Not Supreme in Nature --
The U.S. Supreme Court and the "Obamacare" Decision:
The Majority Pushed "Enslavism" on the Country

compiled and written

Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 20551
Ferndale, Michigan  48220
The United States of America

copyright c. 2015

June 27, 2015
(Version 2)
(Draft version)

    In 2007 and 2008, the American people were lied to as to what Barack Obama was during the time leading up to the presidential election of November 2008; what was covered up was his corrupt nature, his evilness, his love for Sharia and communism, his narcissism, and, overall, his nature as a defective man (and evidence exists in my document entitled A Little History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).  In 2009 and 2010, the Patient Protection and Afford Care Act of 2010 as a bill was fraudulently put together in the U.S. Congress, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Care Act of 2012 as a bill was never really able to be read by the public and even by those who would vote on it before it was passed through the U.S. Congress (and evidence can be seen in my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).  And on June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 through its decision of a court case, promoting the fraud that was and is the law and being a party to the fraud.

    Each day, more and more elements of corruption, ignorance, and evilness are becoming commonplace in the United States of America, even in the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the subject of this document in relation to the ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

    Here I must put in an aside, even though the document has barely gotten started.  If you are unaware of what a good U.S. Supreme Court justice should be, you should see my document entitled Justice for All?: The Rules are Changing Under Barack Obama, which can be reached by using this Justice link.  Here, I do note that a good justice is supposed to uphold the rules of The United States Constitution, which when done will protect the citizens of the United States of America from bad people, particularly bad politicians, such as would-be dictator types and "enslavists" (which seems to be against what U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was believing around June 28, 2012, when his writings in the decision on "Obamacare" noted that, in essence, his job as a U.S. Supreme Court justice is not supposed to involve protecting the citizens of the country from bad political decisions, particularly those decisions related to whom they voted for in elections).

    It was on June 28, 2012, that the public got to see the roughly 200-page-long U.S. Supreme Court decision about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and, in essence, the ruling upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, especially the "individual mandate" feature of the law.  Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen G. Breyer were the justices who upheld the "individual mandate" or, really, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010; it had been expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen G. Breyer would be involved in upholding the law, being communists and such.  The dissenting justices were Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Antony Alito Jr.

    It was the idea of "tax" that ultimately led to the majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as this document shows, the idea of "tax" is a nonsense idea, based on illogical and defective thinking and on distorting the English language.

    For all time, good people will understand Chief Justice John Roberts was the driving force in upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, understand how corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts' thinking was, and understand how many millions of persons Chief Justice John Roberts' action will hurt in the years to come.  Chief Justice John Roberts said at one point in his opinion: "...The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance...."  You can see the topic is "buying" something, and "buying" something is not normally thought of as a "tax," though a "tax" (a sales tax) can be added to the cost of buying something.  Also in the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts noted: "...The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance...."  Notice how Chief Justice Roberts twisted the English language and the definition of words to make a "penalty" for having not buying something required to be purchased by the government a "tax," but, of course, the taxing idea for not buying something that does not answer the question about whether or not the federal government has the power to force any person to buy or not buy a thing or service from another person or from some entity (I say that the federal government should not have the ability to force a person to buy or not buy a product or service from another person or from some entity and the federal government should not have the power to penalize a person for not buying a product or service from another person or from some entity).

    The U.S. federal goverment can now use the idea of "tax" as a pressure tactic related to anything and any behavior--doing something or not doing something.

    The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court can make a thinking man, which I am, or a thinking woman deduce what the federal government will now be able to do to affect an individual's life and push the individual into doing what the federal government wants that individual to do, and I show some examples here.  If you do not get rid of you gasoline-based car and buy an electric car, the federal government will impose a "tax" on you.  If you do not cut back on your use of electricity, the federal government will "tax" you.  If you do not cut back on eating a certain type of food, the federal government will "tax" you.  If you do not volunteer--give free work--to help in the community as required by the federal government, the federal government will force a "tax" on.  If you do not put in a certain amount of service in Barack Obama's military, you will be forced to pay a "tax."  If you own a gun, you will be forced to pay a federal "tax"--probably a high federal "tax" (which would be a round-about gun-control tactic).  If you do not take a class or course on the teachings of Barack Hussein Obama or do not sing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama, you will be charged a "tax."  (The possibilities that can come from an evil mind, like that of Barack Obama, are endless.)

    After I had read the two quotations from Chief Justice John Roberts that I have already presented in this document, I knew the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court was defective--the logic and commonsense was highly defective--but instead of doing heavy research to show my proof, I decided to present the thoughts of two well-known thinkers in this document since they have better resources to get information and contacts to get information than I have, and, in one case, the thinker was involved in fighting to have the U.S. Supreme Court kill the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 by being involved in the court case, and the two persons are Rush Limbaugh and Mark R. Levin, and what I present from them will show why the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is bad for the country and for you.

    On Thursday, June 28, 2012, at noon (Eastern Daylight Time), The Rush Limbaugh Program (a nationally syndicated radio show) started up for the day on many radio stations in the country, and it started out about two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  The opening of the radio program started out with Rush Limbaugh saying: "Hey, folks, have you seen the economic news today?  Have you heard about the unemployment numbers today.  Gross Domestic Product.  Have you heard any of that?  'Cause I have it here.  And it sucks!  It's a disaster.  The economy of this country remains a disaster.  And we--the American people--have just been deceived in ways that nobody contemplated.  And what we now have, what we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.  What we have been told by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and four liberals on the court--Obamacare's just a massive tax increase.  That's all it is!  Obama lied to us about that.  He lied.  The Democrats lied.  It wasn't a tax.  There was no way it was a tax.  The Chief Justice was hell bound, hell bent to find a way to make this law applicable so he just decided: You know what?--As a tax increase it works, because there's no limit on the federal government's ability to tax.  And it's right there in the preamble of The Constitution, right there Article I, Section Eight, 'General Welfare' clause.  It's been established.  Congress can tax whatever, whoever, whenever, how much they want.  And this just goes to show.  And even when they don't ask for it.  The Supreme Court is going to find a way to make what they want to do legal, 'cause John Roberts said--I, it's not, it's not our job here to prevent this, it's not our job to protect people from outcomes, it's not our job to determine whether this is right or wrong or any of that, we just get to look at it, and we can't prevent this, this is what the elected representatives of the people want.  Now the elected representatives of the people were deceived!...."  A little later, Rush Limbaugh said: "...So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world.  And the people who were characterized it as such were right and were telling the truth.  We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country's worst recessions.  In fact, as the Vice President said yesterday--A depression for millions of Americans.  The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts said--It's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, not our job.  But what about when we are deceived?  The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be.  What has been upheld here is fraud!  And the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army.  That is what we face now.  We were deceived!  Obamacare was a lie!  It was a stealth tax on all Americans.  And nobody knew it until today.  Not officially!...."  Even later in the first hour of the program, Rush Limbaugh said: "...In the United States of America, you either purchase what central authorities tell you to purchase, or they will punish you with taxes...."  To close the first segment of the program, Rush Limbaugh said: "...Because, as of today, the American government can and will cease your private property if you don't purchase and or sell what's been ordered.  It's, it's really breathtaking what happened today.  And it is breathtaking to watch ignoramuses who don't really understand what happened celebrate it.  We have been betrayed and deceived by Congress.  We have been betrayed and deceived by the Supreme Court...."  Also when about to enter a commercial break, Rush Limbaugh said: "...Our freedom of choice just met its 'death panel'--the Supreme Court."  The first segment of the second hour of the program sort of followed up on a telephone caller's comment in the previous hour (the first hour), and Rush Limbaugh spoke these words: "...Our last caller who, ah, mentioned the president set by this had it right.  Even if this is repealed, if, if any, ah, tax increase that's happened is repealed, the precedent has still been set now.  The court got out of the way.  There are no limits, folks, on what can be taxed!  Because this essentially is the federal government being granted permission to tax behavior.  This is the federal government being permitted to tax choices that you make--if you don't make the right one.  So, essentially, your choice now costs you.  In the case of health care, you must buy it.  The Supreme Court said that the Congress does not have the power to mandate that you buy health insurance...the Commerce Clause did not permit that.  But that doesn't matter, because the Congress can tax you.  They can make you buy anything now and call it a tax.  If they want to make you buy broccoli, if you don't, you will pay a penalty.  If, if some, somebody passes a law, somebody signs it into law that everybody has to eat broccoli.  You might think that's an extreme example, and it's only extreme in the sense you don't think anybody would ever mandate something like that.  But we're here.  So our income is taxed.  Well, I don't have to go through the list.  You know everything taxed.  Now behavior is taxed as well.  There's no limits...."  Also in the second hour, Rush Limbaugh noted: "...The caller had it exactly right.  The precedent has been set--that there is no limit on what the government can tax.  In fact, the court went looking, the court went mining for a way to make this possible--the notion of a limitless expansion of the power of the federal government was affirmed today by the Supreme Court of United States.  And that's why there's so much spiking the football and--on the left--and that's why there's so much happiness, because they know what this decision ultimately means.  When the federal government has the power to tax behavior, there's no end to what can be taxed.  And that's what Obamacare was always about from the get-go.  Obamacare is not about health care for the uninsured.  It's not about improving health care.  It's not about insurance.  It's about the limitless expansion of the federal government, and the federal government's ability to exert behavioral control over the American people...."  While still on the subject brought up by the telephone caller, Rush Limbaugh said: "...According to this precedent set by the court today, you could say that a carbon tax is now constitutional, you could say--because this is a massive precedent--you could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional, because the, the court has said there's no limit to what the government can tax.  Don't be buffaloed and fooled into thinking this tax increase was tied exclusively to health insurance or health-related matters.  All that really has happened here is that the court told the government it can't make people buy things under the Commerce Clause but it can with the tax code.  It's as simple as I can make it...."  And yet more that Rush Limbaugh said on the episode of the show is: "...I, I think this is important.  It doesn't mean anything now.  It does not have the force of power...but the four judges, justices who dessented--Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy--made it plain in their descent that there was nothing constitutional about this act.  They found nothing in it.  They plainly said in their descent the whole thing should have been tossed out...."

    Here is an aside, which divides up the comments of two radio talk-shows hosts--the two thinkers.  Mitt Romney said shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012 had been issued:: "...What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States--and that is, I will act to repeal Obamacare.  Let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do.  What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate The Constitution.  What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy...." and "...This is now a time for the American people to make a choice.  You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government--more and more intrusive in your lives--separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what health insurance they want...." and "...If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama.  If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and our kids, we must replace Obamacare.  That is my mission.  That is our work.  And I'm asking the people of America to join me.  If you don't want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort.  Help us!  Help us defeat Obamacare.  Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country...."

    On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Mark R. Levin hosted another edition of this nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show; Mark R. Levin is a lawyer, a writer of books (such as Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, which is about the U.S. Supreme Court, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, and Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America), and a man who was involved in fighting (through the Landmark Legal Foundation) against the federal government in the court case about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and on the show, Mark R. Levin made many comments about the court case and the decision.  Mark R. Levin's statement began in earnest right at the start of the show, and he said: "...We're going to take our time here.  We're not going to put smiley faces on things and candy coat things, because you're mature and you deserve the truth.  Eric Holder [the U.S. Attorney General] was held in contempt a few hours ago, and the majority on the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, held you in contempt this morning.  John Roberts apparently has 'evolved.'  It didn't take him that long.  And the accolades from the left have already started.  With the Obamacare and Arizona decisions, ah, Roberts activism is now firmly evident.  Arizona was a brutal attack on the Tenth Amendment and an expansion of the federal preemption power beyond what actually is provided in The Constitution.  And the decision today--as I will get into it in some great detail--is a brutal assault on individual sovereignty.  Now we have something akin to the 'Warren Court.'  It's still evolving, but we'll find out one day I'm sure.  And there are conservatives out there--it's painful to watch these people--bending over backwards to pretend this was a great victory.  But they're wrong--dead wrong.  Just because five lawyers in black robes, one of whom was purported to be conservative, a man I knew a long time ago, issue a decision of the sort that they issued doesn't make it proper.  A matter of fact, this decision I would go so far to say is lawless, absolutely lawless.  That's why people are stunned.  Wow, where did he come up with that?  [The previous sentence was a pretending sentence, making up with someone else might say.]  He concocted it!  More in a moment.  Now, we had Anthony Kennedy of the four dissenters who wanted to throw the entire Obamacare law out--the entire law.  The Chief Justice saved it under an absurd, a truly absurd and truly stupid argument that I'll get to as I said later.  Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare, despite its multiple constitutional violations.  We had four justices, including Kennedy, who wanted to throw the entire thing out.  And I hear some conservatives claiming--Wow, we narrowed the Commerce Clause jurisprudence.  Are these people serious?  I also hear the talk about politics.  Well, now, we're really gonna have to win this election.  That's all quite true.  And I'll talk about that later.  But how do we fix The Constitution?  We can repeal Obamacare--we damn well better--but how do we fix The Constitution now that yet again it's been abused, now that yet again a provision in The Constitution has been used--misused--to support a government program that is a direct assault on the individual?  How do we fix that?...."  Mark R. Levin continued on a bit later with a line that a person must take to heart and never forget: "...So the bottom line with the Roberts court decision is you can't regulate inactivity but you can tax it...."  Mark R. Levin said a bit later: "...And the word 'tax' in this context was never used by Congress.  Ever!  Quite the contrary.  And I'm not going to bore you with the audio.  We have it too.  They insisted, as did Obama--It's not a tax.  And then there's Roberts--But it is tax.  No, it's not a tax.  Yes, it is a tax.  No.  Yes.  Yes.  No.  [The previous bit of stuff was a pretending sentence, making up what others might say.]  Well, what is it?  It's whatever John Roberts says it is.  So, today, it's a tax, and, yet, yesterday, at this time, it was a 'penalty.'  Mark, why does that matter?  'Cause The Constitution explains what kind of taxes the federal government can lay, and beyond the enumerated taxes, it can lay anything.  And the Supreme Court actually has precedent on this point.  Lots of it!  None of which supports what John Roberts did.  None of it!  Now, let's do something, take our time here, stick with me.  Now, what kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution?  Well, there's a tax that's called a direct or capitation tax.  Mark, what in the world is that?  It's a tax on the individual.  The Constitution requires direct or capitation taxes--a head tax, if you will--to be apportioned among the states.  That means each state must pay its portion of the total tax based on the state's percentage of the general population.  Very confusing, isn't it?  That's why it's never done.  Then under The Constitution, you can have an excise tax.  But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of an individual.  So, surely this can't be that either, can it?  No!  What about an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment?  Well, even John Roberts doesn't attempt to justify the penalty as an income tax, because if you're not doing anything, you're not creating income.  So it's not a direct or capitation tax.  It's not an excise tax.  It's not an income tax.  And, you know, what John Roberts says in response to all that?  Oh, let's stop fiddling around with labels.  Excuse me!  It's not fiddling around with labels.  Got all kinds of case law on how crucial it.  Ah, let's not fiddle around with labels.  Oh.  Now, Roberts begins with an obvious and, frankly, goofy almost condescending civics lessons--the beginning of this opinion--like he believes this decision will be read in every town square.  And, certainly, on MSNBC.  And after explaining how the nation government can only exercise enumerated powers, he says: 'This case concerns two powers that The Constitution does grant to the federal government but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."  That is, police power's reserved to the states.  And as soon as he's paying lip service to the limited federal power, he carries on with a jumbled bizarre thoroughly inconsistent legal analysis.  Ladies and gentlemen, I've spent a career reading court decisions.  His part of the majority opinion--well, I was going to say it's stupid.  It is truly incoherent!  It's terrible!  He gets the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Power [Proper] Clause, ah, analysis correct.  But he contorts the tax clause, as is I explained, beyond recognition.  I don't even think he understands them to be honest with you.  Because they can get complicated...."  A big point Mark Levin said right before going into the first commercial break was: "...But let's understand what happened to our constitution, and let us never forget that constitution belongs to us--not to temporary politicians, not to judges--belongs to us.  This decision is so absurd, it's so internally contradictory, if I were John Roberts, I'd be embarrassed to have my signature on it...."  After taking the first commercial break, Mark R. Levin got into his analysis of John Roberts' reasoning for his decision and the decision of the majority: "...Now, I want to remind you of a couple of things.  First of all, the Chief Justice Earl Warren--I mean, ah, John Roberts--the Chief Justice and his fellow justices wanted to hear in specific four issues--at oral argument--they wanted four issues briefed by the various parties.  Four issues--the 'individual mandate," the Anti-Injunction Act, and 'severability,' and Medicaid.  Oops, they forgot to ask for a brief on the tax issues.  And they didn't even really argue it during all those hours of unprecedented days of oral argument.  My goodness, what happened?  What happened, Chief?  Kind of a last minute decision, ugh?  But we--I, Landmark Legal--we did brief this issue, and we were among the only parties to brief this issue, and we briefed it more thoroughly than the government.  That would be the Obama administration.  And you can go on our brief at landmarklegal dot org, and you can see it.  And we say--the individual mandate's penalty provision--that's what it's called, a penalty provision--hence forth, the court has said it will be a tax provision.  Why?  Because they say so!  It cannot be justified as a permissible tax under any constitutional test, we explained.  Arguments proffered by the federal government that this provision constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' taxation authority fail under all established precedents and should be rejected by the court--all established Supreme Court precedents.  Hum.  Had Congress determined the penalty provision constituted a tax, it would have label it a tax [in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012], and statements of members of Congress and Obama made concurrently with its passage would have reflected as much.  You see, ladies and gentlemen, Congress knows how to pass tax statutes, it knows how to pass tax language.  It does it all the time.  And here I guess they just forgot.  The federal government's latest brief concedes the point without realized it, referring repeatedly to Section 5000a as a penalty.  Yet even if this court assumes that Section 5000a is a tax, it still fails to satisfy the constitutional restrictions on taxes set forth in Article I, Section Nine, Clause Four.  That's 'Prohibition on the issuance of capitation or direct taxes'...the Sixteenth Amendment, the income tax, and the limitations set forth by this court as applicable to other Article I, Section Eight taxes, such as excise taxes, which he would.  How did the Chief Justice get around that?  Well, like a good activist, he just blew it off.  He says it functions as a tax.  Hell, just because it doesn't fall under any of the enumerated taxes in the federal constitution, just because Congress didn't mention it, just because Obama specifically rejected it doesn't mean it doesn't function as a tax.  And look, look you conservatives, look George Will, look Charles Krauthammer, look others, I'm going to save Obamacare, but I won't do it under the Commerce Clause.  Don't I deserve credit for that.  [The previous two sentences were a pretending bit, making up what John Roberts might say.]  Oh.  Well, a couple of things.  The Anti-Injunction Act.  First, Roberts writes that The Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits legal challenges of taxing measures until a taxpayer has first paid a tax.  Got that?  In other words, you don't have standing, the case isn't ripe until the tax is actually instituted, and then you want to challenge the tax, he said that doesn't apply in this case.  You want to know why?  You ready for this one?  Please don't burp up your dinner.  Listen to this.  Because Roberts said the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction tax because Congress didn't call it a tax.  Wow!  So under the Anti-Injunction Act, which says essentially--Look, you can't challenge a tax until it's actually instituted and then instituted against you as a citizen or an organization, and then.  So wait a minute!  Congress didn't say this was a tax!  Now I'm confused.  So, it's not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but it is tax for the purposes of the individual mandate.  Confused?  So the hell is everybody else because it doesn't make any sense!  But I shouldn't be so rude, should I?  He's the Chief Justice.  Oh, yes, I knew him way back when when he served in Reagan administration.  Now when we come back, I'm going to hit the other aspects of this decision, which are also so profoundly stupid."  After the commercial break ran through, Mark R. Levin passed on more thoughts: "...The 'individual mandate' is about you, mandating you.  And, by the way, as a significant side point, Roberts in his ruling and the four 'originalists' on the court, and I would include Kennedy in this particular case, they both agree thirty-million people without health insurance, the vast majority of them are young people, they're young adults, and Roberts and the four dissenters, both pointed out, those young adults, those thirty-million or so--my words--they are dragged into this system.  They are a major funding systems for Obamacare.  And when he [Barack Obama] goes out and says I'm covering thirty-million people, he's stealing from thirty-million people.  Please remember that!  This is a targeted class that are being put upon to take their money from them--to separate them from their money, not to give them coverage.  So remember that!  Young people in particular--you're the target, you're not the beneficiary.  So Roberts and the four dissenting justices agree that Obamacare goes well beyond the Commerce Clause of The Constitution.  That should have been the end of it right there.  Case closed!  Over and out!  Goodbye!  Congress, you can rewrite a law with the President, not rewrite a law.  In other words, Congress can still muddle along, the President still try his little fiats and all the rest, and keep having people sue him and try and stop.  That's fine.  But that should have been it.  Over and out!  But it wasn't.  Well, he said--I got to save this law.  How can I save it?  What would Harry Blackman do?  Where can I go?  What can I.  Oh, the tax clause.  [In the previous few sentences, Mark R. Levin was pretending, making up what John Roberts might have said.]  So Roberts asserts the court has a duty to apply statutory construction rules that require the court to uphold the constitutionality statute if there's a reasonable reading of the statute that would justify upholding it, even if Congress did mean to or knew what it was doing.   Those knuckle heads in Congress.  Oh, they kept trying to figure out what to call.  We'll call it a penalty, call it a fine.  Gee, we don't know what else to call it.  That light bulb never went off for the word 'tax'--the all-important word.  So Roberts supplied it for them.  He said every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.  He even says that his reading is not quote the most natural interpretation unquote or even quote the most straight forward unquote interpretation of the statute.  So, I would ask George Will and Krauthammer and these other guy--Is this, is this how a justice is supposed to, ah, work, is this, is this how a justice is supposed to go through this process, fumbling around, mumbling around, lurching there, lurching there, making incoherent statements in writing?  And yet Roberts essentially says that, while Congress mean or know that the individual mandate is a tax--that you and I know say it wasn't--the court must treat it as a tax, if that's the only way the law can be found to be unconstitutional, even when the court just finished saying it was not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, hat is, for standing or rightness purposes...."

    Here I must put in an aside (another one).  Pretend you write a song, and if you are do what the Disney company does, you will not let anyone change a single word of the song--even in the slightest--during a performance, or there will be hell to pay by the person who changes the word--if the words are changed, your meaning in the song is changed.  If you get involved in a contract, such as a contract focusing on buying a car, every word is in the contract has a purpose, and the contract is what it is, and if the contract must be debated in court, the contract will be taken for what it is in court, and the words cannot be changed by the court (and a court cannot put words into the contract that are not in the contract to clear up what the contract was and is designed to mean).

    I now return to words that Mark R. Levin presented on his show on June 28, 2012.  He said later in the program: "...The tax analysis is utterly incoherent.  He says the mandate's a tax, but he doesn't say what kind of tax.  Now, that's kind of crucial for reasons that I explained before.  So if it's not a direct tax, but he says it looks like a tax in many ways, functions like a tax, therefore it must be a tax.  Circular incoherent explanation we'd expect from say Justice Breyer.  So instead of focusing on The Constitution's requirements for taxation, he applies a functional test.  Where does he get the functional test from?  Well, ah, I don't know.  He says the dissent--the four originalists--they're hung up on labels.  Well, yeah, they kind of are.  Yeah *, those labels are words and they happen to be in The Constitution.  Hung up on labels, you know.  'Tax.'  'Penalty.'  You know those labels, those labels that make the difference between something that is and is not lawful?  And you know what he did?  It's something liberals do all the time, even the most moronic callers to my program who are liberals.  He referred to the General Welfare Clause [of The United States Constitution]--the General Welfare Clause, even James Madison [a "founder" of the country] explained that didn't substitute for enumerated powers.  Last time I checked, Madison is said to be the father of The Constitution, whether he was or not.  Under Article I, Section Eight, Clause One, General Welfare Clause, that's where we find this stuff.  The General Welfare Clause, of course, has nothing to do with this.  But there it is."  [* Note: This word may be wrong, being hard to understand in the audio recording available.]

    Mark R. Levin passed on more thoughts, but I choose to not add more to this document, except this set of words: "...By the way, this Ginsburg, you read her opinion, she's about as radical a leftist as you can imagine on the court.  She has nothing but contempt for The Constitution, not only in her interviews about, you know, she prefers the South African Con, whatever, but just read her writing in this case!  She's a disgrace...."

    So, now, the federal government can tax anything and nothing, and it means the federal government can tax "nothing" at any level it wishes from moment to moment, and the level of taxation has no upper limit and can be changed on a whim.

    The nature of what the U.S. Supreme Court is now surely clearly known, though for some years, the true nature has been evident to those who wish to look for it or see it, and, in fact, in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of defective decisions.  For example, on Monday, April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court Under the Clean Air Act said that the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to regulate carbon dioxide, considered one of the greenhouse gases (even though carbon dioxide is harmless and necessary for plants to grow and does not cause the Earth to die);  it was a five to four decision for the EPA, and the decision overturned a 2005 ruling, and majority was made up of John Paul Stevens (who wrote for the majority), Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and those who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito Jr.  Other examples of the defectiveness of many decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court came out in the week of Monday, June 25, 2012; for one, on Monday, June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a court case involving an immigration-based law that had been made law by the State of Arizona (a law informally known as "S.B. 1070").

    What the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly the majority, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, did in the "Obamacare" decision was rewrite a portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is not what the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to do, since it is not supposed to write legislation or change words, as it should not change words in a contract between two persons as part of a court case, and what the action means is the U.S. Supreme Court can no longer be trusted to uphold any provision of The United States Constitution, since any document put before the U.S. Supreme Court can now be subject to rewriting to suit what the U.S. Supreme Court wishes to have for the law at the moment, and now even unconstitutional laws--laws that are nonsense and put together by crazy people--can exist easily, and there are no limits on what the federal government cannot do now--the federal government can now be tyrannical and do anything, including kill at will and justify the action as a benefit to the "common good" (which is a set of words used by enslavists, such as communists), which happens in China, North Korea, and such.

    The United States of America can be considered the worst country in the world now, given the enslavists of the country have set a law that sets a new precedent for enslavists all around the world--they have created a law that allows them to tax to an unlimited amount on nothing or a person's not doing anything.

    And what Chief Justice John Roberts showed himself to be through the ruling is a bad man, an evil man, and an enemy of the United States of America (as it was founded), and now, though not evident to most persons living in the United States of America, the United States of America is now better thought of as roughly the Communist States of America (an entity headed by a rogue and lawless U.S. President and a rogue and lawless U.S. Supreme Court).

    P.S.: When words have no set meanings or when the meanings of words can be changed at will, you have a defective language and a defective society or country.

    Hold it!  You might have thought I was done.  On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court once again showed off how rotten it is as a whole.  On that day, it released a decision on the court case informally called The King v. Burwell; six justices (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) voted to keep the status quo or keep the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 intact, and three (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) voted to follow The United States Constitution, and that means the good people of the United States of America lost and became more enslaved to rottenness.  For one, the six justices bastardized the meaning of words, such as "state," and now I can say that, in relation to most of the justices on the U.S. Supreme court, words can have ever-changing meanings and have whatever meanings the justices need at the moment.  But that is not all.  Once again, John Roberts showed himself to be a rotten thinker and a man who should never have been made a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the court document about the ruling, John Roberts wrote--"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them....".  Look at the idiocy.  In essence, John Roberts was basing his decision on "intentions" of people.  How can any man know the intentions of all those involved in making the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--too many people were involved and people hide their true intentions.  At this moment, history shows that so far the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a rotten law, and proof exists to show that people who made the law did not have good intentions while making the law (as documents of mine, which are available on the Internet, show).  In the U.S., judges are not supposed to decide things based on intentions--they are supposed to base things of law and on logic and on The United States Constitution.  I state that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito have shown themselves to be good men, but I have to state--the entity that is the U.S. Supreme Court is highly rotten.  It is a shit entity, an entity to be spit on!



Greenhouse, Linda, and Felicity Barringer.  "Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon."  The New York Times, 3 April 2007.

Mears, Bill, and Tom Cohen.  "Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4; White House 'elated.'"  CNN, 28 June 2012, 12:29 p.m. EDT.

    Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on June 29, 2012.

    Note: This document is known on the Internet as

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled National Health
    Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons
    it is a Dead Issue, which can be
    reached by using this link: Health.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatism for
    Children and What Conservatism Means,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatives and
    The United States Constitution Versus
    Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism,
    Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
    be reached by using this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Illegal Aliens and
    Immigration: The Focusing is on
    Protecting the Home--the United States
    of America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Illegal.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The "Enslavers" Want
    Your Retirement Plan or Pension Plan,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Nonsense Statements
    and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
    can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Madness in a President
    and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-
    Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and
    Barack Obama, which can be reached by
    using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Never Forget These
    Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
    Individual in the United States of
    America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A Little History of
    Barack Obama Events: A Show of
    Deconstruction, which can be reached by
    using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Next Elections:
    What Has to be Done to Protect the
    United States of America, which can
    be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled World Tyranny:
    Warnings about  the Insane Who are
    Trying to Create a Communist World
    Country, which can be reached by
    using this link: World.

Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.

To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may click on this link now: