How John Roberts got it wrong:
Let me start out and explain that I am not a lawyer. However, l studied many years of theology and hermeneutics. Historically theology have been linked. Many of the early church fathers were not just theologians, but they learned in legal issues and philosophy. Also, I have discussed the relationship between interpreting the constitution and law in light of hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is often referred to at the art and science of interpreting scripture. If you look up the word in the dictionary it is not only regulated to the art and science of interpreting scripture but literature in general. Thus, the constitution and the law are a form of literature. There are basic principles in hermeneutics that can be applied across the spectrum of all literature.
One of those principles in hermeneutics would involve the principle of author’s intent. Regarding the constitution this would involve “original intent.” As a lawyer stated to me author’s intent of scripture is more difficult to ascertain because we understand scripture being not authored alone by humans but, by humans being inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Now as one knows there are many commentaries on scripture were various views. However, regarding the constitution we have the answers to the authors of the constitution intent via the federalist papers and the author’s of the bill of rights in the anti-federalist papers. Nowhere in either “papers” do the founders advocate that the government has the authority under their system to tax inactivity. Yes, they do allow for what is know as a “sin tax”, but again that is tax on an activity.
Another principle of hermeneutics is known as contextual analysis of the scripture. Contextual analysis has many facets. One of which, is you interpret scripture (in this case the constitution) by what it says of it self. In example, regarding interpreting scripture, there is a saying that goes “scripture interprets scripture”. The same principle can be applied with regards to the constitution. If you read the powers of taxation that was granted to congress (article I, section and throughout the constitution there is no indication that congress has the power to coerce activity to purchase anything on the citizens through a tax.
This brings me specifically to how Roberts interpreted article 1, section 8 in light of Obamacare. Roberts mentions how section 8 says “The congress shall have the Power to lay and collect taxes,” and “that the mandate was a tax”. First off, yes Mr. Roberts it is a tax. I do not know of anyone who did not see it as a tax. It is a penalty tax on a person for not engaging in an activity that congress wants us to engage in. However, what Roberts did was he stopped at the comma after the words “collect taxes,”. There is more to that phrase and it continues “collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debuts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States: “. Whenever, a phrase (or even word) is lifted out of complete context of a whole body of literature, (as well as scripture) and meaning put to it as the person wants, it is called eisegesis (“the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas”). Eisegesis is considered a sin for interpreters. It is a grave error. It is most commonly committed by lifting a phrase or word out of context. This is exactly what Roberts did. It also would have been committed by using the commerce clause or even the welfare clause as mentioned in section 8.
The other principle is literary analysis and this involves determining what specific words used in the text mean. Involving scripture we would use Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons. However, in regards to the constitution a dictionary used during the time of the writing of the constitution would be sufficient. Also, if you look at the dictionary of then to now you would find that the words we would need to interpret are taxes, duties, imposes, and excises. It would be noticed that the meaning has not chanced on either one of those words. Every one of the words involves a tax on what a person does not on what he does not do.
The last principle to be covered is a historical analysis. In historical analysis it just does not involve what the circumstances were at the time. But it also can include how the text and word has been interpreted and applied throughout history. Again congress has never legislated a tax at inactivity or has the courts ever supported a tax that was leveed at inactivity. That was until 2010 and 2012. That is over 200 years of no tax on inactivity. Therefore, Obamacare is still unconstitutional by every means and test used in hermeneutics. That is how John Roberts got it wrong. However, his interpretation has potential ramifications and the constitution has been mortally wounded.
What are the potential ramifications? Well, first of all the government now has the prescient that they can tax us to force us to do anything they think they think we should do. Coming from a Christian point of view they can even tax us for not attending a government-approved church. They can tax us for not attending the form of religion they deem acceptable. What is even scary is laid out by the following.
The Koran states below (listed is three different translations of the same verse)
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(In other words if you do not submit and worship Allah you pay a tax to Allah.)
Considering this about the present administration and the dems:
They rejected a catholic prayer for the DNC convention. The Muslim brotherhood is a predominate attendees to the WH. They have taken over the Middle East in all the countries during the “Arab spring”. I leave the rest to you to ponder this and what it could mean for our future.