avoid the penalties and costs created by the healthcare law. The healthcare law will cost trillions of dollars, raise costs for employers and create huge incentives for them to drop health insurance.

Benjamin Franklin did indeed state, ‘In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’ However, Dr. Franklin never envisioned the federal government would use its power of taxation to punish people for not purchasing health care. Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated.”

Congressman Trent Franks

“If forcing the purchase of government controlled healthcare down the throat of every American is now fully in keeping with United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers noble struggle to ensure that their children would walk in the sunlight of liberty has become a broken dream.

“My great consolation is that this decision has now been appealed to a higher court where, this November, the sovereign citizens of the United States of America will demonstrate to Mr. Obama that his arrogant declaration of supremacy over them, and over the cause of human freedom is profoundly premature.”

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

“This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

“This is a dark day for American liberty.

“The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government.

“This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines, — a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn’t have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain.

“Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.

“I am disappointed with the court’s ruling and with the unprecedented attack on American liberty the president and the previous Congress have created with this law.”


A Dissent for the Ages

Dissent to today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare By Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanc­tion of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new de­sign will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Indi­vidual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism con­cerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course to­day are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it un­dermines state sovereignty.

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provi­sions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act in­valid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.