We've once again made contact with our leader...Mark Levin.

Hello my friends I am Mark Levin,our number 877 381 3811. I think youl want to stay tuned for the entire 3 hours. Were going to take our time here and were not going to put smiley faces on things, and candy coat things because your mature and you deserve the truth. Eric Holder was held in contempt a few hours ago and the supreme court led by chief Roberts held you in contempt this morning. John Roberts apparently has evolved, didn't take him that long. The accolades from the left have already started.With the Obamacare and Arizona decisions Roberts activism is now fervently evident. Arizona was a brutal attack on the 10th amendment, an expansion of the federal preemption power beyond what actually is provided in the constitution. The decision today as I will get into it in some great detail is a brutal assault on individual sovereignty. Now we have something akin to the Warren court,it's still evolving but we will nd out one day I'm sure. There are conservatives out there,It's painful to watch these people bending over backwards to pretend this was a great victory, but their wrong. Their dead wrong. Just because ve lawyers in black robes one of whom was purported to be a conservative, A man I knew a long time ago, issue a decision of the sort that they issued doesn't make it proper. As a matter of fact this decision I would go so far to say is lawless, absolutely lawless. Thats why people are stunned. "Wow.. where did he come up with that?" He concocted it, more in a moment. We had Anthony Kennedy of the four dissenters who wanted to throw the entire Obamacare law out,the entire law. The Chief justice saved it under A truly absurd and truly stupid argument that I'll get to as I said latter. Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare despite its multiple constitutional violations. We had four justices including Kennedy who wanted to throw the entire thing out and I hear some conservatives claiming," wow...we narrowed the Commerce Clause jurisprudence." Are these people serious? I also hear the talk about about politics. "Well now were really going to have to win this election," thats all quite true and I'll talk about that latter but how do we x the constitution? We can repeal Obamacare, we damn well better, but how do we x the constitution now that yet again it's been abused, now that yet again a provision of the constitution has been misused to support a government program that is a direct assault on the individual. How do we x that? "New justices Mark," Really? You mean like Roberts? You mean like Souter? You mean like John Paul Stevens? And I can go down the list. I was on Niel Cavuto's show yesterday and he made a point, he said " you know, some of these justices.. they may be affected by how their perceived by the media and the public." I said- It's true but it only happens to Republicans,they seem to get this disease. Those four leftists on the court, those left wing judicial activists, there was never any doubt about what they were going to do. They wanted to run wild with the Commerce Clause,why? because their stateists. Just because their dressed up in robes doesn't mean their not what they are. So the bottom line with the Roberts court decision is you cant regulate inactivity but you can tax it. Wow...what a win for conservatives, he narrowed it. But wait a min...let me think...you cant regulate inactivity but you can tax it? And why would you tax it? Well i think you tax inactivity to force people to do something they may not want to do right? Now were mincing words aren't we?! Like good judicial activists. So those who can afford insurance but don't have it are required to buy it or their going to be taxed and the word tax in this context was never used by

Congress....ever. Quite the contrary, I'm not going to bore you with the audio. ("Absolutely not a tax increase" - President Obama , ABC News interview 09/20/09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMkOScXctY ) White House Budget Director Jeff Zients, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPbTbe_qGMU

They insisted as did Obama, "It's not a tax," and then theres Roberts "but it is a tax," "no it's not a tax," "yes it is a tax," "no," "yes yes yes," "no." Well what is it? It's whatever John Roberts says it is, so today it's a tax and yet yesterday at this time it was a penalty. "Mark,why does that matter?" because the constitution explains what kind of taxes the federal government can lay and beyond the enumerated taxes it cant lay any. The supreme court actually has precedent on this point, lots of it ,none of which supports what John Roberts did. None of it. What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? There is the direct or capitation tax. It's a tax on the individual. The constitution requires direct or capitation taxes, a headtax if you will, to be apportioned among the states. That means each state must pay it's portion of the total tax based on the states percentage of the general population. Very confusing isn't it? Thats why it's never done. Then under the constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of an individual so surely this cant be that either, can it? No. What about an income tax under the 16th amendment? Well even John Roberts doesn't attempt to justify the penalty as an income tax because if your not doing anything your not creating income. So it's not a direct or capitation tax, it's not an excise tax, it's not an income tax,and you know what John Roberts says in response to all that? "Oh lets stop ddling around with labels," ....excuse me?? Stop ddling around with labels? We have all kinds of case law on how crucial it is..."lets not ddle around with labels,"...oh. Roberts begins with an obvious and frankly goofy almost condescending civics lesson in the beginnings of his opinion like he believes this decision will be read in every town square...and certainly on MSNBC. After explaining how the national government can only exercise enumerated powers he says this case concerns 2 powers that the constitution does grant to the federal government but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power which is reserved to the states. As soon as hes {done} paying lip service to the limited federal power he carries on with a jumbled bizarre throughly inconsistent legal analysis. Ladies and gentlemen, I spent a carrier reading court decisions, his part of the majority opinion is stupid. It is truly incoherent. It's terribile. He gets the commerce clause and the necessary and powers clause analysis correct but he contorts the tax clause beyond recognition. I don't even think he understands them to be honest with you (because they can get complicated). Lets walk through this. You ready? We will touch on the different aspects of the decision and I'll sum it up. What I notice os that a lot of people want to conate the constitutional stuff with the

political stuff. Were going to take this step by step so you can understand what in fact a disaster this is. So you'l know more then George Will and Charles krauthammer and several of the others who are saying, "well he conned the Commerce Clause issu and now it's political so lets go get em." I'm not opposed to the latter but lets understand what happend to our constitution today and let us never forget that the constitution belongs to us. Not to temporary politicians not to judges it belongs to you. This decision is so absurd it's so internally contradictory that if I were John Roberts I'd be embarrassed to have my signature on it. Yesterday we were told a 5-4 decision show that the court is political today we have a 5-4 decision and the court is magnicent. See the duplicity of Akhil Reed Amar http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/29/obamatax-apologists The genius that is the supreme court 5-4 vote...unbelievable. I want to remind you of a couple of things,rst of all the chief justice Earl Warren..I mean John Roberts and his fellow justices wanted to hear in specic 4 issues at oral argument. They wanted 4 issues briefed by the various parties.

. The individual mandate, . The anti injunction act, . severability . medicaid

Opps,they forgot to ask for a brief on the tax issues and they didn't even really argue it during all those hours of unprecedented days of oral argument. My goodness,what happend? Kind of a last minute decision ay? Well we at Landmark Legal did brief this issue. We were among the only parties to brief this issue. We briefed it more thoroughly then the government <* insert original link here> that would be the Obama administration. You can go on our brief at Ladmarklegal.org and you can see it. We saythe individual mandate's penalty provision hence forth the court has said it will be a tax provision. Why? Because they say so. It can not be justied as a permissible tax under any constitutional test. The arguments proffered by the federal government that this provision constitutes a permissible exercise of congresses taxation authority fail under all established precedence and should be rejected by the court. Had congress determined the penalty provision constituted a tax it would have labeled it a tax and statements by members of congress and Obama made concurrently with its passage would have reected as much. You see ladies and gentleman, congress knows how to pass tax statutes, it knows how to pass tax language, it does it all the time and here I guess they just forgot. The federal governments latest brief concedes the point without realizing it referring repeatedly to section 500a as a penalty. Even if this court assumes that section 500a is a tax it still fails to satisfy the constitutional restrictions on taxes set forth in article 1 section 9 clause 4, Prohibition on capitation of direct taxes unless apportioned amongst the states. The 16th Amendment the income tax and the limitations set forth by this court as applicable to other article 1 section 8 taxes

such as excises taxes. Well gee wilickers,how did the chief justice get around that? Well like a good activist he just blew it off. He said it functions as a tax. Hell, just because it doesn't fall under any of the enumerated taxes in the federal constitution, just because congress didn't mention it, just because Obama specically rejected it, doesn't mean it doesn't function as a tax. Look you conservatives, look Geoge Will,look Charels Kraughthimer, look others, I'm going to save obamacare but I wont do it under the commerce clause. Dont I deserve credit for that?

The anti injunction act. First Roberts writes that the anti injunction act which prohibits legal challenges of taxing mesureas until a tax payer has rst paid a tax... in other words, you dont have standing and the case isn't ripe until the tax is actually instituted and then you want to challenge the tax. Writes Roberts: That doesn't apply in this case. You want to know why? You ready for this one? Please dont burp up your dinner. Listen to this. Because Roberts said the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the anti injunction act because congress didn't call it a tax. Wow...so under the anti injunction act which says essentially look, you cant challenge a tax until it's actually instituted against you as an individual or an organization and then you can challenge it. So wait a minute, congress didn't say this was a tax. Now I'm confused. So it's not a tax for the purposes of the anti injunction act but it is a tax for the purposes of the individual mandate. Confused? Well so the hell is everybody else because it doesn't make any sense. I shouldn't be so rude should I.He's the chief justice. Oh yes, I knew him way back when. When he served in the Reagan administration. I'm going to hit the other aspects of this decision which are also so profoundly... stupid.

The all important commerce clause.The individual mandate is about you.

As a signicant side point: Roberts in his ruling and the four originalists on the court that would include Kennedy in this particular case, they both agreed on something I've been trying to explain over and over again to address Obama's big lie. These 30 million people without health insurance the vast majority of them are young people. Their young adults. Roberts and the 4 dissenters both pointed out that those young adults, those 30 million or so (my words) they are dragged into this system. Their one of the major funding mechanisms for Obamacare. When he goes out and says " I'm covering 3o million people" he's stealing from 30 million people. Please remember that. This is a targeted class that are being put upon to take their money from them, to separate them from their money not to give them coverage. So remember that. Young people in particular. You're the target your not the beneciary.

So Roberts and the four dissenting justices agree that Obamacare goes well beyond the commerce clause of the constitution. That should have been the end of it right there. Case closed. Over and out. Goodbye. Congress, you can re write a law with the president, not re write

a law. Congress can still bumble along. The president can still try his little ats and all the rest and keep having people sue him and try and stop it. Thats ne. That should have been it. Over and out. It wasn't. "I gotta save this law...how can i save it. What would Harry Blackman do? Where can I go? What can I..ohhh, the tax clause." So Roberts asserts the court has a duty to apply statutory construction rules that require the court to uphold the constitutionality statute if there is a reasonable reading of the statute that would justify upholding it, even if congress didn't mean to or knew what it was doing. "Those knuckleheads in congress..oh they kept trying to gure out what to call it. Well call it a penalty,well call it a ne..we dont know what else to call it." That lightbulb never went off for the word tax. The all important word. So Roberts supplied it for them. He said: every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. He even says that his reading is not the "most natural interpretation" or even " the most straight forward" interpretation of the statute. So I would ask George Will and Kraughthimer and these other guys, is this how a justice is supposed to work? Is this how a justice is supposed to go through this process? Fumbling around, mumbling around, lurching here lurching there, making incoherent statements and writing? Yet Roberts essentially says that while congress did not mean or know that the individual mandate is a tax, in fact you and I know that they said it wasn't, the court must treat it as a tax if thats the only way the law can be found constitutional. Even when the court just nished saying it was not a tax for the purposes of the anti injunction act. That is for standing or ripeness purposes. He even said it is of course true that act describes the payment as a penalty not a tax. While the label is fatal to the application in the case of the anti injunction act it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of congreses taxing power. Why's that? I dont know. Cause he said so. The tax analyses is utterly incoherent. He says the mandates a tax but he doesn't say what kind of tax. Now thats kind of crucial for reasons I explained before. He says its not a direct tax but he says it looks like a tax in many ways, functions like a tax therefore it must be a tax. Circular incoherent explanation we would expect from say justice Bryer. So instead of focusing on the constitutions requirements for taxation he applies a functional test. Where does he get the functional test from? Ehh..I dont know. He says the dissent (the 4 originalists) their hung up on labels. Well yeah they kinda are because those labels are words and they happen to be in the constitution. Hung up on labels ya know...tax, penalty. You know, those labels that make the difference between something that is and is not lawful.

Then you know what he did? It something liberals do all the time even the most moronic callers to my program who are liberals. He referred to the general welfare clause. The general welfare clause? Even James Madison explained that it didn't substitute for enumerated powers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html http://www.mrctv.org/audio/mark-levin-general-welfare-clause-and-rule-law Last time i checked Madison is said to be the father of the constitution whether he was or not.

Under article 1 section 8 clause 1 general welfare clause. Thats where we nd this stuff. The general welfare clause of course has nothing to do with this But there it is.

On Medicaid.The law requires states to dramatically increase their medicaid programs or have all federal Medicaid funds withheld including funds for existing medicaid programs that states are implementing. The court ruled 7-2Ginsburg and Sotomayor ( the wise Latina woman) holding out...by the way this Ginsburg you read her opinion. She's about as radical a leftist as you can imagine on the court. She has nothing but contempt for the constitution. Not only in her interviews about her preferring the south African constitution but in this case. Just read her writing in this case. She's a disgrace. The court held 7-2 that the government can not hold a gun to a states head to compel participation in a federal program. So they cant withhold ...I think I understand...that they cant withhold the feds money from existing Medicaid programs to compel the state to participate in the Obamacare program. What a great victory huh? Every time they allow just a little piece of the constitution to survive were supposed to clap like seals. This is a slam dunk case ladies and gentleman. This Obamacare should have been kiled but look at this, look at what we have to go through. The contortions, were twisting ourselves into pretzels. I'm gonna get to this George Will piece in a second.

Now the dissent.They said judicial tax righting is particularly troubling. Taxes has never been popular in part for that reason the constitution requires tax increases to originate in the house of representatives. We have no doubt that congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement with a penalty.You got that? Congreses collective eyes were wide open. The reason they didn't want to impose a tax ladies and gentleman is because the president made pledge not to tax the middle class. Everybody knows this I think even the 9 citizens on the supreme court. Certainly 4 of them did they put it in their opinion. Imposing a tax through a judicial legislation wrote the minority, inverts the constitutional scheme and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. They said the question is not whether congress had the power to frame the mandate as a tax but whether it did so. It may be reasonable to nd that congress did but we can not re write the statute to be what its not. Yet that's exactly what John Roberts did. Of course the 4 leftists on the court their more then happy to re write anything. They also said (the 4 justices in the dissent) we must observe that re writing 500a (that is the penalty section) as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difcult constitutional question. That is whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the states according to their population article 1 section 9 clause 4. "Ohhh, you're just labeling stuff." They point out the governments opening brief did not even adress the question perhaps because until today no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that the penalty section is an exercise of the tax power. Not a single district court,none of the circuit courts. John Roberts smarter then everybody. He gured it out. He read the minds of Nancy ( you have to pass the bill so you can nd out what is in it) Pelosi such as it is. Harry Ried's such as it is. "They really meant a tax not a penalty." Once the respondents raised the issue the government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. At oral argument the most prolonged statement about the issue was

slightly over 50 words. One would expect this court to demand more then y by night brieng in argument before deciding a difcult constitutional question of rst impression said the dissenters. You know what really sticks in my craw ladies and gentleman? We had Anthony Kennedy voting to throw out the entire statute and John Roberts with this Mickey Mouse decision and thats what it is...It's Mickey Mouse...Saving Obamacare. As a constitutional matter we will deal with the politics latter, we now have constitutional precedent. Thats the problem. There's nothing good about this decision. Ignore the spin. Ignore the people who think their so damn smart their not. "Well at least were able to live with connes of the commerce clause." We would have done that anyway if he had voted with the 4 dissenters. let me tell you something else: even thats temporary. All they need is 1 more liberal on the bench. They don't give a damn about precedent they don't agree with. "Ohh...look at that...that court was wrong." Its the commerce clause not the taxing clause. What an absolute disaster this is as a constitutional matter. Its a pathetic disaster. Its a poorly written decision, its illogical, in many respects its incoherent. justice Roberts relies on tax provisions and he doesn't even tell us what kind of tax it is. Most of your kids even know. They've herd the audio of Obama. They've herd the other members of congress. Strenuously arguing its not a tax but justice Roberts says it is a tax. So who would know better the people who wrote the monstrous law or justice Roberts? Who would know better whether it was a tax or not? I'm gonna talk about the politics of this and what we can do and so forth but the truth is we cant do anything about this decision. We can get this law thrown out perhaps but we cant change the precedent that was created by John Roberts and his 4 liberal friends. "Well Mark, we can get conservatives on the court." Well I suppose so but it just so happens that every time we have a majority of 5 we don't have a majority of 5 have you noticed that? I hear all these excuses their pathetic and they have nothing to do with the constitution itself. "Well he's a referee." No he's not hes a justice. Do referees on the soccer eld get to play the game mister producer? Do they get to kick goals and block them and all the rest of it? No. Does the chief justice get to vote? Yes. Not exactly a referee is he. "Well he was able to conne the commerce clause so it wouldn't go beyond this Wickard v Filburn decision and include inactivity." Excuse me... we had 4 justices including Anthony Kennedy who were ready to throw out the entire law based on the commerce clause and individual mandate and Roberts saved the statute so that excuse doesn't work. "Well now we have a political decision we have to do deal with this politically as it should be." Deal with what politically? We can deal with the statute politically but we cant deal with the ruling politically. We can change the court at some point yes,but the whole point is changing the court to stop Roberts in addition to that Arizona immigration decision and his writings in that. I'm telling you right now there is no way a single state would have ratied this constitution because the constitution that is supposed to be guiding this country in many respects it just doesn't exist anymore. I have a whole chapter in my book Amertopia : http://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173273/ ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top Post constitutional America. To my great frustration and frankly furry every damn day its getting worse. Now I could sit here like a Pollyanna and look for silver linings in this case. There is no silver lining in this case, None. We had a victory. A victory that would have allowed the status quo prior to Obamacare. In other words not move the ball towards more liberty, not re establishing a constitutional republic but stop this further attack on the constitution and they couldn't even do that.