Redstate.com is reporting that Governor Romney is taking the position that ObamaCare is not a tax after conservatives everywhere lined up to attack Obama on raising taxes. They say Romney is now in a difficult position considering that he signed into law, while Governor of Massachusetts, RomneyCare that was directly labeled as a tax.
From the beginning of the SCOTUS debacle, conservatives have been circling the wagons around Chief Justice John Roberts. Some billed his ruling as a stroke of political genius, a god-send to Governor Romney and Republicans everywhere for putting ObamaCare back on the front burner to hang the largest tax increase in the “history of the world” around the necks of each and every Democrat running for office this year.
For my part, I was never so sanguine. As I posted earlier, Roberts is wrong. ObamaCare is not and cannot be a tax; it is an exercise of power not granted by the constitution. But here, as they were wrong about Roberts, Redstate is wrong about Romney being in a difficult position because of his RomneyCare baggage. From the beginning of the primary season, Romney has said that federalism gives states the right to solve their own problems with powers that the Federal government does not posses, and taking the side of the dissent in the ObamaCare case is consistent with that argument. It is consistent with Thomas Jefferson’s dissent on the Bank of the United States. And when one is the President of the United States, one is also a generalized interpreter of the constitution. Jefferson had a big fight on his hands as the Judicial Reform Act of 1802 was being circulated around; and he answered the cries that it was unconstitutional from Federalist justices who were going to lose their jobs with something like ‘I’m the President and I say it’s constitutional’. What court would stop him when he is lining up justices to get the axe?
In my opinion, it is all the people who circled the wagons around Roberts who put Romney in a difficult position. If they had just told the truth about Roberts and his ruling instead of trying to make excuses for the Republican-appointed Chief Justice doing the same subversive things that we have been railing against for decades, as if we should be proud that it was a conservative expanding Federal power instead of a liberal, Romney would have a much easier time of explaining the situation.
I admire Romney for choosing principle over expediency. I find it refreshing. Now, if he would just get rid of Mr. Hubbard, his economic adviser, I would actually be looking forward to voting for him.
PS: This is exactly why I no longer post at Redstate. The principles they discuss are incoherent, at best, and they are not very receptive to being walked through how and why they are wrong, when they are wrong. As such they pass up incredible teaching moments, like the treachery of John Roberts, after incredible teaching moments, and cause far more harm than good. Que sera sera.