ROBERTS' BREATHTAKING HYPOCRISY IS ONLY EXCEED BY HIS MIND-BLOWING INCONSISTENCY

THE MAJORITY OPINION WRITTEN BY CJ ROBERTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ARGUES:

1 - THAT THE MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE 

2 - THAT THE MANDATE IS NOT A TAX - AS FAR AS THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT IS CONCERNED 

AND  

3 - THAT THE MANDATE IS A TAX AND IS THEREFORE CONSTITUTIONAL DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS NEITHER AN INCOME TAX, AN EXCISE TAX, OR A POLL TAX - THE ONLY THREE TYPES OF TAXES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY IMPOSE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

THERE ARE THREE MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS:

(A) ONE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH THIS DECISION IS THE SIMPLE FACT THAT TAX BILLS MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE, AND THIS BILL ORIGINATED IN THE SENATE.

(B) ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH THIS DECISION IS THE FACT THAT  THE LEGISLATORS WRITING AND VOTING FOR OBAMACARE DENIED IT WAS A TAX - AS DID PRESIDENT OBAMA.

(C) ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH THIS DECISION IS THE FACT THAT THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT REQUIRES THAT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO TAXES CANNOT BE MADE UNTIL TAXES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED, AND OBAMACARE'S TAXES - (AND THAT'S WHAT ROBERTS ASSERTS THEY ARE) - HAVE NOT YET BEEN COLLECTED; THEREFORE THE SCOTUS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REVIEW IT.

THESE PROBLEMS MAKE THIS ONE OF THE WORST DECISIONS EVER MADE AND ONE OF THE WORST MAJORITY OPINIONS EVER WRITTEN.

• MORE HERE.

• MARK LEVIN AUDIO HERE.

• MORE ON ROBERTS' CONTORTIONS HERE.

• NEO EXPLAINS WITH VIDEO: "IT'S TWO, TWO, TWO THINGS IN ONE!"