Conservatives on Obamacare

Surprisingly the WashPost has three Conservative articles on Obamacare in the 1 July Sunday paper. They present an important perspective outside all the yelling on both sides of the debate.
First, Kathleen Parker says< "Obama won the day almost by accident," but not the way he anticipated winning--or losing for that matter. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-justice-robertss-resurrection/2012/06)/29/gJQAaDEtBW_story.html) By effectively shutting down the expansion of the Commerce Clause, and validating the law as a tax, Obama may have bragging rights for the near term, but will have to defend his signature achievement knowing that if he, Pelosi,and Reid had campaigned on the measure as a new and huge tax with 21 separate components it would not have passed. One of those is a tax on the employee who has health coverage which is deemed to be too good. This would apply to many unionized employees if they had not already gotten a waiver from participating in Obamacare. This then brings up the concept of equal treatment before the law, which this statute decimates. And since Wisconsin brought union goodies to the forefront, this will be an easy argument to make.
Georgetown University Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett agrees with the assessment of the Commerce Clause and the issue of taxation. He says that Conservatives may have lost, but the Constitution and therefore the future of limited government won. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/randy-barnett-we-lost-on-health-care-but-the-constitution-won/2012/06/29/gJQAzJuJCW_story.html)
Much has been said about the motivations of Chief Justice Roberts-all of which is blather since, like the punditized outcome, no one can really know. But, if only part of Robert's decision was to avoid a continuing controversy like Roe v Wade, then I think he succeeded on that point. Keeping in mind that the left would not maintain a protest once a year in front of the Court, but would rather burn the place down, we all dodged a literal bullet in that sense. Plus, political campaigns can never be structured around the expansion or contraction of the Commerce Clause, but are almost always waged and most often won on limiting the power of Congress to tax.
Charles Lane calls the decision the "Compromise of 2012, and in that he may be correct. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-john-robertss-compromise-of-2012/2012/06/29/gJQAuDLOCW_story.html). The constitutional way to defeat both Obama and his abomination of a health care law is at the ballot box, not with bricks though a Starbucks window or camping out in city parks.
Many on the right say Democrats cannot win on the issues, so they must demonize their opponents, and that will ratchet up big time this summer. Not to overdue on the right side, the Post's ombudsman twisted himself in knots over their previous article on Romney and Bain. Nevertheless, whichever side you come down on the decision, unless you want more of this most lawless and destructive administration, you must vote for Romney. Those who have declared they will not vote are actually voting for Obama because his entire strategy is voter suppression of the opposition.

Advocate for Unconstitutionality of Obamacare

The Style section of the WaPo, Monday, March 12, 2012 has the most interesting news in the paper today.

The link is to an article about the Attorney who will be arguing against
Obamacare on behalf of the suit filed by 26 states at the end of the
month. He sounds an impressive person and has Supreme Court potential
should the "Alinsky rebels currently in the WH not get re-elected."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/esteemed-lawyer-paul-clements-next-challenge-is-arguing-against-health-care-law/2012/03/06/gIQAESK65R_story.html

BTW- headline on the front page "As gas prices rise, president's
ratings fall," but we already know that. There is an interesting graph of poll results. Obama has high negatives on anything having to do with the economy, deficit, budget, and gas prices--up to 63%. However, when asked which party is preferred to handle matters, and specifically issues involving women the dems way out-poll the GOP. This is an issue the women's group are going to have to deal with in a high visibility manner.
The link is a closer look at the Post's poll, which apparently is more not good news for Obama.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-poll-contradicts-washington-post-narrative-women-voters_633469.html?nopager=1