It never ceases to amaze me what passes for "informed commentary" on the Left. The progressives must continually escalate the level of intellectual dishonesty as their favorite central planners' Utopian schemes fail over and over again. Raising the propaganda bar once more is the pathetic Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo who does his best work as a creative writer -- most frequently in the genre of agit-prop.
A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face. But the decision that just came down from the federal judgment in Virginia -- that the federal health care mandate is unconstitutional -- is an example that decades of Republicans packing the federal judiciary with activist judges has finally paid off.
You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a more despicably dishonest paragraph than that one.
Let's pick this apart one point at a time. Believe me, it's like shooting fish in a frickin' barrel with this neuron-challenged crackpot.
• "No one took seriously" the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional? Really, schmuck? No one but about two dozen state attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, for starters.
• As for scholars, the brilliant constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, led the development of a stunningly clear Amicus brief to solidify the Virginia Attorney General's position. Levin and numerous other Constitutional conservatives made it crystal clear why Obamacare was so directly at odds with the Constitution. As Levin himself wrote tonight:
1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;
2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;
and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
• As for Marshall's egregiously dishonest claim that Hudson is some sort of "activist judge"? If applying the Constitution as it was written means anything -- and considering every other law is supposed to be interpreted as it was written -- the only activists on the bench are the Leftist-slash-crypto-socialists who claim our nation's highest law is "living and breathing" so they can confiscate more private property and amass more personal power.
Tools like Marshall see no limits on the state whatsoever, as if we live in Zimbabwe or Cuba. In fact, Marshall would have fit in beautifully in the old Soviet Union.
As for the decision: anyone remotely familiar with this nation's founding -- which rules out the feeble-minded Marshall -- knows that a federal government (not a national government) with limited, enumerated powers was the intent of the Framers. This is crystal clear to anyone with an IQ over 75 who has bothered to read the Federalist Papers.
And as a backdrop to his ludicrous position, Marshall's Utopian welfare state is collapsing -- not just here but all around the world. That's what makes his propaganda so outrageous; but it's not unexpected coming from the Statist Left that must continually invent new lies to cover up failure after failure after failure.
Come to think of it, with a few more excretions like this one, Marshall might displace the ludicrous Matthew Yglesias as a front-runner for the World's Dumbest Blogger Award.
Linked by: Michelle Malkin, Don Surber and American Power. Thanks!