Last week we told you about how the Supreme Court once again upheld Obamacare with the help of several conservative justices. The decision should reinforce for liberty-loving Americans that they cannot trust even a "conservative" SCOTUS to protect liberty and reduce the power of the federal government.
This week, constitutional scholar and Convention of States Senior Advisor Rob Natelson tackled the court's decision in an article for the Epoch Times -- and he didn't hold back.
In earthy terms, the question for the court was something like this:
Sluggo wants some of Sandra’s money. So Sluggo tells Wimpy that he’ll break Wimpy’s arm unless Wimpy steals Sandra’s purse. Wimpy complies.
Sandra may file a criminal complaint against Wimpy. May she likewise file against Sluggo?
The common sense answer is “yes.” And that’s the answer the court has given in other cases. But in Texas v. California the answer was “no.”
Rather than address the merits of the case, the Supreme Court decided that the plaintiffs in the case didn't have "standing" to sue the federal government. They essentially punted on the issue using a technicality -- a technicality that Natelson doesn't buy for a second.
A plaintiff obtains standing by alleging that the court can remedy injury caused by defendant’s conduct. There was no question about the injury: the ACA had cost the states an enormous amount of money. There was no doubt the court could remedy the damage. All it had to do was void the law.
Yet Breyer ruled that because the mandate’s financial penalties had been repealed, the mandate was not the cause of the states’ losses. He said those losses came from other parts of the law, and the states weren’t challenging those.
But wait … Almost everyone—including the justices in the 2012 case—had agreed that the mandate supported the entire Obamacare concoction. If the mandate was still around, it was fueling all the other costly regulations. Sluggo (the mandate) wasn’t stealing Sandra’s (the states’) purse directly, but he was the reason that Wimpy (the rest of the law) was doing so.
Breyer never addressed this.
Ultimately, Natelson believes the case should convince We the People that we must call a Convention of States:
This case tells mainstream America we can’t rely on normal electoral politics to reform the court. (Two of former President Donald Trump’s three nominees voted to protect Obamacare.) It further debunks the common claim that the court has a conservative majority. And it tells us there are no realistic alternatives to the ultimate constitutional remedy—calling a convention for proposing amendments.
If you're tired of the Supreme Court trampling on the rights of the states and the people, if you're tired of hoping the next "conservative" justice will finally uphold liberty, you've come to the right place.
There's only one mechanism powerful enough to take on the Supreme Court and the last 100 years of judicial activism: an Article V Convention of States. An Article V Convention of States is called and controlled by the states, not Congress, and has the power to propose constitutional amendments. Only constitutional amendments can nullify SCOTUS decisions, and only constitutional amendments can restore the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
Amendments proposed at a Convention of States can include those that mandate fiscal responsibility and prohibit Congress from spending money on anything within state jurisdiction (like healthcare). Amendments can impose term limits on career politicians like those who rammed through Obamacare in the first place. And amendments that limit the power, scope, and jurisdiction of the federal government will get Washington out of our daily lives--whether in business, the environment, or healthcare.
The latest SCOTUS decision was discouraging, but there is hope! If We the People unite with our state legislatures, we can reverse the growth of the federal government and put the American people back in charge.
Sign the petition below to join the movement!
