West Suburban Patriots

an independent Tea Party group in DuPage County, IL

In order to find Obamacare constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts deided that the controversial mandate is a tax.    The following are a list of good articles.

The supreme courts opinion

American Spectator - Undoing Obamacare

Video: On the Senate Floor Senator Rubio Discusses ObamaCare

Supreme Court Helps Obama Fulfill Dreams from His Communist Mentor

Court's Medicaid Reversal Big Win - Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Views: 42


You need to be a member of West Suburban Patriots to add comments!

Join West Suburban Patriots

Comment by jan s on July 5, 2012 at 1:17pm

C. Steven Tucker was interviewed on WLS radio - Listen to a replay: 


Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:27pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

The Health Care Decision:

What does it mean, and what do we do next?

The dust has started to settle a bit, and we may be out of shock and a little less consumed by anger and disappointment. Now we are ready to take a serious look at where this leaves us and how we need to respond. We've been reading a plethora of opinions on the decision, even though that really only scratches the surface. But we thought it might be helpful if we tried to summarize what we've read and share the best with you. This email will give you the gist of what's being said without your having to read all the articles (although links to most will be included in case you want to read more). We're also including links to the best articles on various topics. We'd suggest you read our summary, and if you have extra time, one or two articles from each section.

We'll be sending out more information about the health care plan later to help you explain to others what is wrong with this law, how it needs to be changed, etc. But for now we wanted to focus on just the Supreme Court decision.

The table of contents below gives you an overview and can be used later to click to different sections as you wish. If you don't read anything else, please read the action plan and "Isn't voting enough?"

Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:24pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

What exactly did the opinion do?

The decision has three main parts, which will be discussed further in the following two sections:
The court found the individual mandate constitutional as a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in this part of the decision.
However, the decision clearly states that the mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause. Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, was very clear that it could not be upheld under the commerce clause.
A majority of the justices determined that individual states cannot be forced to increase their Medicaid roles by depriving them of the Medicaid funds they currently receive from the federal government. Obviously, though, they will not receive additional funds if they refuse to comply with the parts of the law that increase the number of people eligible for Medicaid. On this section, the decision was 7 - 2 with only Justices Sotomeyor and Ginsburg dissenting.

Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:22pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

If you want to read the entire decision or check individual parts of it, you can download it here:

Here are two summaries of the decision (just straight reporting with little or no opinion):


Radio interview with Stephen Tucker, Obamacare expert who works closely with Illinois Tea Party: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=139802

Here is the ScotusBlog coverage. These are links to multiple articles, and the second link is to opinion articles:



Jim DeMint responding at the Heritage Foundation, followed by Q & A (25 min. video): http://www.myheritage.org/news/video-jim-demint-responds-to-the-oba...

Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:19pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

So, is the mandate a tax or a penalty?

Who knows? Arguments can be made on both sides, and arguing about whether it's a tax or a penalty is probably a waste of time. Accusing President Obama of "lying" is probably not productive either. However, it is appropriate and productive and point out that he argued vehemently that the mandate is no ta tax while it was being passed. There are multiple videos of him arguing that it is not a tax but a penalty. The general consensus is that he knew that Congress would not pass it if it contained a tax. Also, he had promised there would be no tax increases for anyone making below $200,000.

However, his attorney's argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause AND the section that gives Congress the right to establish taxes . They argued that it is a tax. President Obama should be held accountable for this.

But it gets worse. He is not arguing again that, regardless of what the Supreme Court said, the mandate is not a tax but a penalty.

This decision that the mandate is a tax obviously creates problems for President Obama. However, it also creates some problems for conservatives as well, mainly the concern that it expands the power of Congress to create taxes on anything and everything. Some conservatives, however, see this as a minimal problem since the constitutional right of Congress to tax is fairly broad, and Congress creates taxes for anything and everything already. Virtually everyone agrees that if the mandate had to stand, this is far preferable to its being constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

In a liberal opinion column in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/conservatives-see-silver-linin...), an obviously liberal law professor expresses "concern" that it will be more difficult to enact change in the future using the tax argument rather than the commerce argument because there are clear limits on taxation. Good.

Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:10pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

Here are articles discussing the tax vs penalty issue:

This excellent Weekly Standard article quotes extensively from the decision on why it is and isn't a tax:




Here is a past video (there are many more) of President Obama and his representatives saying the mandate is not a tax (and, as you'll see, at least in these particular videos, his representatives aren't quite as sure as he is):


Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:07pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

What exactly does this all mean for conservatives? What are the political ramifications?

The positive ramifications for President Obama are obvious: his signature legislation was found to be generally constitutional by the Supreme Court. This is a big blow to limited government, and we are rightfully upset and even outraged. However, regardless of how the left is choosing to spin it, the decision is not all good news for them. There are a number of silver linings for conservatives in this. The response to this decision has been interesting: Conservative reaction has run the gamut from outrage and anger to pointing out the positives to speculating that it may turn out to have been the best result for us to claiming that we actually won!

Although most of us strongly disagree with this decision, it is important to recognize the silvering linings:

  • Obamacare will be a campaign issue. Conservatives will have an issue to rally around and will be energized. The President will be forced to defend the law, rather than talking endlessly about his supposed "accomplishments." The general conservative concensus is that this will help Romney and increase his chances of winning.
  • The Commerce Clause has been narrowed. Despite upholding the mandate as a tax, Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion contained many statements about limited government that we will like and that will be used in future cases.
  • The Medicaid part of the decision has gotten the least attention, but it is very important. If the law is not repealed and several states decline to participate, the entire law could be threatened. Liberal pundits are pooh poohing this, saying that states will decide to go along so this is not a concern. Maybe they will (money from the state will be used to support it with no return), but right now states are beginning to weigh in that they will choose to opt out and not participate. Only time will tell, and they probably will not make final decisions until after the election.
  • We won't have to put up with listening to the left moan and groan about how conservative and activist the Supreme Court is. Yes, this is a small point, but their complaining really was irritating. More significantly, it will be harder for the left to make the argument that people should get out and vote so they get more Supreme Court appointments. That's our argument now--and really always was.
  • It will be difficult for the left to make the argument (although they will try) that we should just shut up and go away because "the Supreme Court settled the matter." This is not true. First, the Consitution assumes all branches of government will make mistakes and/or try to gain too much power, which is why is was designed with checks and balances. It was assumed Congress would "fix" the mistakes the Supreme Court makes or that Congress itself makes. (And in this case, both made a big mistake.) Second, this argument is even more difficult in this case because the Roberts majority opinion implies that he does not--or at least may not--like the law. He challenges the people to elect representatives who will fix this mess.
  • Since the individual mandate has been officially deemed a tax, if we win the election, reconciliation can legitimately be used to pass a repeal. This means we would only need 51 votes in the Senate, not 60.
Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 8:02pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

There are many interesting articles available that discuss the political ramification. The first two are especially good and provide an overview of the decision and its political ramifications:






These two articles make the argument that we won. Yes, this may be a stretch, but they make a good argument, and the American Thinker article has an excellent historical analysis of the Commerce Clause:



Dick Morris on the Medicaid part of the decision (short video): http://www.dickmorris.com/courts-medicaid-reversal-big-win-dick-mor...

Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 7:59pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

How does this decision affect the TEA Party?

The general consesus is that it will energize us and put new life into the TEA Party. We've been very much alive and active all along but less visible than before the 2010 election. This Court decision has caused more interest in the TEA Party and may grow our numbers all over the country.

There was a tele-town hall for patriots last evening, followed by a local coordinator webinar with national Tea Party Patriot leaders. On both, people were upset but energized, frustrated but resolute, angry but determined. The tenor of these events strongly supports the opinion that this will pump us up and energize us.


Comment by jan s on July 3, 2012 at 7:58pm

From Naperville tea Patriots:

Where do we go from here? What is our action plan? What can each of us do?

The Supreme Court decision was announced only four days ago, and it was not what was expected. Yes, conservatives knew the mandate could be upheld, but no one expected it to happen like it did. Patriot and conservative groups all around the country are working on action plans, but a well thought out plan will take a little longer than four days. However, that said, an amazing amount has been done already, and there are things you can do now--right now. But there will be more coming, include a plan for local activism from our group. Here are some of the groups that are putting together plans and what you can do to participate and help immediately.

© 2019   Created by Carol D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service