Scalia’s Shock Admission Made Right Before He Died Just Released And Proves Trump Was Right All Along

The Fox Business Network host Judge Andrew Napolitano just let one of the biggest bombshells of the past eight years rip on national television.

He revealed that the late hero of the right, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told him in a one on one conversation before he passed that he knew then President Barack Hussein Obama was also using the CIA and FBI to spy on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Judge Napolitano: Justice Scalia told me that he often thought the court was being surveilled. And he told me that probably four or five years ago…If they had to unmask Senator Paul’s name to reveal a conversation he was having with a foreign agent and the foreign agent was hostile to the United States they can do that. That’s not what he’s talking about. They’re talking about unmasking him when he’s having a conversation with his campaign manager when he’s running in the Republican primary.

This really is of no surprise to most of us who have been keeping a close eye on the Supreme Court and its justices since President Obama took office.

Most of us started to notice something was very wrong when the Supreme Court decided on what is now known as the Obamacare debacle. The case should have been a slam dunk for a unanimous defeat on the grounds that the Obamacare penalty for not being able to afford your health insurance premium was originally written as a “fee.” Congress isn’t allowed to levy fees on its citizens, only taxes.

What the deciding vote, President George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, did to make the whole law constitutional was to actually rewrite it in order to make it constitutionally viable. The final vote was 5 to 4 in favor of Obamacare. This is unheard of in the history of the US Supreme Court. Justices aren’t appointed to rewrite laws, they are there to decide if the law, as presented, is constitutional or not. What should have happened in this case was that the Obamacare law should have been ruled unconstitutional and scrapped. Giving congress the option to go back and rewrite it. Which would have never happened because by the time of the ruling the Republican Party had already taken over Congress by a huge majority. Mostly because of the way the Democrats passed this law which no one wanted.

This ruling left a large majority of constitutional scholars dumbfounded. But now we can fully understand why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did. He was either being blackmailed or was somehow afraid there was something President Obama could find on him that could bring harm to himself or his family.

No folks, this isn’t a plot to a new Hollywood spy movie, this was our lives for the 8 long years of the Obama Presidency.

Forbes Reports:

The Obamacare “Tax” That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional

As we all know, two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts changed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate into a tax and thus rescued President Obama’s signature legislation. What you may not know is that with this slight of hand—or flick of the wrist—he actually sent Obamacare flying from the constitutional frying pan into the constitutional fire.

That is, if you accept the Great Alchemist’s transmogrification of a penalty-enforced regulation into a mere tax on the condition of not owning health insurance—in other words, a “unicorn tax,” a creature of no known provenance that will never be seen again—if you accept that, you torque up the ACA’s constitutional tension vis-à-vis the Origination Clause.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” This clause was put in to ensure that that most awesome federal power was lodged in the political body most sensitive to public opinion.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” John Marshall wrote in the foundational 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, so the Framers wanted to ensure that any such destruction came from the people themselves”

Fast forward to December 2009, immediately before the ur-Tea Party state of Massachusetts expressed the nation’s displeasure with Obamacare by electing a Republican to the Senate. That’s when the Senate took a bill giving benefits to members of the military who were first-time homebuyers and, as George Will put it recently, “‘amended’ this bill by obliterating it.” Harry Reid renamed it and replaced its entire contents with the ACA.

While the Origination Clause doesn’t apply to situations where the Senate creates a government program and then institutes taxes to pay specifically for that program, the Obamacare tax isn’t earmarked to pay for anything in particular. Similarly, taxes that are “analogous to fines” are exempt from the clause’s requirements, in that they enforce compliance with a law passed under one of Congress’s other enumerated powers—not the taxing power—but John Roberts foreclosed that interpretive option here.

Of course, the Senate can amend House-passed revenue bills, but only if the amendment is “germane” to that bill’s subject matter. That loophole has turned out to be wide enough for the Kentucky Derby to be run through, but still what was done with Obamacare was breathtakingly unprecedented: If a bill to fundamentally restructure the national health care system is a germane amendment to a bill regarding housing tax credits for servicemen, then the word “germane” has no meaning. (I’m reminded of that great line from Princess Bride, best read in a vaguely Spanish accent: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

Finally, Obamacare’s defenders argue that the Obamacare tax isn’t a tax because its purpose isn’t to raise revenue but instead to encourage certain behavior. (I guess that means it’s no longer a Roberts unicorn tax but instead a Schrodinger’s cat tax.) But if any tax with a behavior-changing purpose or effect—so, all of them—were exempt from the Origination Clause, then that’s one more liberty-protecting clause that’s read out of the Constitution.

In any event, all of these arguments were made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week by Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Tim Sandefur (also a Cato adjunct scholar, and my friend), in Sissel v. Department of Health & Human Services. This lawsuit was brought by an Iowa artist and small-business owner who neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business.

I have no illusions that the hostile judicial panel will enforce this (or any) limitation on federal power — Barack Obama’s gambit to pack the D.C. Circuit is already paying dividends — but Sissel keeps open yet another front in the ideological battle of our time: are we to enforce the Constitution’s structural provisions (which stand in the way of much of the progressive project) or relegate our founding document to the status of a relic under glass that we observe in the breach.

Although President Obama recently declared that the debate over his health care law “is over,” to quote John Belushi, “nothing’s over till we decide it is.” It should be no surprise that a law forced on the American people against their will is still unpopular, or that its implementation continues to hit snags—you can only defy basic economic laws and human nature for so long—and this isn’t the last we’ll hear of lawsuits against it. Stay tuned.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Al ran for the California State Assembly in his home district in 2010 and garnered more votes than any other Republican since 1984. He’s worked on multiple political campaigns and was communications director for the Ron Nehring for California Lt. Governor campaign during the primaries in 2014. He has also held multiple positions within his local Republican Central Committee including Secretary, and Vice President of his local California Republican Assembly chapter. While also being an ongoing delegate to the California Republican Party for almost a decade.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.