Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?

John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?

When I first heard that Obamacare along with the individual mandate was found to be constitutional I was shocked.  When I learned that one of our own, Justice John Roberts crossed over to the dark side in a 5-4 ruling I was appalled.  The end of liberty was at hand.  The great experiment had finally unraveled and the republic our founders gave us we could not keep.  I couldn’t believe Justice Roberts ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because he interpreted that the penalty imposed was actually a tax and within the constitutional authority of the congress to levy on the people.  I needed to know how a conservative Justice who many consider to be an extremely brilliant man could veer so far off the conservative course.  This is a man who is no friend of Obama.  This is a man who has championed individual rights again and again in his rulings.  It just wasn’t passing the smell test.

As I sat at my desk I was trying to sort this ruling out in my mind I had an epiphany.  What is the greatest threat to our individual liberties?  Is it Obamacare or is it President Obama winning a second term?  In my opinion it’s Obama winning a second term.  A second term of President Obama will turn the republic on its head and cause irreparable damage to America.  Think about all the unconstitutional actions this man has done in the first term with the knowledge that he has to run for reelection.  Think of the President’s total disregard for the rule of law in the last three years.  He ignored the orders and was actually held in contempt by a federal judge when he failed to lift the moratorium on deep-sea drilling in February 2011.  Let’s not forget his recess appointments during a pro forma session of congress this past January, his unwillingness to defend DOMA, his signing of NDAA authorizing the indefinite detainment of America citizens, his kill list, his amnesty for 800,000 illegal aliens, his unwillingness to enforce immigration laws, his EPA imposing cap and trade around the congress, his use of executive privilege to protect Eric Holder in the fast and furious scandal, and so on.  He has shredded the constitution during his first term.  What would he do with a second term?  My guess is it will be much worse.  Like he whispered in the ear of the Russian President…he will have more flexibility after the elections.  What will he do with that flexibility?  Well more than likely he will appoint two or three Supreme Court Justices during a second term and that is something that cannot happen.  And the only way can make sure he doesn’t have an opportunity to appoint these Justices is to make sure he’s a one term President.  Justice Roberts helped with that this past Thursday.

So how exactly did Roberts help the cause?  Let me start off by saying the opinions I’m about to express are my opinions and I realize that many may disagree, but hear me out.  As I was reading through Justice Roberts’s opinion of the court, very early I read the following. “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Justice Roberts tells us from the get go, we get the government we deserve and if we don’t like the consequences of it then elect people who will repeal the actions of it.  That’s all on us folks.  We have a responsibility as citizens to change out the people who infringe upon our liberties.

Below are five reason why I think this ruling empowered the states, shackled the government, will not only bring an end to Obamacare, but will ensure Obama is a one term President.

  1. President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the American people making under $250,000.  Democratic leaders promised that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Well because of Justice Roberts and the court’s decision that’s exactly what the individual mandate is…a tax.  Congratulation President Obama, your lawyers made their case!  It’s a tax.  Not only is it a tax, it’s the largest tax in American history.  And for those who are worried this opens up a whole new way for the government to control our behavior through a “penalty” well it’s nothing new.  They’ve been doing it for years with “sin taxes” on tobacco and other undesirable products.   The only difference now, the SCOTUS has clarified that anything congress attaches as a penalty to can be viewed as a tax and it’s much more difficult to push bills through congress as a tax increase than bills that hide behind the commerce clause.  Additionally because the individual mandate has now been ruled a tax Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the mandate with a simple majority.
  2. Judge Roberts’s argument against using the commerce clause not only brought more clarity to it, he greatly reduced the ability of congress to use this line of reasoning again to force us to engage in any activity they may view as commerce.  His opinion reflected the following:  “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.  That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author­ity, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Feder­alist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.  Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”  This line of reasoning in essence shackles congress and expands liberty.
  3. Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer all agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to deprive a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion.  Roberts wrote the following.  “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Af­fordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Af­fordable Care Act.”   So as you can see the states now have a choice.  This conclusion blazes the trail to limit the expansion of other federal programs imposed by the government on the states.  This was clearly a win for the states and states’ rights.
  4. Obamacare still remains a very unpopular law.  In fact those who oppose it still hover over the 50 percentile mark.  Mitt Romney raised more than $4 million within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare and we have Justice Roberts to thank for this.  While the Kool-Aid drinking liberals celebrate the Tea Party movement is charging up.  Once again average Americans are waking up and they are rallying around the battle cry to repeal Obamacare.  I personally received 10 emails from Tea Party Patriots; welcome back to the summers of 2009 and 2010.  This is the last thing President Obama and Democrats wanted to see four months out from a major election.  They wanted Obamacare to quietly fade into obscurity and be a nonfactor in 2012.  John Roberts threw a wrench into that machine and now once again it’s hanging around their necks going into November.  And you can’t tell me that Justice Roberts doesn’t read the polls.
  5. The last thing to mention is that the left is so caught up in the moment they didn’t even see this coming.  They didn’t even see how masterfully Justice Roberts played them.  And by the time they do Obama will be a one term President, Republicans will control the Senate and House, and 2016 will seem like a million years away.  Bub bye Obamacare and President Obama.


Mr. President…you’ve been punk’d and you don’t even realize it yet.  If Obamacare would have been found unconstitutional my guess is that the left would have been charged up and the right would be celebrating its demise and feeling they no longer had to vote for a candidate they’re already lukewarm towards…well not so much now.  I feel that Justice Roberts was right on target and it’s the left and conservative talking heads who are missing the mark. Let me know what you think.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!


Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , ,

opinions powered by
  • Steve Dennis June 30, 2012 at 4:50 AM

    I hope you are right John, there is some interesting language in the decision which is very encouraging. I have been reading articles on both sides trying to figure out who is right and this seems to out of character for Roberts that perhaps you are right. The Tea Party is certainly fired back up again and this can only be a good thing.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Video: Allen West calls SCOTUS Obamacare ruling “behavior modification through taxation”My Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 9:07 PM

      Like I said Steve it’s just me connecting the dots I see. Don’t get me wrong I don’t like the idea of playing games with our liberties the way it appears the SCOTUS did. The one this I would recommend is maybe states need to look into the nullification of this law. A law is only as enforceable as to the extent all parties participate. There is a blue print for state nullification in regards to the alien and sedition acts of the 1790s. Virginia stepped forward and said they would not comply with what they viewed as unconstitutional law. We need to step up this November and elect the right people into office to repeal Obamacare. If you are a Democrat and you supported this law, your days in D.C. are numbered. That’s the mindset we need to be in.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • LD Jackson June 30, 2012 at 5:23 AM

    You make a very compelling case, John. To be sure, Justice Roberts did limit the power of the federal government when he wrote that the states had to have a real choice of opting out of federal programs. That is definitely a win for the states.

    The same can be said for his clamping down of the Commerce Clause. That portion of his opinion was also masterful and right on target. However, I still question why he was willing to redefine the mandate as a tax. Maybe you are right and it exposes the left’s tactics for what they are, but it also runs the risk of opening the door to further taxation.

    I will agree that the ruling has fired up the Tea Party and many others who inclined to oppose Obama. They have a lot more ammunition to fight with and a very clear target. Any hope Obama had of walking in the park like he did in 2008 has vanished.

    This ruling should also admonish us to pay attention to our elections. It’s a sad thing that during our primary election last Tuesday, I was only the 97th voter out of over 1300 registered voters in our precinct. And that was just an hour before the polls closed. Justice Roberts is correct, we do get the government we deserve. This is especially true when so many of us refuse to exercise our right to express our opinion in the most powerful way we can, by casting our vote for the person of our choice to represent us. It’s a shame on us.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Chief Justice John Roberts – Savior of ObamacareMy Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 9:29 PM

      You hit the nail on the head Larry. In order for us to have any chance of restoring liberty and reestablishing our constitution as the law of the land we need to get engaged at all levels of government. From local school boards to national elections we need to engage. We need to take an interest in the curriculum they are teaching our children and if there is not enough information about our own history and founding fathers we need to ask why. We need understand that the progressives have infiltrated our institutions of higher education and various levels of our government. We’re up against very entrenched and powerful forces Larry in academia and the media. If Justice Roberts would have sided with the right on the side of liberty and struck down Obamacare, then the chances of Obama getting reelected would be very real because he has so much backing from a machine that we don’t fully understand.

      He has violated the constitution at least three times so far and he still sits in the mid 40s approval rating. Our economy is in a shambles with unemployment over 8 percent and still he has an approval rating in the mid 40s. Obama doesn’t need to crush Romney he just needs to keep it close and the machine will do the rest. That’s what we’re up against and the only way we can overcome this is have the same type of turnout in 2010. By upholding Obamacare, the SCOTUS has assured there will be a large turnout of conservatives in 2012 and that’s not good for Obama. That’s my opinion anyway.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • BC June 30, 2012 at 6:24 AM

    If you are like Erick Erickson, talking about how Roberts made the right decision, I challenge you to listen someone who knows the constitution.
    BC recently posted..Ronald Reagan Explains ObamaCareMy Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM

      Thanks BC. I actually listened to this on my sat radio. I don’t believe he made necessarily the correct decision on this. I do believe his decision was design to target Obama and the Dems. Look how conservatives are now rallying around this decision. They want Obamacare repealed and they’re going to do whatever takes to make it happen.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • matt June 30, 2012 at 7:24 AM

    You make a compelling case. It does seem that Roberts gave Obama what be wanted, but protected the commerce clause at the same time. He also ruined the the issue for the campaign.

  • Fuzzy June 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    I have to agree with your excellent assessment, John. Not only is it really not the Supremes’ job to save us from our apathy and bad choices, but it’s really put the onus on we, the people. The very thing we claim we want. Well, we got it. Let’s roll!

    Oh, and I think it’s worth pointing out that from most commentary from legal observers, the only (pre-ruling) likely outcome was that the mandate was struck down while the rest of the monstrous power grab remained in place.

    I’m rather shocked that so many conservatives seem to think that would be preferable (especially with the gifts Roberts gave us in his opinion). The mandate is totally unacceptable, don’t get me wrong, but there are over a dozen OTHER taxes, death panels, dozens of new government agencies, the student loan takeover, illegals covered (including abortion), the religious freedoms HHS mandate (that’s the first of many this law will spawn), and literally thousands of other liberty-stealing, power-grabbing nightmares written into 0Care. There are mandated “nutrition” courses in schools, mandatory abortion advice services in schools, really, if you can think of something that’s a regressive commie’s wet dream, it’s in that nightmare of a bill. Striking down the mandate wouldn’t have destroyed that, and anyone who thinks that the dems would suddenly want to redo health care without the mandate is truly delusional and/or hasn’t been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything that’s gone in the last 3 and half years.

    NOW, at least, we have a chance to get rid of not only BO but the entire law by holding the House and taking the Senate. It must be repealed–that’s always been the only way to get rid of it (Michele Bachmann was right on that–and woe-betide any GOP, RINO, or TEA Party “republican” who defies the will of the people on that. They’ll have the shortest political careers in history as they get voted out in the next election. Honestly, I think that the GOP would die as a party if they don’t repeal immediately. A third, truly Constitutional party will rise, and I’ll be on board with it. Fast.
    Fuzzy recently posted..The Declaration of IndependenceMy Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM

      Thank you so much for the well thought out response Fuzzy. Like I was telling Matt, I wanted to approach this by thinking outside of the box. Would we have gained anything if the individual mandate was struck down and the rest of this terrible bill was allow to remain; absolutely not. Even if they found the entire bill unconstitutional the left would have rallied to Obama in support of his effort to take over health care. Roberts took the opportunity to clarify the commerce clause, give states a choice, and by treating the individual mandate as a tax he made it easier for it to be repealed through the reconciliation process. All three of these acts not only limited the power of government, but shifted the momentum against Obama who in my opinion is the real threat to the republic and our liberties.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • michigan June 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM

    I liked your take on the issue and I agree with part of it. But now, we as a Nation must deal not only with the immediate ramifications of the ruling upholding statute but a much bigger issue of precedent. Now, with this set firmly into opinion, there is no limit to what any administration, left or right, crafts in legislation to tax you for not acting on. There is nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment that can preclude this from taking place and if normal congressional activity is an indicator, this will be done over and over again in a less than above board manner manifesting itself as “earmarks” or “attachments” in Bills that have no linkage or worse yet, in a regulatory manner. We do need government, albeit a small one; and its essence of sustenance, monies from tax on the American people is completely within the powers of Congress to levy and is appropriate. But how would a Constitutional Amendment read for it to pass? What limits would be imposed as to strike the right balance? Can that be left up to our representatives? Will this unique ruling necessitate a Constitutional Congress in the future opening the door for, (God forbid) Constitutional Progressivism?

    It’s definitely a tough call, John, but to me if your thesis is correct, this is a short term gain for a long term agony of never ending behavioral control via taxation that the American people may never be able to rectify and I differ in that it wasn’t worth it.

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM

      Thank you for your inputs to this discussion michigan. Taxes have been used since the days of the Babylonian Empire to regulate the lives of citizens. Any tax is coercive by nature and seeks to enslave and modify the behavior of the citizen. This is why I have never been a fan of the income tax or property taxes. Both are the theft of property under the threat of imprisonment or the seizing of property to be redistributed and used as the government sees fit. Labeling the individual mandate even though there is no action as a tax is indeed disturbing, but no more disturbing than applying an extra tax to a product because some governmental force has deemed it an undesirable choice to make. Both take away the liberties of the people by not allowing them to make their own choices without some sort of penalty/tax applied by the government. This must change and the only way it changes is if enough people feel the sting of losing their freedom to choose. People have lost their freedom to choose with Obamacare being upheld and now it’s time for the people to stand up and say oh hell no! Our republic and constitution only work if the people stay engaged. We have been asleep for far too long…it’s time to wake up.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • Fuzzy June 30, 2012 at 9:40 AM

    [quote]It’s definitely a tough call, John, but to me if your thesis is correct, this is a short term gain for a long term agony of never ending behavioral control via taxation that the American people may never be able to rectify and I differ in that it wasn’t worth it.[/quote]

    I understand what you are saying, Michigan, but keep in mind that a LOT (if not all) of taxes are behavior modification through taxation, so let’s not fool ourselves. And I don’t just mean the cigarette taxes that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his ruling, either, but everything from tax credits for home ownership (the government wants you to buy a home) and over-taxing the rich (to discourage success and the American Dream, a key commie goal) to BO’s tax structure built to discourage marriage (individuals as $200.000, couples at $250,000–so two people making $200k are actually better off NOT getting married, from a taxation perspective). What better way to undermine our culture, society, and religion? So yeah, it’s “behavioral control” or ”social engineering,” but all existing laws, at rock bottom are, including tax laws.
    Fuzzy recently posted..The Declaration of IndependenceMy Profile

    • michigan June 30, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      I understand your well taken point, Fuzzy. All law at essence is moral judgment. This departure from that greatly differs in the fact you can now be taxed on what you do not do. Until this ruling, most things that you don’t do, like, not driving your car or even owning the “right” government make, not eating the government approved intake, not exercising to the fullest extent of the government’s law, not donating to the “right” government’s Party, etc. would not incur IRS penalty or seizure. Only progressives would impose “social judgment”. This is social judgment. And I will resist.

      • Fuzzy June 30, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        Very true, Michigan. The difference here is that without the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to hide behind, regressive commies will have a much harder time selling their tyranny-by-taxation BEFORE acts pass Congress, and long before they hit the president’s desk. Again, the onus is on the people, where, arguably, it belongs.

        Do we stay awake and perform the civic duty our Founders envisioned or do we slouch back on the couch while the Republic burns and tyranny takes hold? I think we agree on the answer to that one 🙂
        Fuzzy recently posted..The Declaration of IndependenceMy Profile

  • Jim at Conservatives on Fire June 30, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    I sincerely hope this works out the way you describe, John, and the people are motivated to defeat Obama and repeal Obamacare. Howeverr, in my opinion, Roberts did this country a great disservice. He opined that this law could not stand under the commerce clause, which was the exact intent of the law’s makers and had he voted with the four in desent, he could have succeeded in putting limits on the commerce clause and done away with Obmacare to boot. He rewrote the law to make the penalty a tax. That is judicial activism; pure and simple. He wanted to save Obamacare to make it look like the court is not political because the Court received so much flack over its Citizen-United decision. In doing so he has set a precedent that we will have to live with for a very long time. If the penaties in Obamacare were really taxes, then the parties bring the suit before the Court would have no standing because taxes can not be challenged until someone has paid the tax. Wh knows better whether the intent of Congress was to make a tax: the lawmakers or Roberts. I rest my case.
    Jim at Conservatives on Fire recently posted..“Maybe Shaky Was Right” an essay by BrianMy Profile

    • Fuzzy June 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM

      In some ways, Jim, the Citizens United case is a perfect representation of what we can now expect. The lawsuits brought by the states against 0Care focused on the Medicaid funding and the mandate. Because of this narrow challenge, there are still many many things that can and will be litigated about 0Care (should it survive, which I hope to God it does not).

      With Citizens United, originally upheld under one lawsuit, we saw the Supremes actually overturn their earlier ruling. This will happen with 0Care now that the Chief Justice Roberts has stripped the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of their 100 years of muscle.
      Fuzzy recently posted..The Declaration of IndependenceMy Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 10:50 PM

      You could be right Jim and I could be totally wrong with my assessment. The one thing I do know is that since the court upheld Obamacare I have received over 25 emails from various Tea Party groups about this topic. Some want money others want us to get engaged. The point is the right is charged up again and we will need a turnout like we had in 2010 to not only defeat Obama, but retake the senate and the ruling by the SCOTUS is not making this possible.

      I agree Judicial activism is something we cannot stand for and in my humble opinion Roberts did exactly that no matter how you slice it. Even if it was for the right reasons it should never be tolerated and this is why I believe the 26 states that files this lawsuit need to explore the act of nullification. If the states feel like the SCOTUS acted beyond its charter then in their eyes the ruling in itself is unconstitutional and should be nullified. As always thank you for your inputs. You are a true patriot.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • Scott Wheeler June 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM

    John – Good piece – I agree. At the end of the day it’s a crappy law, but being a crappy law doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Hopefully now in the elections people will be able to see PPACA for what it really is – the single largest tax on the middle class in the history of the US – and have the courage to overhaul both the executive and legislative branches.

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 10:52 PM

      Thanks Scott. We shall see how the chips fall. It is back in the court of the people. Let’s see if they have the courage to do the things they need to do to reestablish the constitution as the law of the land and to reject bad policy.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • […] Sentry Journal ponder whether Roberts got it right or……. […]

  • Bunkerville June 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM

    I would love to engage in an abstract philosophical debate with this if it were not for it being our healthcare and the care we and our loved ones will get. Make no mistake, our lives will be diminished. Shortened. So if anyone chooses to find a bright side to this have at it. I do appreciate the thoughtful post, but don’t count me in.
    Bunkerville recently posted..I’m Farming and I grow itMy Profile

    • John Carey June 30, 2012 at 11:06 PM

      Fair enough Bunker. I’m just trying to work this all out in my head and the opinions I have expressed in my post are just that opinions. It is how I connected the dots to make sense of all this. I do understand the significance of Obamacare being ruled constitutional through this kind a Judicial chicanery but I also understand how detrimental it will be to America if Obama wins a second term. This cannot happen or truly everything will be lost.
      John Carey recently posted..John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target?My Profile

  • […] do with. Too many on our side, in my opinion, have become apologists for this man. One is my friend LD Jackson.I’m a pretty optimistic person by nature, but I’m also realistic. I just do not see how […]

  • Silverfiddle July 1, 2012 at 6:45 AM

    Excellent analysis. I hate the ruling, but I understand it’s implications. I think Roberts did it simply to protect his reputation (and power) and that of the court, but he did it with all you have explained in mind.
    Silverfiddle recently posted..Upon This Rock…My Profile

  • […] Sentry Journal thinks Justice Roberts punked Obama […]

  • […] John Roberts: Missing the mark or right on target? […]

  • David Caskey July 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    The tax is not just the penalty, it is the fact you must purchase insurance. The law is set up to ultimately do away with private insurance and make the whole thing a single payer system. What Roberts did was to put an official stamp on the end of our Republic. We now are a communist economy. There was enough reason to rid us of Obama without the continuation of this law.

    I would like to point out that Roberts was put on the bench by Bush. Bush was elected for two reasons, he was anti-abortion (except for his girl friends) and he was not Gore or Kerry. Roberts was put in place as he would be anti-abortion. But anti-abortion means big government as those who desire it want government in our lives, or controlling women (not a bad idea with their stupidity with this president). So the end product is that we have two parties that believe in big, super powerful government. Thanks RINO’s.

    The only answer to this is secession. There are too many who are at opposite ends of the poles in this country and there is not compromise. If Obama is elected, war.

    • John Carey July 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM

      Secession or war is not the answer. Our founders built plenty of safe guards in the constitution to protect the sovereignty of the states and the rights of the individual. The problem is we have not even began to venture down these avenues. Why would we not call an article V convention before war. We have the power as states to alter or abolish this government using the tools that are already embedded in the constitution. First off the best defense of the constitution is by voting those eleceded officials who threaten our liberties out of office. If we fail to do this it’s not the government’s fault it’s our fault. Second if the first fails the states still have the power to call an article V convention to amend the constitution. Why not try these avenues before secession or war?
      John Carey recently posted..Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Take Back Liberty edition)My Profile

      • David Caskey July 2, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        We have been trying to vote out these people since 1980. It does not work. 30 years of being stuck on stupid has only resulted in continued errosion of our freedom. Now our wealth and security are headed out the window. It is time for a major change.

  • Teresa Rice July 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM

    John that was an excellent assessment. I started realizing some of the same things you pointed out after I found out more about the details of Roberts’ ruling. I am in full agreement with you. If it is alright with you I will repost part of your post and link to the rest here. A well thought out post John.
    Teresa Rice recently posted..Reich reveals the schocking truth about ObamacareMy Profile

  • […] Commits De facto Euthanasia with 130,000 a Year SJ: John Roberts- Missing the mark or right on target? BdKS: The Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare–Now What? Bunker: “Insiders know that the young […]

  • […] Post:  The Sentry Journal Related […]