Once established, it is almost impossible to repeal a benefit or ‘public service’

The failure to repeal Obamacare is yet more evidence that Chief Justice Roberts was wrong not to stop Obamacare at the start – and wrong in his basic principles. The public rarely, if ever, ask for a new “public service” or benefit – but once such a government function is established it is almost impossible to repeal. People, and the system itself, grows used to the new government benefit or service – and it is incredibly difficult to get rid of it once it is established. This is why traditional Constitutions are written – to limit the powers of government at the start, to prevent these benefits and services being created in the first place.

However, a Constitution is only as good as the enforcement mechanisms to make sure it is obeyed – and as Luther Martin warned at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, trusting government appointed judges to limit the powers of the very government that appointed them is a fatally flawed idea.

This is not a recent problem. Even in the 19th century the Supreme Court often ruled that the Federal Government has powers that the Constitution does NOT give it. For example the infamous “Second Greenback Case” where the Supreme Court, with newly appointed “justices” (appointed, in part, for this corrupt purpose) overturned the “First Greenback Case” where the court had declared, quite correctly, that the Federal Government has no power to print (or have printed) money – only to “coin money” (Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States) and that only gold or silver coin (not paper money) may be “legal tender” in any State (Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution of the United States). Nothing could be plainer than that paper money is unconstitutional – indeed the very reason the United States Constitution was written in the first place was to prevent the “not worth a Continental” paper money issued by the Continental Congress to finance its government – those who support the Articles of Confederation system forget that one of its fundamental flaws was that it allowed the government to print money, as it gave no reliable source of taxation to finance the United States Armed Forces. Without a large scale and professional armed forces there is no point in having a United States of America at all – and each State might as well go its own way till conquered by European powers in the 18th century or by the People’s Republic of China in the 21st century.

The modern PRC, not constrained by morality (ethics), would either wipe out or find unpleasant uses for (spare parts in surgery, Roman style entertainment killing, and so on) the present population of the various American States. Remember whose face is on the paper money of the PRC – Mao the largest scale mass murderer in human history (see Jung Chang “Mao: The Unknown Story” or the many historical works of Frank Dikotter such as “The Tragedy of Liberation” or “Mao’s Great Famine“). The PRC has rejected the economics of Mao – but it has not rejected his morality, or rather his Satanic inversion of morality. A PRC that rejected the inversion of ethics by Mao might as well declare itself the Republic of China (Taiwan) and hold free elections – the basic principle of the PRC regime is the seeking of ever greater power and conquests, without that there is no justification for the dictatorship. Prosperity is not a justification for the PRC dictatorship – Taiwan is prosperous. The justification for the PRC dictatorship is power and conquest – which appeals to the dark side of human nature as dictators, Julius Caesar, Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV (the “Sun King”), Frederick “the Great”, Napoleon, General Ludendoff, Hitler, Stalin, Mao… have always known.

To return to the Greenback Cases… – Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (the former “slaves lawyer” famous for his anti slavery legal work before the Civil War) de facto ruled that the Treasury Secretary during the Civil War had acted unconstitutionally in having money printed, even though the the Treasury Secretary of the time was Salmon P. Chase (himself). It is not necessary to recuse yourself if you intend, de facto, to find yourself guilty. However, more “justices” were added to the court – and the judgement (and the Constitution) was overturned. The argument being that no more paper money was being printed – it would gradually go over time, so there was no need to make a fuss… still less to declare that the “United States Dollars” in the pockets of people were just bits of paper with ink on them (not “money”).

In 1935 the Supreme Court de facto ruled (by five votes to four) that the Federal Government could steal all monetary gold and void all private and public contracts that had gold (or silver) clauses in the contracts. There was no Constitutional basis for this decision (none whatever – just “lawyer’s cant”) and the Federal Reserve notes declared valid money came from an organisation (the Federal Reserve system created in 1913) that the Congress had no Constitutional power to create. The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, might as well have chanted “Death to America!” and “Hail Satan!” as they announced their judgement – as some of the dissenting judges pointed out. Thus the unconstitutional Credit Bubble financial system was pushed forward. The doubts of Luther Martin at the Constitutional Convention were vindicated – government appointed judges sitting without a jury can not be trusted.

The private argument of the Chief Justice (he made no real public argument – just “lawyer’s cant”) being that the Supreme Court had just struck down the “National Industrial Recovery Act” and “National Recovery Administration” (the effort by President Franklin Roosevelt to turn the United States into a Fascist State – openly based on the model of Mussolini’s Italy, with the government deciding on prices and general production and distribution enforced by men in jackboots, such as General Johnson the leader of the Fascist “National Recovery Administration”, marching behind Blue Eagle signs), so voiding the gold confiscation and contract destruction would have been “too much” forcing President Franklin Roosevelt to resign. Why the potential resignation of Franklin Roosevelt should have influenced a judicial decision was not explained. The “logic” being that if someone in public office acts outside his constitutional powers – all he has to do is hint that he will resign in order to have his powers de facto expanded (unconstitutionally expanded). A President Jack Nance Garner from Texas (who would have been President on the resignation of Franklin Roosevelt) should have been nothing for the Supreme Court to worry about. And had Mr Roosevelt just carried on issuing unconstitutional orders the Court would not have needed to have him arrested by the U.S. Marshals (although that would have been nice), the Court would simply have declared that Mr Roosevelt’s ravings were of no importance and that public servants (who swear loyalty to the Constitution – NOT to the President of the day) should ignore them – as should gold owning members of the public.

There is no Constitutional basis for Obamacare – the “general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the specific powers listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States of America. If there was a catch-all “general welfare spending power” there would be no need to list spending powers in the Constitution – and the Tenth Amendment (reminding people that the powers of the Federal Government are limited to what is actually listed) would be meaningless. And “regulate interstate commerce” means free trade over State lines – not “make people buy insurance” (or make people buy apples or oranges). Chief Justice Roberts knew all this – but let Obamcare (mostly) stand, although he did declare that State governments did not have to accept Federal money to expand “Medicaid” (another scheme for which there is no Constitutional basis) if they did not want to expand it – and, astonishingly, some States (led by Texas) did turn down the “free money” intended (by Mr Obama) to corrupt and destroy what is left of the Republic.

The argument of Chief Justice Roberts (his private argument – he did not really have a public argument other than “lawyer’s cant” which is what lawyers use when they are arguing positions they know to be false) was that the repeal of Obamacare was a political matter. One would have thought (one of hundreds of examples) that such things as the composition of State Senates was also a political matter – but that had not stopped the Supreme Court declaring that State Senates must be elected in proportion to population (thus destroying the very purpose of a State Senate – which is to balance the power of large towns and cities, who will dominate the lower house of a State Legislature, with the thinly populated rural areas). The Supreme Court had acted “politically” when it had no Constitutional power to do so as in the State Senate case (contrary to the lies so often trotted out, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this – it does not even mention how State Senates are to be elected, and the equal protection of the laws has nothing to do with ending the election by counties of State Senates, or the election by States of the United States Senate), but should NOT act “politically” when it did have the power (and the duty) to do so. For if the Supreme Court does not say “you can not create this new government scheme – you have no Constitutional power to do so” then there is no point in having a Supreme Court. As for relying on the government repealing new benefits and “public services” AFTER they have been established, that is obviously absurd (if that is the position of Chief Justice Roberts the man is a fool) – there would be no need for a Constitution limiting the power of government if the government could be trusted to repeal new public services or benefits. Creating something such as “Food Stamps” (1961 – basically “free food” after the Roman model, naturally “Food Stamps” started with a few people and is now tens of millions of people – this is how all government schemes, for example Medicare and Medicaid, ) is easy – repealing such things is essentially impossible (before economic and social collapse) which is why there are Constitutions limiting the power of power of government in the first place.

What Chief Justice Roberts was essentially saying, whether he knew it or not, was… “there is no way to limit the expansion of government spending and regulations till economic and cultural collapse occurs and people are killing and eating each other in the streets” in which case I suggest that Chief Justice Roberts volunteers himself as the first person to be eaten.