Supreme Court Justice Roberts vs. Natural Rights


Another Nail in the Coffin of the Constitution


“For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”


Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 [1886]


Our “Supreme” court has lost its vision and forgotten its responsibility as contained in their oath of office;  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; . . .”  The Constitution does not detail the language of the oath, however, according to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:


“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”


The violation of this oath took center stage by the Court upholding the health care mandate contained in the infamous “Obamacare” as a “tax” and not a penalty, thereby making it constitutional.  Chief Justice Roberts providing the critical vote siding with the socialist on the Court.  I have not yet read the majority opinion, but what I have heard from the news analyst, is that the power of the Congress to tax is unlimited and notwithstanding the fact that the Obama administration and other socialists in Congress pushed the mandate as a penalty.


Immediately two elements of the decision stand out.  First and foremost is the power to tax invested in Congress.  The conclusions reached by the Court that the power to tax is unlimited, is in error.  Either the socialist justices are ignorant or blind, but the Court, from day one in their history have repeatedly held that this authority is limited, to this the Court has declared;  “There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free government; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations.” (Justice Field, concurring in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan, 157 U.S. 429, 599)


In attempting to “clothe” itself in legislative power and editing the principles behind the mandate of the health care law, Justice Roberts creates the tax that is imposed upon the “inactivity” of American citizens who choose not to engage in the health insurance industry.  This choice is made by “natural right” and is protected by the Constitution as it was designed to protect the rights of American citizens.  Looking at the decision leaves me wondering which of the two classes of taxes allowed by the Constitution, the “health care” tax falls under.  The two classes of taxes are ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’.  A few comments from the court help to identify the class and the difference between the two.


“In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises….” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429, 557


“Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or exchange.” Knowlton vs. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47


“Courts have rarely attempted to define direct or indirect taxes, but have preferred to decide in each case as it arose. The true rule is that the nature of the tax depends upon the nature of the thing taxed. If the tax is a tax upon a person or upon property, it is a direct tax; if on a privilege, it is an excise and is indirect.” argument for petitioner; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 127 [1929]


“Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes.  . . .”  Pollock, supra., 557


“And although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words ‘duties, imposts and excises,’ such a tax for more than one hundred years of national existence has as of yet remained undiscovered.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429, 558; U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 [1935]


In the Robert’s decision it seems that the Court has indeed found a “new” tax.  Under the Pollock ruling, the “health care” tax can not be passed on to a third party.  Therefore it cannot be claimed to be an indirect tax.  It must, therefore, be a “direct” tax and fall under the rule of apportionment as laid down by the Constitution.  Maybe President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts can explain how the “health care” tax lends itself to the principle of apportionment.  With all due respect, Chief Justice, you have created a “tax” which until now has never existed in the taxing structure of this Republic.  I am sorry sir, but your reasoning and that of your socialist friends on the Court have delivered a flawed opinion in  relation to the penalty as written by the Congress.


This brings me to the second element and that is congressional intent.  The intent of congress respecting a law passed takes  precedence over the personal feeling of the Court.  The Court’s responsibility is to rule on the language of the law at it applies to Constitution.  The health care law as passed by congress, uses the commerce clause and used the term “penalty”.  This was rightly refuted by the decision and should have ended there.


Why Chief Justice Roberts switched sides will probably never be known for some time.  Good or bad, for this Roberts will be remembered just as we remember FDR and his “new deal” and LBJ and the “great society”.  Others have ventured guesses as to why Roberts sided with the socialists, which leaves the door open for me to give my observations.  It appears to me that Justice Roberts has given Governor Romney and the republicans a boost in their attempt to oust President Obama in placing the responsibility for this law on to the backs of the people.  The poles show that a majority of those poled do not support the “new tax” or “penalty” associated with the “health care” law and its twenty some odd additional taxes.


As I have outlined in other articles, a forgotten power of the citizens lies in their status as a “Sovereign”.  And as a sovereign, supreme power and authority is under their control.  The problem with the population today is that government has re-educated us into thinking, first that we are a “democracy” and that under that system the majority rule the day.  It is forgotten by many that our system of government is that of a “Republic” NOT a “democracy”.  From time to time the Supreme Court has reminded us that our rights are protected from intrusion by government;  “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943)  This fundamental principle was re-affirmed in 1964 by the Court in Lucas v. State of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713.


Great cases on natural rights fill the libraries, one such being the Miranda decision; ” Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886). The privilege was elevated to constitutional status, and has always been “as broad as the mischief [p460] against which it seeks to guard.” Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892). We cannot depart from this noble heritage.” (at 459)  And “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 490, 1966.


No individual or group of individuals have authority over our natural right since natural rights are not granted by governments.  On the other hand this government, under the Constitution, its sole purpose is to protect our rights.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


As sovereign citizens, we need to stand up against socialism and all of those who think they are doing good under that system.  The end goal of socialism is communism, a government which in the past this Nation stood against and fought its encroachment.


Returning to the elements which stand as a road block to the reasoning of the Court in this instance mentioned heretofore, are the limited scope of the taxing power of Congress.  The intent of Congress opposed to the legislative powers of the Court, and sovereign authority of citizens opposed to the sovereign authority of government.  Ending with the concept of sovereignty, let it be remembered what then Justice Stone said in his opinion in Curry vs. McCanless back in 1939;  “The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with sovereignty.” (307 U.S. 357)  This is a re-affirmation of the principle set by then Chief Justice Marshall;  “But to what source do we trace this right? It is obvious, that it is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.” M’Cullock, at 429.  In as much as the taxing power is a quality or attribute of the sovereign, what does the sovereignty of the government extend over?  Again, Chief Justice Marshall clarifies this; “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; . . .”  M’Cullock, at 429


It is very simple and simple elements are in most cases are correct.  “[W]hen you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”  Occam’s Razor The logical conclusion developed from Chief Justice Marshall, and under the principle of delegation of authority;  if the right does not exist in the sovereign, it cannot be delegated or given to another. No man has the right to take another man’s property. And since, “[t]he right never existed, … the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.” M’Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 430


“When such regulations do not conflict with any constitutional inhibition or natural right, their validity cannot be successfully controverted. The general government was not formed to interfere with or control them.” Butcher’s Union vs. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 754, Justice Field concurring.


“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. Army surveillance, like Army regimentation, is at war with the principles of the First Amendment. Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. . . .  the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image, . . .”  Laird v. Tatum,  408 U.S. 1, 28, 29 (1972)


Loral Glazier



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s