Did Roberts Just Pay Back Obama For His Treatment Of The Court? The Politics

[thoughtless]

We are talking about a "tax" that will eventually go to 2.5% of payroll, with a $2085 annual cap. An individual has a choice to spend that money on insurance instead.

Medicare is a 2.9% tax on everybody, with no cap, and you can't choose to spend that money otherwise.

[big_mike]

We are talking about a "tax" that will eventually go to 2.5% of payroll, with a $2085 annual cap. An individual has a choice to spend that money on insurance instead.

Medicare is a 2.9% tax on everybody, with no cap, and you can't choose to spend that money otherwise.

No, the insurance policy IS the tax. It's a tax which is levied by the government and then collected and spent by the insurance companies, not the IRS.

By the definition Roberts has set up, the Government could "Tax" you to buy a car, or a home, or a loaf of bread, things which have traditionally (read: Constitutionally) been activities only taxed after you had made the decision to engage in commerce of some kind.

This is a tax on people who want to mind their own business and be left alone.

[thoughtless]

We are talking about a "tax" that will eventually go to 2.5% of payroll, with a $2085 annual cap. An individual has a choice to spend that money on insurance instead.

Medicare is a 2.9% tax on everybody, with no cap, and you can't choose to spend that money otherwise.

No, the insurance policy IS the tax. It's a tax which is levied by the government and then collected and spent by the insurance companies, not the IRS.

By the definition Roberts has set up, the Government could "Tax" you to buy a car, or a home, or a loaf of bread, things which have traditionally (read: Constitutionally) been activities only taxed after you had made the decision to engage in commerce of some kind.

This is a tax on people who want to mind their own business and be left alone.

No, the penalty for not having insurance is the tax, levied by the government and collected by the government.

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

[big_mike]

We are talking about a "tax" that will eventually go to 2.5% of payroll, with a $2085 annual cap. An individual has a choice to spend that money on insurance instead.

Medicare is a 2.9% tax on everybody, with no cap, and you can't choose to spend that money otherwise.

No, the insurance policy IS the tax. It's a tax which is levied by the government and then collected and spent by the insurance companies, not the IRS.

By the definition Roberts has set up, the Government could "Tax" you to buy a car, or a home, or a loaf of bread, things which have traditionally (read: Constitutionally) been activities only taxed after you had made the decision to engage in commerce of some kind.

This is a tax on people who want to mind their own business and be left alone.

No, the penalty for not having insurance is the tax, levied by the government and collected by the government.

<snip>

No, you pay the tax by one of two methods: Buy the insurance, or pay the IRS. Doing either of those two things brings you into compliance with this "tax". Thus, purchasing the insurance is the same as paying the "tax", and the insurance policy you're buying is the tax. That's how Congress wants you to meet this obligation placed on you by their law.

The insurance policy IS the tax.

[big_mike]

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

The difference is this: Your company chooses to buy the high tech capital. You choose to buy the liquor. You choose to purchase the services of the loose women. AND THEN you pay the tax.

Now, you pay the tax whether or not you choose to buy any of these things. Your freedom of choice has been revoked, you're going to be taxed and regulated by the government no matter what you choose.

[insidedge]

Business and Taxation:
One way of looking at Roberts’s slight-of-hand decision to vote in favor of Obamacare is that a tax is a tax is a tax. As a non-lawyer, I see the Roberts vote as a massive expansion of federal government taxing power. Just what we don’t need.
Supply-siders like myself argue that when you tax something you get less of it. With Judge Roberts throwing in with the liberals on the Court to expand federal tax powers, we now face the massive threat of ultra-slow economic growth in the U.S. for years to come.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... rry-kudlow

Constitution's General Welfare Clause (Hamilton vs. Madison):
Thursday was not the end of the Obamacare challenges. In his sleight-of-hand opinion, Roberts was against the tax before he was for it: Prior to implausibly upholding the “individual mandate” as a tax for constitutional purposes (so he could sustain the law), he held that it was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Under that act, taxpayers who claim to be unconstitutionally harmed by Congress’s tax-and-spend forays must wait until the taxes are collected before suing. In Obamacare, that starts to happen in 2014 (i.e., after the 2012 elections). This will provoke a raft of new challenges and, perhaps, an opportunity to revisit the Court’s General Welfare Clause jurisprudence and its reluctance to second-guess the bipartisan ruling-class consensus that nothing is outside Leviathan’s domain.
But why wait for litigation? Obamacare has always needed a political rejection, not a legal one. So does the whole Obama agenda, which suffers no impediments to federal intrusions.
In the wake of the Obamacare ruling, the 2012 election is now teed up as a make-or-break decision over an economy teetering on terminal paralysis, incalculable debt, ruinous unemployment, and government-rationed health care. The general-welfare issue gives Romney a golden opportunity to separate himself and galvanize the core of the country that dreads a second Obama term and has had it with Washington.
Don’t wait for the courts, Mitt. Propose a plan that defines the general welfare with clear, objective limits on Congress’s spending power. Make it a plan that restores the states as supreme when it comes to the health and welfare of their citizens. Make it a plan that places the Obamacare monstrosity beyond federal authority, a plan that reasonably, but definitively, winds down and ends federal entitlement programs that are going broke anyway. Let the states craft their own safety nets. As a certain former Bay State governor observed during the GOP debates, if that means Massachusetts and Texas have different ideas about the welfare state, so be it. As long as Big Government states are willing to finance their own extravagance, without passing the costs along to states whose citizens put their faith in self-reliance, that is what federalism is all about.
posting.php?mode=reply&f=6&t=223043

[internet.unknown]

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

The difference is this: Your company chooses to buy the high tech capital. You choose to buy the liquor. You choose to purchase the services of the loose women. AND THEN you pay the tax.

Now, you pay the tax whether or not you choose to buy any of these things. Your freedom of choice has been revoked, you're going to be taxed and regulated by the government no matter what you choose.

You're arguing with someone who willfully ignores the ramifications of progressive ideology. It's like debating T1, these guys just don't understand individual liberty.

[ironbob2004]

Sigh, good grief, why do so many of you miss the obvious. The real problem with this whole mess is that Odumber has said repeatedly that the rich shall pay their fair share. That's all you hear from this moron over and over. So now what do we have with Odumbercare? The lower and middle classes taking it right between the cheeks. We're the ones that are getting squeezed! The rich can pay either the insurance or the tax. What our White House communist has effectively done is slam the emergency room door on all of us as an option for care because we'll be paying up whether we want to or not so yes it is a tax just as Mike has outlined it. If people miss this then they need to just cash out now because they're hopeless. It is not empty rhetoric to say that the poor, middle class and America's youth have been just been bent over a barrel. What the real game plan is with this wretched law is the financial doom of the greatest nation in human civilization and I warn you that all this continued leftism is going to lead to one inevitable conclusion involving blood in the streets. Unless this is repealed we're screwed so if you have a brain in your head, I would suggest you start writing out the checks to the Romney campaign as I have.

[insidedge]

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

The difference is this: Your company chooses to buy the high tech capital. You choose to buy the liquor. You choose to purchase the services of the loose women. AND THEN you pay the tax.

Now, you pay the tax whether or not you choose to buy any of these things. Your freedom of choice has been revoked, you're going to be taxed and regulated by the government no matter what you choose.

Freedom of choice has been revoked--by each of us--and we've been doing it for 3 generations. Our parents and grandparents allowed the federal government to deduct social security w/out insisting it be done on a state level or at least our individual ability to opt out, then the same w/medicare/medicaid, etc. Our generation gets obamacare!

The SC decision to call it a tax and simultaneously not allow the federal government to dictate to the states that they must participate in the expanded medicare under obamacare gives the citizens of the USA w/in each state the freedom to speak out against something they see as bad federal government practices that go beyond just obamacare--but extend to medicare/medicaid/prescription drugs and many other federal and federal/state programs that take away our freedom of choice and forcibly tax us to support bureaucratic programs whether or not we want to participate in them (that we might be willing or even happy to participate in on a state-only level).

Looks to me like Roberts said: The SC is not here to mediate between what the people want and what the state's and country's elected officials and legislators allow and permit. If the People do not want these infringements on their freedoms, then they'll have to say so!!!

Which is exactly what the TP was originally saying--there was one simple message: No Bailouts!!! All these federal programs are a "bailout" of one "kind" or another. We, the people, can speak strongly individually or in a group about our freedom of choice and taxation--as opposed to what our elected officials decide we want or decide what we'll get used to because our government knows what's best for us!!!! For our generation of republicans to "fold" as generations before us is being complicit in our loss of liberty and being irresponsible as citizens of our still-free country !!!

[thoughtless]

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

The difference is this: Your company chooses to buy the high tech capital. You choose to buy the liquor. You choose to purchase the services of the loose women. AND THEN you pay the tax.

Now, you pay the tax whether or not you choose to buy any of these things. Your freedom of choice has been revoked, you're going to be taxed and regulated by the government no matter what you choose.

Freedom of choice has been revoked--by each of us--and we've been doing it for 3 generations. Our parents and grandparents allowed the federal government to deduct social security w/out insisting it be done on a state level or at least our individual ability to opt out, then the same w/medicare/medicaid, etc. Our generation gets obamacare!

The SC decision to call it a tax and simultaneously not allow the federal government to dictate to the states that they must participate in the expanded medicare under obamacare gives the citizens of the USA w/in each state the freedom to speak out against something they see as bad federal government practices that go beyond just obamacare--but extend to medicare/medicaid/prescription drugs and many other federal and federal/state programs that take away our freedom of choice and forcibly tax us to support bureaucratic programs whether or not we want to participate in them (that we might be willing or even happy to participate in on a state-only level).

Looks to me like Roberts said: The SC is not here to mediate between what the people want and what the state's and country's elected officials and legislators allow and permit. If the People do not want these infringements on their freedoms, then they'll have to say so!!!

Which is exactly what the TP was originally saying--there was one simple message: No Bailouts!!! All these federal programs are a "bailout" of one "kind" or another. We, the people, can speak strongly individually or in a group about our freedom of choice and taxation--as opposed to what our elected officials decide we want or decide what we'll get used to because our government knows what's best for us!!!! For our generation of republicans to "fold" as generations before us is being complicit in our loss of liberty and being irresponsible as citizens of our still-free country !!!

Robert's legal definition of the "penalty" as a "tax" is just a regurgitation of a battle we lost 80 years ago during the New Deal.

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

As far as whether the "penalty" is called a "tax" or not, it doesn't change the anything about the law that passed two years ago. It doesn't change the dollar amount or who its applies to or any of that.

[philly rabbit]

They should pass a tax for following a certain law, and then a tax for not following it... just for fun.

They can pass a tax for anyone who isn't patriotic and doesn't fly the American flag.

They can pass a tax for anyone who doesn't own a gun because gun ownership has been proven to deter crime.

[internet.unknown]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

[thoughtless]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

That's a problem for us, not a problem for Roberts.

If an SC justice is doing their job, they will rule on the constitutionality of a law, and not concern themselves about how anyone will vote in the next election. That's why our founding father's made them justices for life and not elected to office.

[internet.unknown]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

That's a problem for us, not a problem for Roberts.

If an SC justice is doing their job, they will rule on the constitutionality of a law, and not concern themselves about how anyone will vote in the next election. That's why our founding father's made them justices for life and not elected to office.

No, it's a problem for you by wrongly believing in a "silver lining."

[tsalagi1]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

That's a problem for us, not a problem for Roberts.

If an SC justice is doing their job, they will rule on the constitutionality of a law, and not concern themselves about how anyone will vote in the next election. That's why our founding father's made them justices for life and not elected to office.

No, it's a problem for you by wrongly believing in a "silver lining."

Sure, ok there Chicken Little...

[philly rabbit]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

It's another shameful example as to why we have to fight to slap term limits on the black robes from the supreme court to the lower courts. The country is being governed by appointed magistrates and this incident clearly demonstrated a tax being levied on the people from the judicial instead of the legislative branch .. a violation of the constitution.

The judicial was meant to be kept small by the founders for this very reason and terms such as the constitution and we the people do not amount to squat when these black robes impose their authority on everyone else.

[thoughtless]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

It's another shameful example as to why we have to fight to slap term limits on the black robes from the supreme court to the lower courts. The country is being governed by appointed magistrates and this incident clearly demonstrated a tax being levied on the people from the judicial instead of the legislative branch .. a violation of the constitution.

The judicial was meant to be kept small by the founders for this very reason and terms such as the constitution and we the people do not amount to squat when these black robes impose their authority on everyone else.

Regardless of what anybody, anywhere thinks of this health care law, there is one certain fact you all need to admit to yourself:

This law was passed by the legislative branch of government, signed by the administrative branch of government, and upheld by the judicial branch of government.

That's three for three fellows. Am I to assume that all this talk about supporting the constitution should only applies when the end result is what you wanted?

If Obama care is repealed by a new congress, and the repeal is signed by a new president, and that repeal is upheld by the Supreme Court, you're gonna think those liberals are a bunch of real ass holes for bitching about the way the system works.

[internet.unknown]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

That's a problem for us, not a problem for Roberts.

If an SC justice is doing their job, they will rule on the constitutionality of a law, and not concern themselves about how anyone will vote in the next election. That's why our founding father's made them justices for life and not elected to office.

No, it's a problem for you by wrongly believing in a "silver lining."

Sure, ok there Chicken Little...

Sure, ok there clueless statist drone.

[insidedge]

The government gives me all kinds of incentives to do or not do stuff. If my business spends money on high tech capital equipment, I can depreciate the whole thing in the year I bought it avoid taxes on the money earned then spent, if we spend the same money on liquor and loose women, then we pay tax on the full amount.

The difference is this: Your company chooses to buy the high tech capital. You choose to buy the liquor. You choose to purchase the services of the loose women. AND THEN you pay the tax.

Now, you pay the tax whether or not you choose to buy any of these things. Your freedom of choice has been revoked, you're going to be taxed and regulated by the government no matter what you choose.

Freedom of choice has been revoked--by each of us--and we've been doing it for 3 generations. Our parents and grandparents allowed the federal government to deduct social security w/out insisting it be done on a state level or at least our individual ability to opt out, then the same w/medicare/medicaid, etc. Our generation gets obamacare!

The SC decision to call it a tax and simultaneously not allow the federal government to dictate to the states that they must participate in the expanded medicare under obamacare gives the citizens of the USA w/in each state the freedom to speak out against something they see as bad federal government practices that go beyond just obamacare--but extend to medicare/medicaid/prescription drugs and many other federal and federal/state programs that take away our freedom of choice and forcibly tax us to support bureaucratic programs whether or not we want to participate in them (that we might be willing or even happy to participate in on a state-only level).

Looks to me like Roberts said: The SC is not here to mediate between what the people want and what the state's and country's elected officials and legislators allow and permit. If the People do not want these infringements on their freedoms, then they'll have to say so!!!

Which is exactly what the TP was originally saying--there was one simple message: No Bailouts!!! All these federal programs are a "bailout" of one "kind" or another. We, the people, can speak strongly individually or in a group about our freedom of choice and taxation--as opposed to what our elected officials decide we want or decide what we'll get used to because our government knows what's best for us!!!! For our generation of republicans to "fold" as generations before us is being complicit in our loss of liberty and being irresponsible as citizens of our still-free country !!!

Robert's legal definition of the "penalty" as a "tax" is just a regurgitation of a battle we lost 80 years ago during the New Deal.

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

As far as whether the "penalty" is called a "tax" or not, it doesn't change the anything about the law that passed two years ago. It doesn't change the dollar amount or who its applies to or any of that.

These are the types of actions I'm referring to--a tax fight and state's (citizens) refusing to involve itself w/further federal government interference that infringes on their rights and powers and is financial nonsense:

"At least 18 governors now say they are at least considering not expanding Medicaid -- effectively exploiting the one part of the ruling that came down in Republicans' favor. Previously, the law called on states to expand their Medicaid rolls and threatened to withhold money to those states that did not agree. The Supreme Court nixed that prescribed punishment, taking away the federal government's stick.

Aside from resisting the Medicaid expansion, several GOP governors have also said they will not move forward on creating so-called insurance exchanges. Those exchanges, set to go into effect in 2014, are meant to be the state-based marketplaces where strictly regulated insurance plans will be available for purchase."

"Republicans in Congress are weighing their options -- teeing up votes on yet another bill to repeal the law as well as one that reportedly would bar the IRS from receiving federal dollars to implement the law."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... z1zdAtQ1aB

[big_mike]

However, the silver lining in all of this is that the court has found that there are indeed limitations to the commerce clause. If anybody wants to talk about lost freedoms, then that's the conversation we should be having. A farmer growing a crop to feed his livestock with, can have his crop federally regulated, because when harvested, it could be sold, and could cross a state line. A window washer in NYC gets federal pay if he can see New Jersey (thanks Judge Napolitano for that one), and all of that. Those sorts of outlandish federal regulations will have a higher bar to cross over in the future.

Problem is, the same "silver lining" would have been enjoyed had Roberts sided with the conservatives on the court AND ObamaCare would have been struck down. What Roberts did was SAVE ObamaCare and convince more independents and Republicans to support Obama.

It's another shameful example as to why we have to fight to slap term limits on the black robes from the supreme court to the lower courts. The country is being governed by appointed magistrates and this incident clearly demonstrated a tax being levied on the people from the judicial instead of the legislative branch .. a violation of the constitution.

The judicial was meant to be kept small by the founders for this very reason and terms such as the constitution and we the people do not amount to squat when these black robes impose their authority on everyone else.

Regardless of what anybody, anywhere thinks of this health care law, there is one certain fact you all need to admit to yourself:

This law was passed by the legislative branch of government, signed by the administrative branch of government, and upheld by the judicial branch of government.

That's three for three fellows. Am I to assume that all this talk about supporting the constitution should only applies when the end result is what you wanted?

If Obama care is repealed by a new congress, and the repeal is signed by a new president, and that repeal is upheld by the Supreme Court, you're gonna think those liberals are a bunch of real ass holes for bitching about the way the system works.

That repeal effort isn't going to illegally use reconciliation to get the repeal started.

That repeal effort isn't going to require lying to the American people about what the bill does.

That repeal effort isn't going to have to have Benedict Arnold play origami with the US Constitution to make a law the USSC has decided is unconstitutional into one that is Constitutional by being a judicial activist and rewriting the bill from the bench into something the Congress swore up and down wasn't what the bill actually meant.