Obamacare ruled unconstituional; Dems scream bloody murder, vow to intervene

Okay, by now many of y'all have probably heard that a federal judge ruled Friday that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  But if you're a lib, don't panic: that decision will be heard by the Supreme Court, and based on the absurd reasoning Chief "Justice" John Roberts used to declare that law absolutely wonderful two years ago, the lower court decision will probably be overturned.

If you're new to constitutional law and politics, you should probably know how all this happened, and the arguments used by both sides.  Glad to help.  (And libs: be sure to click on the links to confirm all the critical points.  Wouldn't want y'all to think I just made this up):

Obama and the Dems knew that the only way to provide literally free health care to low-income people, and to command that insurance companies sell health insurance to people with "pre-existing conditions," was to force every American--even fabulously healthy 20-year-olds--to buy overprices, absurdly-huge-deductible health insurance.  It was the only way to make the law "score" at a low enough projected added cost to the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) to make it even remotely acceptable to voters.

Forcing citizens to buy health insurance even if they didn't want it--was, uh...controversial, to say the least.  Obama and minions had seen how voters rejected George H.W. Bush when he claimed "Read my lips: No new taxes!" but then got suckered into signing a Democrat bill that did just that, so they were adamant the the so-called "individual mandate" was NOT a tax.

This is crucial, so let's say that again:  Because Team Obama wanted to avoid losing the 2012 election, they adamantly, explicitly, unequivocally claimed the "mandate" was NOT a tax.  Got it?

Just one tiny problem with this claim: No part of the Constitution gave the federal government the power to impose such a mandate.  The clause that seemed to offer the most hope was the "commerce clause," since if you're imaginative enough, virtually everything can be said to involve interstate commerce in one way or another.

Indeed, the government has used the commerce clause dozens of times to argue that anything congress does is constitutional.  And most of the time the court agrees with that "reasoning."

So when the Dems' and Obamas Constitutional experts told 'em about this constitutional problem, Obama told the Dems "As much as I want this passed into law, it's vital that we not do anything unconstitutional, so..."

Hahahahahahahaha!  Obama and the Dems worried about the restrictions of the Constitution?  In this universe?  You're joking.

Instead Obama's advisors instructed his legal team that in their oral arguments for the constitutionality of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, they were to specifically claim that the "individual mandate"--the command that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty--was NOT a tax.  And that's exactly what they did.

Believe it or not, when the Supreme Court hears crucial cases there are people who sit in the gallery of the Supreme Court and actually listen to the oral arguments made by each side.  Many of these folks are sharp lawyers, and their take was that the court would probably strike down the law.

But instead, in a ruling that shocked damn near every observer, "Justice" Roberts joined the Dems in declaring the "individual mandate" just ducky.  But to do this he had to argue that the "individual mandate"--legally the weak link--was in fact...a tax.

Despite Team Obama's loud claim that it was NOT a tax.

Needless to say, many court-watchers were....astonished:  In  the majority opinion--which Roberts personally wrote--rather than claiming the law was legal under the much-abused commerce clause, Roberts' opinion held that even though the administration had specifically claimed to the justices that the mandate was NOT a tax, that team Obama was wrong--that the mandate really WAS a tax. 

And of course no one has ever tried to argue that the federal government doesn't have the power to "lay and collect taxes," since that's one of the powers specifically "enumerated" in the Constitution itself.

Making the case for Obamacare by totally reversing the administration's own arguments strikes most reasonable people as outrageous.  But lbs are fine with it. 

So thanks to Roberts' goofy illognic the government now has been given the power to not only compel every citizzen to buy overpriced, hige-deductible health insurance, but to do so by absurdly, ourrageously stretching the meaning of "tax." 

Now that you know the legal arguments Roberts used to support a clearly unconstitutional provision,  about a year ago.congress repealed the mandate's *penalty.*  That is, you were still forced to buy overpriced health insurance--with deductibles most people would never reach.  What congress repealed was the *penalty* for not doing so.

Now to the newest decision:  The federal judge in Texas ruled that because congress repealed the penalty for NOT buying mandatory health insurance, Obamacare wasn't soundly funded, and thus was void.

But the betting now is that Roberts--having prostituted himself by completely reversing Team Obama's earlier claim that the mandate was NOT a tax--will use the same sort of convoluted "reasoning" to uphold the law a second time.