💾 Archived View for clemat.is › saccophore › library › ezines › LiberTORian › LiberTORian%20Issue%20… captured on 2022-07-16 at 14:34:55.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
______ ______ ______
/ __ \ / __ \ / __ \ http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion
| / \ | | (__) | | / \ | ____________ ____________
| | | | \______/ | | | | / ________ \ / ________ \
| | | | ______ | | | \_____ | / __ \ | | | _____) |
| | | | / __ \ | | \_____ \ | | (__) | | | | / _____/__
| | | | | / \ | | | __ \ | | | _____/ | | | | / / \
| | | \_____ | | | | | | / \ | | | | / _____/ | | | | \_____/
| | \_____ \ | | | | | | \__/ | | | | \_____ \ | | | |
| \________) | | \__/ | | \________/ | | \________) | | \__/ |
\____________/\\______/ \____________/ \____________/ \______/
____________ \\\ __________ ______
/ ________ \ ____)| |____ / ______ \/ __ \ M A G A Z I N E
| / \ |/ ________ \| / ___) || (__) | ____________ ____________
| \__ __/ || / __ \ || | / ___/\______// ________ \/ ________ \
\__ \ / __/| | / \ | || | | / ______ | (_____ \ || / __ \ |
\ | | / | | | | | || | | | / __ \\_____ \ | || | / \ | |
| | | | | | | | | || | | | | / \ |/ _____/ | || | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | || / __ | || | | | | |
| | | | | | \__/ | || | | | | | | || | (__) | || | | | | |
| \__/ | | \________/ || \__/ | | \__/ || \________/ || \__/ \__/ |
\______/ \____________/\______/ \______/\____________/\_____/\_____/
Volume 1 - Issue 5 - August 2015
R. I. P. U. S. C O N S T I T U T I O N 1 7 9 1 - 2 0 1 5
S P E C I A L R E P O R T O N J U N E 2 6, 2 0 1 5 :
T H E D A Y S C O T U S P U T A N E N D T O L I B E R T Y.
'''.''..........',,;ccllodc:clcc:;;;;,.... . ...........'',,
....,'........';:cccoddc:oxxxddooolc::'.....
...',;:lx000xc;,;ldollll:;..
. ...'';:cokOkk0O00Od,..,xkxdol;.
...... ...';:lokX0odl:ok0koc:...:kOd:'.
.... ....,;cokO00Oxoc:;,:oxxloo:,';o;.
... ...,:ldxO0kdxxdol,;:,,lkOkkOd:;'
.......,coxkOkdc;,:lll,..,.':dk00kc'.
.....',cdO0K0x:',,.';loo:,,:''cdklc,...
......;ookkKKOd;''..:ccodooll;llxdl:,'..
.....'ldc:':ldxdc,;l,',;,;lOxdlooolc:,...
...;cl0Kk:;;,;.;lodd:,,;coxOd:cccc:;,,'..
..xKOOOxkkd:'..,;;kX0xdkl'''dOxl,,,;;;,'.. ....
..d0x::cclol,. .'';ckXNkl:,;xooxkc'',;,'... ',..
.odc;':cll:,,,'..,;ldo:;',;'..;lxl;...''... .,,.
'c:,,,:cldoodoc:;'..........':o:lo'....'... ''..
..,',,ccdx00o'... .. ..,;...:dd:;lc,'....,...
....;:ll';cx:.. ..c;'...;okkl,,;,'.,'..
.''''. .. .. .:ool:;;,,.
:c. ;. ..;clllO00:
ALSO: ... ...,dOkko..
',. .,' . ..,okd;,..
RESTORING LIBERTY ''. ... .. .'col:,.
.. .. ..;odl;'..
SCALIA'S SCATHING DISSENTS .''. .,odoc;'.
.,.'. .,cxxl;.
CAN AN INFALLIBLE POPE BE WRONG? .. .'cdxd:.
-page 2-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LiberTORian Volume 1, Issue 5
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A publication of Synonymous 1.
Published July, 2015.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LiberTORian is published on an
irregular basis.
ACQUIRING RELAY 3 Again
N(c), 2015. Readers are welcome,
LETTERS TO LIBERTORAIN 4 actually encouraged, to copy and
distribute this text by any means
MYTHS THAT LIBERALS BELIEVE 4 possible, preferable by photocopy-
#s 7, 8 and 9! Collect them all! ing.
DEEP WEB LINK OF THE DAY 5
Duck Duck Go LIBERTORIAN HAS A DEEP WEB SITE:
http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion/
MEET THE LIBERTARIANS 6
Number 2 in a series: (Thanks to a user on Onionland)
Constitutional Conservatives
CORRECTION 7 CORRESPONDENCE:
synonymous1@ruggedinbox.com
FEATURE 8
Can an infallible Pope Be Wrong? Send submissions to LiberTORian
at the above address.
BLURBZ 11
Hillary Has the Media On a
String DONATE TO LIBERTORIAN:
12yfpaKCHL7XCdWGiM8x9nuaBw1TbW1q2s
FEATURE 12
Scalia's Scathing Dissent #1:
Obergefell v. Hodges
BLURBZ 18 >><<
Randomly-read Twitter Posting >> <<
>> <<
INDEX OF FTP/DOCUMENTS/JOURNAL 18 >> <<
July 2nd, 2015 >> Don't <<
>> Hurt <<
BLURB!!! 21 >> Others <<
Support/Write for LiberTORian >> And <<
>> Don't <<
CLASSIC TXT FILE OF THE DAY 22 >> Take <<
1776paid.txt >> Their <<
>> Stuff <<
FEATURE 23 >> <<
Restoring Liberty >> <<
>> <<
FEATURE 26 >><<
Scalia's Scathing Dissent #2:
King v. Burwell
_______
DNS LOOKUP FAILED 36 /-------
//
______________________________________________________________________/| ((L))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-page 3-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A C Q U I R I N G R E L A Y - By Synonymous 1 -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Much of this issue covers the SCOTUS U.S. Constitution, and thus, it does
decision on homosexual marriage. To NOT have the right to perform,
many who read this, there will be license, restrict, or in any other
closed-mindedness toward the views way, interfere with marriage. This
presented in this issue. That's be- includes the Supreme Court.
cause, when the decision was ordered
by the Court, all the news coverage Marriage is a rite, not a right.
was from the point of view of the Marriages were strictly RELIGIOUS
gay activists. Most people don't ceremonies until the government
even know what the other side even interfered. Each religion has a
believes. That's because the point right to decide who it allows or
of view of the other side was barely does not allow to marry. If a
shown... or allowed to be shown, by church wants to only marry one man
the mainstream media. Instead, any and one woman (Jews, Catholics,
opponents of the ruling are mocked, Pentecostals, etc.), or allow gay
ridiculed, and depicted as a bunch marriage (reform Episcopal, Uni-
of intolerant, backwards modern-day tarian, etc.), or allow marriage
equivalents of racists. among three or more people (Muslims,
certain Mormon sects, etc.), it's up
We were given mindless platitudes of to each individual church to decide
"love wins", a hashtag coupled with its own policies, and people may
some of the most hateful venom seen choose to be married in the church
on Twitter this side of ISIS. Those that best fits their values. The
opponents who expressed outrage or government has no right dictating to
disapproval were bullied for daring religions, or forcing upon religions
not to go along and fully support decrees that the Constitution for-
all the celebrating going on. It's bids them from doing.
hard to celebrate the death of
fundamental rights. The 10TH amendment gives the right
of each individual state to decide
So presented for not the first time, their policies on non-enumerated
except to those who don't venture powers, including marriage. The
outside the media bubble (that goes Court overstepped their bounds,
for viewers and reporters alike), citing the 14th Amendment, calling
here is the Constitutional, or marriage a "privilege". A privi-
libertarian, view on marriage: gay, lege is something the government
straight, and et cetera. bestows, and is different than a
right. Marriage is not a privilege,
as it's not in the government's
LIBER-TOR-IAN STANCE ON MARRIAGE! jurisdiction. And even decisions by
individual states on regulating
marriage may not infringe on the
The Constitution enumerates the 1st Amendment right to freedom of
powers of the federal government religion.
By enumerated; that means that
the only powers that government has So you see, it's a very tolerant
are explicitly mentioned in the position. The real intolerance is
document itself, and if a power is from the gay marriage crowd; why are
NOT in the document, the government they so against marriage for more
DOES NOT have the power to regu- than one man and one woman?
late. Marriage is NOT in the ((L))
-page 4-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LETTERS TO LIBERTORIAN MYTHS THAT LIBERALS BELIEVE #7
---
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LiberTORian, "The Founding Fathers were slave
owners."
The article "The Matrix vs X-Men"
didn't really fit your magazine. There were 56 Founding Fathers.
For the most part it semed [sic] Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. The
to promote Occupy values and anger other 55 did not.
fro [sic] all police and govern-
ment officials and the rich. BONUS MYTHS!!!!!
Libertarians have a problem with Myth #8:
many in law inforcement [sic] and
government, but are not blanket Thomas Jefferson had a child with
against them all for the sake of his slave girl."
opposing them. And there are
rich people who are corrupt but Maybe or maybe not, but the woman
there are many who are not. I who made this claim on Oprah Winfrey
can really find the kind of value in the 1990s was a fraud. But the
in that article on so many other media which devoured this story had
onions, so please don't do that no interest about this later revel-
here too. ation.
Anonymous
Myth #9:
Dear Anonymous,
"There are Muslim Founding Fathers."
While the article published did
present an Occupy Wall Street view This isn't believed by many, but
point, it didn't offer opinions to President Obama told this lie in a
promote those values, however. It speech in 2014. The slightest
only offered analysis of the films research on this (reading the 56
in discussion. There was much in signatures on the Declaration of
the article I disagreed with, but Independence and looking up their
there were some good points too. religion) disproves this easily.
The article made comparisons that
demonstrated changing attitudes Thanks to Synonymous Xi for the
toward filmmakers' presentation of suggestion of these myths.
authority in film. LiberTORian
would like to see more references
to social themes in films, and %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
even fiction with Libertarian
ideals. As a libertarian, I can DENYING THAT THERE IS CLIMATE?
handle different points of view. -------
You can also be assured that the %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
magazine will differentiate be-
tween a viewpoint and an endorse- Leftists change the language when
ment. You'll never see within the they can't win an argument. When
pages of LiberTORian anyone say, they lost on "global warming", they
"Eat The Rich! Stop the Jews!" changed to "climate change", because
In the future, instead of sending how can you deny that the climate
just a letter to us (which is your changes? Now skeptics are called
right), you're welcome to write an "climate deniers"! Name one person
article for LiberTORian! ((L)) who denies the EXISTENCE of climate;
unless their head's on the moon?
-page 5-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>>> 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion <<<
DEEP WEB LINK OF THE DAY! or
>>> duckduckgo.com <<<
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
DUCK DUCK GO Duck Go took four years. Now it
conducts 250 million a month. The
http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion revelations about NSA spying and
https://duckduckgo.com other invasions of privacy by the
Obama Administration have drawn
recent attention to internet search
Let's face it. Yahoo sucks. Bing privacy. And they realized that
sucks. Google not only sucks, but Google wasn't on their side. In
its search results are horrible and _SEARCH ENGINE LAND_ Duck Duck Go
the company is totally evil, crim- critic Danny Sullivan says that the
inal, and invades your privacy. Duck site isn't that popular because,
Duck Go is a search engine that WILL "No One Cares About 'Private'
NOT TRACK your IP address. The Search". You fool. maybe millions
company believes in keeping your don't, but a sizable number of
visits to their sites and all your concerned people do. You just dis-
searches private. Keeping with this missed them. Again: Duck Duck Go
tradition, Duck Duck Go also has an doesn't measure its success by how
established presence in the deep web monolithic and overreaching it
at 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion. becomes.
LiberTORian began using Duck Duck Go Someone else said the name, "Duck
before discovering the deep web. It Duck Go", is silly. Please explain
not only protects your privacy, but, the name, "Google".
since Duck Duck Go doesn't record
your personal information, all Results from Duck Duck Go searches
search term results are equal for come from the clearnet and deep web
any given user. It still returns as well. I typed in a search for
better results than Google, which LiberTORian and found a deep web
recently has skewed its results link from a pastebin where the
against more relevant links. first issue was originally posted:
This Philadelphia-based company is http://pasterlczk6anaqz.onion.city/
the David to Google's Goliath; it's eelcc92a55.html (DEFUNCT LINK)
run by less than two dozen people.
What really frightens Google is the I actually took part in a promotion
fact that Duck Duck Go doesn't even campaign they were running where you
try to become king of the hill. And refer three people to Duck Duck Go
that attitude has caused them to and receive a free T-shirt. I was
think dynamically and outside of the able to get more than three people
box; something Google is incapable to switch, and they were out of
of. shirts for now. Oh, well. I have a
raincheck. It's in their best
Even though Duck Duck Go is known by interest that they get them soon,
only 2% of web surfers, its impact since wearing the shirt gives them
is huge and growing. Safari and free advertising!
Mozilla added it as a standard op-
tion to their browsers. And Duck Make sure to add Duck Duck Go to the
Duck GO dethroned Google as Gnome's bookmark list on your TOR browser.
default engine. It's one of the most useful tools
for exploring both the deep web and
The first million searches on Duck the surface web. ((L))
-page 6-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
MEET THE LIBERTARIANS - By Synonymous 1 and G.P.S. -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES: of man, but God. As such, they can
not be taken away by man, since
We The People these rights were not granted by
man, only affirmed.
Anarchism is the most extreme form
of individualism on the planet. But A Constitutional Conservative recog-
it results in chaos unless there is nizes that the Constitution is the
no authority to enforce libertarian most free system ever devised. It's
values. But how much government designed to right wrongs as a nation
should there be? Enter the United advances. No one has ever come up
States Constitution. with a better way to run a society.
A Constitutional Conservative re-
Constitutional Conservatives rely on spects the law because it's just,
the Constitution as the fairest and fair, free, has led to the most
most free government code ever de- prosperous and generous nation in
vised. It wasn't easy- a war was the history of the world, and looks
fought to attain individual freedom, to a higher power as the source of
and an entire system was established freedom, not man or mere law.
afterward that failed: The Articles
of Confederation. In 1971, the A Constitutional conservative looks
Constitution was crafted, based upon to the Constitution as the highest
the principles espoused in the Dec- authority in the land. It's purpose
laration of Independence. Three is twofold: 1) verify the freedoms
branches of government were designed of mankind, and 2) prevent the
and given checks on the others so no government from misusing unjust
one branch would concentrate too authority to infringe on the rights
much power. The Constitution clear- of the people.
ly defined the powers of government,
and their ONLY powers. Those powers The Constitutional conservative
that are not enumerated were for- does look toward the intent of the
bidden. Government was given just Founding Fathers when interpreting
enough power to protect individual the Constitution. They were a
freedoms from oppressors, and, when deeply religious people who held
the Constitution was enforced, the strong to the reliance of strong
biggest oppressor, the government, family units. Parental rights are
was also unable to infringe on its important to Constitutional conserv-
people. atives, and with it, the responsi-
bility for involved parents in the
Despite the lies concocted by uni- upbrining of their children. Adults
versity professors in the 1930s, the are expected to instill moral values
Founding Fathers were God-fearing in their children. This means that
people. They believed that rights they may wish for some government
came from God, not government. The involvement in maintaining moral
Constitution they drafted did not community standards. This is an
grant rights; they merely confirmed area where other libertarians may
in a legal system the God-given disagree with Constitutional
rights proclaimed in the Declaration conservatives. In this group, there
of Independence. The Bill of are people who wish to restrict
Rights, the first ten amendments of access to pornography, advocate for
the Constitution, also are God-given television and the airwaves to be
rights. As such, they are not laws cleaned of obscenity, or the en-
-page 7-
forcement of other social mores. To !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
comply with the U.S. Constitution,
they may seek to enforce such regu- C O R R E C T I O N ! ! ! !
lations at the state level, in line
with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The reasoning behind the Consti-
tutinal conservative's strong wish In LiberTORian issue 2's article,
for moral regulation is that they "BitCoin: Commerce with 0s and 1s",
draw a distinction between adults we wrote that a Satoshi is the same
and children. Libertarianism is a as a microbitcoin. This is a mis-
philosophy to be practiced by adults take. A satoshi, as the article
but while their children are still stated, is the smallest division of
young, the parents, as their care- a bitcoin. But it is 1/100th of a
takers, are responsible for their microbitcoin:
upbringing and moral guidance.
Parental rights to raise children
the way they wish supersedes the o 100 satoshi = 1 microbitcoin
child's rights to do as they wish, o 1000 microbitcoin =
as they must face the consequences 1 millibitcoin
of the parents. It is the parents' o 1000 millibitcoin =
responsibility, then, to instill the 1 bitcoin.
values of freedom into their child-
ren so they, in turn, can make
responsible decisions as adults. o 1 bitcoin = 1BTC
o 1 millibitcoin =
In essence, the parent-child re- .001 BTC
lationship is a microcosm of the o 1 microbitcoin =
Constitutional conservative's .000001 BTC
system of governance: we are still o 1 satoshi = .00000001 BTC
free to take actions, but if we do
harm to others/ disobey our parents,
the law/ parent is there to protect SORRY ABOUT THAT!!!
the rights of the one harmed/ guide
us to be better adults.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The child is born with the Id, so, People are Sharing LiberTORian
as parents teach the children to be %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
responsible, they are given freedoms
throughout their childhood, until
they prove themselves to be full- This Spanish Facebook page, "La Deep
fledged members of society. Web", contains a screen shot of the
The Constitutional conservative's LiberTORian web site.
demands of a government are mainly
to assist in this aspect of the In Spanish, the site wrote:
moral development of children and
little more. As a person matures, "LiberTORian is a publication for
he or she will take on greater re- deep web users... ( in English )
sponsiblities. But a child needs
some form of guidance. A young http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion
child without direction can run into Fortran BA"
the middle of a street and be killed
without knowing why. Libertarianism (Assumed "Fortran BA" is the one who
requires the ability to discern the submitted.) THANKS, LA DEEP WEB!
consequences of the decisions one
makes, at least from the view of the https://es-la.facebook.com/
constitutional conservative. ((L)) laDeepWeb?_fb_noscript=1 ((L))
-page 8-
C A N A N
____ ___ __ __ _ __ __ ___
/ _/___ / _/___ _ / // /(_)/ / / /___ / _ \ ___ ___ ___
_/ / / _ \ / _// _ `/ / // // // _ \ / // -_) / ___// _ \ / _ \/ -_)
/___//_//_//_/ \_,_/ /_//_//_//_.__//_/ \__/ /_/ \___// .__/\__/
________________________________________________________ /_/
/
- B Y S Y N O N Y M O U S 1 - / B E W R O N G ?
/__________________________
It's an often heard phrase: "The What is meant by that is that the
Pope in infallible". But how often church doctrine is the authority of
is the phrase understood? How many Peter and his successors. This is
Catholics think the phrase means the what is meant by infallibility, and
Pope is sinless? How many protes- it is all that is meant. It doesn't
tants hear it and wonder how could mean that the Pope is sinless.
the church be arrogant enough to Peter himself, like all the Popes
proclaim something like that? It is that succeeded him, was a sinner.
not understood by many people. When He even denied knowing Jesus three
a Catholic hears Pope Benedict say, times:
in a statement on global warming,
"The Earth is crying out in pain," Then a maid, seeing him as he
Practicing Catholics who are trying [Peter] sat in the light and
to do the right thing wonder if they gazing at him, said, "This man
are compromising their faith if they also was with him [Jesus]." But
reject such nonsense. To answer the he denied it, saying, "Woman, I
question, let's examine what being do not know him."
infallible means to the Catholic
church. And a little later some one else
saw him and said, "You are also
It is a tenet of Catholic faith that one of them." But Peter said,
the Pope is the figurehead of the "Man, I am not."
church. According to Catholic be-
lief, Jesus enshrined Peter with the And after an interval of about an
keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: hour still another insisted, say-
ing, "Certainly this man was also
And I tell you, you are Peter, and with him' for he is a Gali-
on this rock I will build my lean."
church, and the powers of death
shall not prevail against it. I But Peter said, "Man, I do not
will give you the keys of the know what you are saying."
kingdom of heaven, and whatever And immediately, while he was
you bind you bind on earth shall still speaking, the cock
be bound in heaven, and whatever crowed.
you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." And the Lord turned and looked
Matthew 16:18,19 at Peter. And Peter remembered
the word of the Lord, how he had
Jesus assigned Peter as the vicar of said to him, "Before the cock
the church He established: the first crows today, you will deny me
Pope. Today's Pope is a successor three times."
of Peter. The key to infallibility Luke 22:56-61
is in the keys, literally. Whatever
is loosed on Earth is loosed in Jesus chose imperfect men to conduct
Heaven. God's will. The Pope's infalli-
bility is not at all interpreted to
-page 9-
mean that he is perfect or incapable common."
of sin. Protestants sometimes are
critical of Catholics, mistakenly This happened three times, and
believing that they consider the the thing was taken up at once to
Pope to be without sin. It's not heaven.
what they believe. Acts 10:9-16
Whenever there is a question about The passage continues to indicate
rituals for Christians, the Pope's that Peter still was unclear by the
infallibility means that his word on message, but Cornelius, a centurion,
the issue is the Church's position. was prompted by an angel to inter-
The decision is not the Pope's to pert the dream to Peter to indicate
make himself. Instead, according to that followers in the Church were no
Catholic belief, he is guided by the longer required to adhere to the
Holy Spirit to the decision. The kosher rules.
Pope does not come up with the
answer himself, but prays for it to This is what the infallibility of
be revealed to him through the Holy the Pope is referring to. There was
Spirit. When Peter was the Pope, a conflict within the church on an
there was a dispute among the con- official position, and the Pope, who
verts from Judaism. The Jews were is guided by the Holy Spirit, was
adhering to the kosher laws, includ- given the answer. Note that the
ing not eating meat and dairy in the Pope himself doesn't make the decis-
same meal, and avoiding pork. Those ion, but the answer come to him
who converted from pagan and other through God.
religions were not. Many of Jews
said that the gentiles must adhere A similar situation occurs in the
to the laws of the Torah, and the Book of Acts, when the apostles
gentiles said that it's not a part were gathered in an early Ecumenical
of being a Christian. So Peter Council (though it didn't go by that
prayed for guidance by the Holy name at the time). They chose a
Spirit, and in a dream, received an successor to Judas, who hung himself
answer. on the day of Jesus' crucifixion.
The next day, as they were on "For it is written in the Book of
their journey and coming near the Psalms, 'Let his habitation become
city, Peter went up on the house- desolate, and let there be no one
top to pray, about the sixth hour. to live in it', and 'His office
And he became hungry and desired let another take.'
something to eat; but while they
were preparing it, he fell into a And they put forward two, Joseph
trance and saw the heaven opened, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed
like a great sheet, let down by Justus, and Matthais. And they
four corners upon the earth. In prayed and said, "Lord, who
it were all kinds of animals and knowest the hearts of all men,
reptiles and birds of the air. show which one of these two thou
has chosen to take the place in
And there came a voice to him, this ministry and apostleship from
"Rise, Peter; kill and eat." which Judas turned aside, to go to
But Peter said, "No, Lord, for I his own place."
have never eaten anything that is
common or unclean." And they cast lots for them, and
the lot fell on Matthias, and he
And the voice came to him again a was enrolled with the eleven
second time, "What God has apostles." (Acts 1:20, 23-26)
cleansed, you must not call
Note again that the apostles didn't
-page 10-
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNXXXKKKKKKKKK000000000KKK00KKXNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNXXXXXKKKK000OOOOOkkkkkkkkkkOOkkOO000KXNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXXXKKKKKKKKKK0OOOkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkOO0KXNNWWWNNWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXKKKKKKKKKKK0OOkkkxxkkkkxdddddoddddddddxO0XXNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXKK00000KKKKOkkxxdddxxxdollcc:;:::cllllodxkkOKXNNWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNXKK000KK00Okxxxddddddolllc:;,''',;:llooollook00XWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNXK0000KXXK00OOkkxodddollllc:;,,''',;::lolccc:oxx0WWWWNNWWWW
WWWWWWWNNNNNNNWWNNXK0OO0KKXXK000Okkxoddddoollc:;,,,,;;:::clllllclddkKXNNXXNNWW
WWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXNNNNK000OkkxdkOOO0kxxoc:;;,,;;;;;::clllllooxOKXXXXNNWW
WWWNNNNNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNX0KKOkkkkO00KX0OOxoc:;,,,,,,,;:ccccclooxO0XXNNNWWW
WWWNNNNNNNNWWWWWNNNNWWWNNNNNXXKOkxxkO000KXKKKOxo::;;:cc:::cccclooooxOKNNNNNWWW
WWWWNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWNNXXXXX0kxook0OkkOO0KKOkdclooxOkkkxoolldxkkkkOKNNNNWWWW
WWWWWWWWNNNNNWWWNNNNWWWNNXKK0OkkdooxkxoooloxxxdocoddkO0KK0OkddxkOOO00KXXNNNWWW
WWWWWWWNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNNNNK00Okkxdoooolllc:looool:clllldkkkOOOOkkkkkO00KKXXNWWW
WWWWNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXKKOxollccccc::oxxxdc;;:::cclloxO0000OxxkkO0KXXNWWW
WWWNNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN0ko::ccccc::oOOkxc,;:::ccccldkKKKKOkkkkO0KNNNNWW
WWWNNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNXNNNNNKOdllcc:::cox00OOo:::::cccclok000KK000000KNNNNWW
WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXNWWNXKKkool:cccoxOXXKKOdl:::;;;;:ldkk0XXNNXKKKXNNNWWW
WNNNXXXNNWNNNNNNWWNNXXXXKXNNXK00xllllooodxk000Kkoc;;,,,;;:ldkk0XNNNNXXKXNNNWWW
WNNXXXXNNNNNNNNNWWNNXKKK0KKKK0Okdoodxxxxddxxxkkdc:;;;;clloxk00XNNWWNXXXXNNNWWW
WNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNWWNNXKKOxkOO0KOkxxxk0OkkxxdoodkdollllloddxO0XXNWWWWNXXXNNNWWWW
WNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWNX00xodkk0X0OkkkO0OkkkkdoodkkkdoooooddxOKNNNWWWWWNNNNWWWWWW
WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWNX00xodxxOXK0kxxkOkxxxdoooodxkxooooooodx0XXNWWWWWWNNNWWWWWW
WWNNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXKKkodddk0KKOdddxdoooolcclloxdddddollodkKKNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WNNNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXXOxdddxkO0kxxdolccloc;;::cllooooollooxOOKWWWWWWWNWWWWWWW
WWNNNNXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNKOxddxxkOkxxolccccl:,,;;:ccccclllllodxx0XNWWWWWNNWWNNNN
WWWNNNXKKKXXXXNNNNNNNNNXKOxxxxk0xool:ccc::;,,,,,;;:::::cclodxxOKXNNNWWWWWWWNNN
WNNNNNXKKKXXXNNNNNNNNNNXK0kkxxk0kddolc::::;,,'''''''',;::lodxxOKXNNNNWWWNNNNNN
WNNNNNXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXX0OOkkO0Okkxdocc::;,,,'......',::cldxxOKXNNNNNWNNNNNNN
WWNNNNNXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXX0OOkkOK0OOOkxool::;;,,'....',;::lodkkO0XNNWWNNNNNNNNN
WWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKKKKK000O0KK000OOkkdoc:::;;,;::::coodxkkk0KXWWWMWNNWWWWNN
WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKKKKKKKKKKXK00OOOOOkxdooooooodddddxxxkkOO0KKKKK0KXNWWWWWW
NNNNXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXKKKKXNXXKKK0OOOOkkkOOOOOOOkkxddddxkxxxxxxxxoclodkkO0KX
XXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNXXXKKXXXXKKKKK000000KKKKKK0OOxdxxxkkxooollll:,;;:cccllo
XXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNNNXKKKXXKKKKKXXXXXXKKKKKKK0OOkkO00Okdoooolcc:,;::::::;,
XXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNXXKKK00KXXXXXKKKKKXXXXXXXKKKK00000Oxolllolcc::ccc:::;;,
XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXXKK0O0KXNNXXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNX0xxdooooolc::cclllcc;,,,
XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXKKKXXXXXK0KKXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXKOxlllodkko:;,,;::::::;,,,
XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXXXKKKXXNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKK0OOkxolllooooc,,,,,,,''''''',
XXNNNNNNNNXXXK00000KKKKXXXXXKKXNNNNNNXXXXKKKKOkxxdddddollc:;;;;;;;;;,'.....'',
NNNNXXNNNNXKKOkxxxxxxxxkkkOOkkO00KKKK000kxxddollllllloc::;,,;;:c:::;'......,,,
NNNXXXXNNNK00OkxddddolllloddddxkkOOOOkkkdllccccccccccc:::,',;;:c:::,......',,,
NXXXXXXNXXK00Okxddddolllllooooooddddooool:::::::ccllllc;;,',:::c:;;'....'',,,,
NXXXXXXXK0OOOkkxxxddolllllllcccc:::;;;,,,,,,,,,:codddoc,,,',;;;;;,,'''',;;,,'.
NNNXXXKK0Okkkkkkkkxdollllllllcc:;,,,'''',,,,,,,:cokkxdc,,,',,,,,,'''',,;::;'..
__________________________________________________________________
__ _{________________________ _______________________}_ __
\_\ \________________________( SAINT PETER )_______________________/ /_/
{__________________________________________________________________}
-page 11-
simply take it upon themselves, but In summary, the two things a Catholic
prayed for guidance from God to or a critic of Catholicism should
provide the answer to them. The take away from this understanding
Pope's infallibility has nothing to of the Pope are:
do with his character or a percep-
tion that he is sinless. It only 1) The Pope's infallibility doesn't
means that all the decisions that imply that he's sinless, or in
the Pope makes regarding church some other way perfect or better
doctrine is always right, and that than others. It only means that
is because those decisions are guid- he's Christ's visible representa-
ed by the Holy Spirit working tive of His church on Earth.
through him.
2) The Pope's infallibility only
If you are a Catholic, this may seem applies to Church doctrine, not
to be disturbing, considering that any other aspect of the church.
Pope Francis has made many comments It doesn't apply to this personal
that libertarian Catholics have a opinions, and Catholics are free
problem with. His surprise attacks to disagree with the Pope without
on capitalism came after condemning feeling ostracized.
"social justice" as from the Devil.
His most recent statement on global Hopefully, this insight into the
warming is better fitting to Green- beliefs of the Catholic church will
peace than the Vatican. So, does provide a better understanding of
the Pope's infallibility mean that their customs, believers and non-
Catholics have to accept his state- believers alike. Remember that part
ments or consider themselves to be of being a libertarian is to respect
heretics? the right of people to follow their
own religious calling, if any. And
The answer is NO. Every Pope is a one way to do that is to understand
regular human being, with faults, WHY people believe what they do.((L))
sins, and opinions. Pope Francis is
no exception. His opinions, while
at times wrongheaded, are just that:
his opinions. His opinions are as %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
personal as yours and mine, and are
not church doctrine. So, you don't HILLARY HAS THE MEDIA ON A STRING
have to agree when the Pope says the
Earth is "Crying out in pain". To %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
be accurate, anthropomorphizing the
planet Earth is more in line with
pagan beliefs than the holy Catholic During 4th of July weekend, Hillary
Church. Also, the Earth is not in Clinton appeared in a parade or some-
pain. Earth is resilient, and we thing. The media sycophants obliged
humans are late arrivals to it. It to her latest demand: they must be
was fine without us and it will be inside a giant lasso as she walked
fine with us and it will be fine backwards at a safe distance. This
after us. actually feeds into the stereotype of
her as someone too cowardly to face
The Pope's science adviser is in all anything outside her controlled
truth a pro-global warming extremist bubble, especially tough questions,
who does a lot of politicking, and and the stereotype of the mainstream
censoring scientists with opposing media, strung by a leash as they
views, to influence the Pope's views follow her wherever she takes them!
on global warming. It is a far cry Sorry, the last thing we need is a
from receiving guidance from the president who is out of touch with
Holy Spirit. the real world, and who sets them-
selves apart from how others live!
-page 12-
. ______________________ .
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES
SCALIA, J., dissenting
______________________
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015)
SCALIA, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
______________________________________
Nos. 14�556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14�574
______________________________________
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS
14�556 v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.;
VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS
14�562 v.
BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.;
APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS
14�571 v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.; AND
GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS
14�574 v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2015]
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE [Roberts]�s opinion in full. I write separately to
call attention to this Court�s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today�s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.
The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living
arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from
tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences� and the public approval that conferring the name of
marriage evidences� can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more
adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of
-page 13-
overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today�s decree says
that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases
is the furthest extension in fact� and the furthest extension one can even
imagine� of the Court�s claimed power to create �liberties� that the
Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of
constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied
(as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most
important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in
the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
I
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage
displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the
issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow
citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the
question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through
their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage.
Many more decided not to.^1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued
pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be
negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government
is supposed to work.^2
The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule�constraints adopted by
the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments.
Forbidden are laws �impairing the Obligation of Contracts,�^3 denying �Full
Faith and Credit� to the �public Acts� of other States,^4 prohibiting the free
exercise of religion,^5 abridging the freedom of speech,^6 infringing the right
to keep and bear arms,^7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,^8 and
so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers �reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people�^9 can be exercised as the States or the People
desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains
a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages
between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the
political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding
marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today�s opinion
reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who
join him today):
�[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded
as a virtually exclusive province of the States.�^10
�[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law
policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.�^11
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868,
every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the
constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to
determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision� such as �due
process of law� or �equal protection of the laws��it is unquestionable that the
People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice
that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after
ratification.^12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not
expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment�s text, and that bears the
-page 14-
endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use
dating back to the Amendment�s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever
that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to
opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed
to continue.
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of
law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the
opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People
ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in
its �reasoned judgment,� thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.^13
That is so because �[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of
Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of
freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . �^14 One would think that sentence
would continue: �. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the
People could amend the Constitution,� or perhaps �. . . and therefore they left
the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of
the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.�
But no. What logically follows, in the majority�s judge-empowering estimation,
is: �and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right
of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.�^15 The �we,�
needless to say, is the nine of us. �History and tradition guide and
discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.�^16 Thus, rather
than focusing on the People�s understanding of �liberty�� at the time of
ratification or even today� the majority focuses on four �principles and
traditions� that, in the majority�s view, prohibit States from defining
marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.^17
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative�indeed, super-legislative�power;
a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited
by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to
adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices�
�reasoned judgment.� A system of government that makes the People subordinate
to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a
democracy.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect
the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be)
relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-
section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine
men and women, all of them successful lawyers^18 who studied at Harvard or Yale
Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew
up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-
between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine
Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a
group that comprises about one quarter of Americans^19), or even a Protestant
of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body
voting on today�s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning
as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever
ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the
traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today�s
majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the
policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select,
patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even
more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social
transformation without representation.
-page 15-
II
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today�s judicial Putsch.
The five Justices who compose today�s majority are entirely comfortable
concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years
between the Fourteenth Amendment�s ratification and Massachusetts� permitting
of same-sex marriages in 2003.^20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth
Amendment a �fundamental right� overlooked by every person alive at the time of
ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser
legal minds� minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin
Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly�
could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment
to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process
when that is called for by their �reasoned judgment.� These Justices know that
limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know
that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation
in history until 15 years ago,^21 cannot possibly be supported by anything
other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen
who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the
unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,stands against the
Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is
egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to
contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it
is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.^22 Of course
the opinion�s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. �The nature
of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find
other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.�^23 (Really?
Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were
freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged
rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure
enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that
that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)
Rights, we are told, can �rise . . . from a better informed understanding of
how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own
era.�^24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional
imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent
liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, �[i]n any
particular case,� either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause �may be
thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and
comprehensive way,� than the other, �even as the two Clauses may converge in
the identification and definition of the right.�^25 (What say? What possible
�essence� does substantive due process �capture� in an �accurate and
comprehensive way�? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and
entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as
employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this
Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is
correct that the two clauses �converge in the identification and definition of
[a] right,� that is only because the majority�s likes and dislikes are
predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and
precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the
law. The stuff contained in today�s opinion has to diminish this Court�s
reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
-page 16-
Hubris is sometimes defined as o�er weening pride; and pride, we know, goeth
before a fall. The Judiciary is the �least dangerous� of the federal branches
because it has �neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately
depend upon the aid of the executive arm� and the States, �even for the
efficacy of its judgments.�^26 With each decision of ours that takes from the
People a question properly left to them� with each decision that is unabashedly
based not on law, but on the �reasoned judgment� of a bare majority of this
Court� we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
ENDNOTES
1 Brief for Respondents in No. 14�571, p. 14.
2 Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___�___ (2014) (plurality opinion)
(slip op., at 15�17).
3 U. S. Const., Art. I, �10.
4 Art. IV, �1.
5 Amdt. 1.
6 Ibid.
7 Amdt. 2.
8 Amdt. 4.
9 Amdt. 10.
10 United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
11 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).
12 See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___�___ (2014) (slip op., at
7�8).
13 Ante, at 10.
14 Ante, at 11.
15 Ibid.
16 Ante, at 10�11.
17 Ante, at 12�18.
18 The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the
questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the
American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members
to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar
Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14�571 and 14� 574, pp. 1�5.
19 See Pew Research Center, America�s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12,
2015).
20 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941
(2003).
21 Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7).
22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion
for the Court that began: �The Constitution promises liberty to all within
its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow
persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,� I
would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has
descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph
Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
23 Ante, at 13.
24 Ante, at 19.
25 Ibid.
26 The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
-page 17-
.....
.;oOKNNWWWKOOOxccc,......
.oOKWWWWNNNNNWWWWWNNNXXNNNNNKOolc,.
.'cx0XWNNNXXKK0000KNNNNXK000KKKXXNWWNNWN0x;
,cdKNNNXKKK0OkkkxddoddxkOOOOkxkkOOOOKXXXXNNNNNKx.
.;kNXXXKK0Okkdddoolcc::cclloddddooddxxxxkO00XNNNNNW0;
;KNXXK0Oxdoollcccc:,,,',,;:::ccccc::cccllloxkOKXNNNNNWk.
.ckXK0kkxlc::;;:;,,,,.........'''''''',;,,;::cldk0KXXXNWWO.
'KXK0kdlcc:;,,,',''....................''',,;;;::ldkKXXXNWW0'
xNKOdlc:::;,'''..........................'',,,,;;:coO000KXWWk
cKX0xolc::;,'''...........................''',,;;;;:lk00000XNN;
cWX0kolcc:;;,''...........................''''',,;;;:okOO0KXNWWx
.XNKOdolcc:;,,'............................'''''',,;;cdO000KNWWWX;
lWX0Oxolcc:;,,'.............................'.''',,,;cdOKKKXNWWWWK.
;NWXK0xoccc:;,,''..............................'''''';cdO0KXNNWWWWWl
.OWWNX0xoccc:;;,'''................................''',:d0KXXXNWWWWWX.
cWMWWX0xocc::;;;,,'''..............'',,,,,;:cc:;'..''',;lOKNXKXNXNWWX'
xWMMWXKOdcc::cclodddoc::;,'....',;;;:ldxkO000000kl;,','';d0XNXKXXNNNk'
oWWMWXXOdc::oOKXNXXKOxoc::,''''',;:;:loodlc:::cldkxl:;'',ckXWWNWWWX0Od,
.0WWWNNOolcdXXOocc::cccccc:,''''',::;;:::c:cccc:::clo:;::cokKNWWNKklld,
.0WWWNOolx0Ooc::;,;::::clll;'..':lcclloodkkkkxxoolloc;;,,,:d0XX0x:;;l'
,XWWWKdokxlloooooodoccccllc;;;;:;;;:c:;;:cc:clollcc;..',,,cxOkxo:,,c'
,xXWW0ooooxxdooxddo:;;;:ll;'',::,',,''''..',,,,,;;'...',,;collol:,:,
:XNOddddddc:;;,,';;;,:lc,''',c;'''.''''''',''',,'..',;;;:c:::ll;;.
.'coolcol:;;;,,,,;;;cl;,''',,,::,''',,,,,,,,,,,'',,;;;;;::::cc:,
;oc:cll;,,,,',,;cdd:,,'''',;:lc:::;;;;,''''''',,,,;;::::cc;';.
.llclllc:::::::cool:,.....',,,,,,,,'...... '',,,,,;::::c:'',.
:olllc:;,''.',;cc::;'...';:::::;,,;;'.......',,,,,;;:::cc,,'
:doolc;,'..';cc:coddc;;;colcc:;,''',:;,'''.'',,,,;;::::cl;'.
:doolc;,''',:l::cllllcclc:,,,'''''',;cc:,,',,,,,,;;;:::c:
:doool:;,,,:c::ccc::;,',,''''''',,,,',;::,,',,,,,,,;;:cl;
:dooolc:;;:c::cccc::;,,,',''''',,;;::;,,,'''''''',,;:cll;
'dolllc:;;;;;:loollcc;,,,,;;;;::cc::;,,,'....'''',;;:clo'
colccc:;'',;coooolc:;,,,,''',,,,''''..'......'',,;:cloc.
,dlc:c:;'..',;:ccc:;''''''''',,'''''''......''',;;clol.
.ool:::;,'.';:cc:::;;,,;,,'''''''''''''..''''',,;:lodc..
'odol:::;,',;;:::;;,,,,,''''''.....'''''''',,,,;:looo;;0O;
,lxOclddolc:;;,;::;;;;;;;,''.'..'''.....''',,,,,,,;:loooc.,0MW0c.
.,lkXWMWWWKdodlcc::;::c::;:::;,,,,,'''''''''',;:::;,,;;:llllc'.lKMMWWW0c'
..:OWMMMMMMMWWW0doolc:::clllc:ccc:;;;;;,,,,,;;;;;:cccc:::ccllll;.;0WWWMWWWWWWO
XWMMMMMMMMMMMMMWXkddocccclooolcllollccc::ccllcccllc:::cccloolc;;dXWWWWMWWWMWWW
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWKOxolccccllloddxxxxxkkkkxxdoolc::::::cooolccxNWWWWWWMWWWWMMW
WWWWWWMMMMMMMWWWWMMWXkolcc:::::ccloooolc::;;,,,,;::cclodddO0KWWWWWMMWWWWWWMMMW
NNWWWWMMMMMMMWWWWMMMWNKOdlc::;;;;;;;;;;,,,,,,,;;:cloodxOKNWWWWWWWWMMWMWWWWMMMW
NNNNNWWWMMMMMWWWWMMMMMWWNX0xolc::::::;;;;;,,;;:ccldk0XWWWWWWWWWWWMMWWWWWWWWWWW
NNNNNNNNWWMMMMMWWMMMMMWWWWWWNX0Okdolc::;;;;;:ccld0XWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMWWWWWWWWWMMW
NNNNNNNNNNWWWMMWWWWWWMMMWWNNWWMWWWNNK0Oxdoddxxk0XNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMMW
NNNNNNNNNNNNWWWMMWWWWWWMMWWNNNWWWWWWWWWWNKKKXNWWWWWWWMMWWWMMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNWWNWWWWWWNKKXNNWWWWWWMMWWMMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNXXNWNNXNNNWWWWWWWMMWWWWWWWNNWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNXXNWNNWWWNWWNNNNWMWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
__________________________________________________________________
__ _|____________ ____________|_ __
\\_\ \_____________\ SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA /_____________/ /_//
|__________________________________________________________________|
-page 18-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
RANDOMLY READ TWITTER POSTING: INDEX OF FTP/DOCUMENTS/JOURNAL
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
_____ _____
The Supreme Court can't force non _____\ Log of July 2nd, 2015. /_____
constitutional rights by infringing
on fundamental constitutional rights This is the anniversary of Delaware,
the First State, ratifying the U.S.
\ Declaration. I'm now comfortable
__\\__ with visiting onion sites, and am
/ __ \ still making logs for myself, taking
| / \ | notes on sites I've visited that I'd
| \__/ | like to remember.
\______/
************************************
2015-07-02
I visited several noteworthy onions that are useful or contain helpful
information.
First, I found what is called the SHADOW WEB GATEWAY. They want you to pay .3
BTC (about $70) to get their browser bundle (or some link) and access instruc
tions. The SHADOW WEB sites end in .shweb, and promoted itself as "host[ing]
the content too dark for the deep web". This sounds like a new sub-level of
the deep web, sort of like that phony diagram of the deep web with all these
"levels", and mariana's web as one of the levels. Maybe it wasn't as phony as
I once believed.
The web site ends in "here", and links to a video I haven't seen. But I'm
wondering: if this is "too dark", it has got to be the most depraved stuff
imaginable, and I couldn't imagine some of the depravity that it on the deep
web. What is it: ISIS? Planned Parenthood? Sadist videos? And if it is the
worst of the worst, who would want to pay for access to it? Or maybe it's too
dark because of the opposite reason: it's information that opposes oppression,
and is dangerous to oppressors. Somehow I think it's the former.
Shadow Web Gateway
vqu4mm5lcjmlqohh.onion
I saw a video that supposedly describes it. It was one of those sick minded
urban legend type stories. There's five minutes of my life I won't get back.
It seems like the site is just a fix for sick people by sick people making money
off them. Well, I can get that for free.
Next, and by "next", I mean the next site of anything useful or interesting, I
came across somethng called "Thoughtcrime with Sarah." Contains a word from
Orwell's "1984" and so I was intrigued enough to click. The site contained a
single entry in .txt format, much like a vintage eZine:
JOURNAL ENTRY
8 May 2015
-page 19-
"The internet vigilantes are strong today. Ill-considered Twitter marketing
strategy from Spotify. For Mothers Day they asked users to say how they would
explain Spotify to their mother. Implied that mothers would not understand
much in response. Not inclined to feel sorry for Spotify. A big business
should know how not to be a f***wit online. I worry that an individual will
suffer the same fate. Maybe not deserved.
The vigilantes... these do-gooder keyboard warriors. They are solving the
world's problems one outraged tweet at a time. I suppose I should appreciate
their work. It's hard."
Needless to say, an individual _ALREADY SUFFERED_ the same fate. Look up the
creator of JavaScript.
Thoughtcrime With Sarah
w4ztrr7ht36lzucy.onion
With the Silk Road and Silk Road 2 taken down, there are successors, "The Green
Road" and "Silk Road 3". Meanwhile it seems like at every turn there is
someone who wants to be the next Silk Road, including many sites from
Netherlands and even more from Russia.
Drugs are plentiful and easily available on the deep web; that is, if they're
reliable sources. I will never care enough to find out as I hate this stuff.
Eventually I came across "ProPublica", which calls itself "investigative
journalism". A cursory evaluation indicates that it's not so balanced; on the
whole site, not one report was on any of the president's violations. The fact
that it actually won a Pulitzer Prize also makes me wonder. I sent a link to
LiberTORian to see if anyone there had any interest. Let's see if I hear
anything from them.
ProPublica
propub3r6espa33w.onion
SALTY PLANET is next; they are self-proclaimed "NSA Watchmen". I've read
documents in their log and they seem much more objective than ProPublica, just
calling things as they see them. A must-read for every libertarian. They do
the research and don't play politics, just advocate freedom from electronic
invasions of Constitutional rights.
Salty Planet
3redy3uikv2cmd75.onion
For fans of pop culture, this is a really cool site, SkeleTOR.bit. I think I
found that BIT goes beyond BitCoin. Now there's BitMessage (or its unfortunate
acronym, BM). Here's the site:
"SKELETOR?.?bit is the future home of the Masters of the Universe CGI motion
picture project, an endeavor by enthusiasts to animate the first two volumes
of the 1980s mini-comics.
For news, subscribe to our Bitmessage address:
-page 20-
BM- 2cVYjbUkPZ17gyLJgAfE7D7mR5u1v7UzoQ "
SkeleTOR.bit
okzatvfk2jzgvmf4.onion
The Tin Hat is a guide to protecting your privacy, and keeping up to date with
privacy techniques.
The Tin Hat
qza32xuddl3guikc.onion
WE FIGHT CENSORSHIP is a place that posts censored news and reports on
government censorship of news. The focus in the most recent articles is
Venezuela (the same country whose authoritarian grasp of the internet is
something that, when America did it, E.F.F. SUPPORTED!!!) and Islamic nations.
They accept censored articles and articles that caused people to be jailed for
speaking them. They seem to have no political agenda, just stand for freedom
of speech.
We Fight Censorship
3kyl4i7bfdgwelmf.onion
NOT EVIL is a search engine that searches the deep web. It's hilarious because
its logo is a parody of GOOGLE's logo, and it mocks their hypocritical motto:
"Don't Be Evil." They're the most evil company on Earth next to Planned
Parenthood! Their results aren't half bad.
Not Evil
hss3uro2hsxfogfq.onion
Onion soup is more of an anti-government/all cops and law enforcement are evil
site in general than a "keep your hands off my liberties" site. It covers a
broad range of topics. It strikes correct often, but it also fails in many
respects. For instance, they beat the "Iran had no WMDs in 2003" drum as
though it was true Idisproven in 2014). If you're anti-war, fine, but don't
use falsehoods or you're no better than a corrupt government. The truth has no
agenda. I still like much of their message, as they are aware of the liberties
being taken away from Americans. I directed them to LiberTORian in a message.
Onion Soup
[REMOVED because I no longer have interest in the site; see below]
UPDATE: Onion Soup is truly a full-fledged anti-America anti-law enforcement
site and NOT a human rights/individual liberty site. Free speech gives this
site a right to speak, but this site has a loose grip on reality, even saying
ISIS is more humane than U.S. police in post 14:
"(14) Assume that the ISIS beheading videos are authentic. If you compare the
Kelly Thomas (and other cops-slaughtering-civilians) videos with the ISIS
videos, the technique of ISIS executioners is no more in-humane than that of
US cop executioners. The US government neither invaded (nor threatened to
invade) Fullerton, CA after the video - below - was circulated. One of the
stated goals for re-invading Iraq and invading Syria (however cynical) is to
"protect" foreigners from harm at the hands of foreign thugs. This queer
-page 21-
duality of "protecting" foreigners from foreign thugs but abandoning
Americans to domestic thugs demonstrates the warped priorities of the US
government."
ASSUME THAT THE ISIS BEHEADING VIDEOS ARE AUTHENTIC? _ASSUME?!!_ They don't
exactly have ILM doing "special effects". I saw enough of the beheadings to
know they were real, before I got so sick and had to turn away. Why don't you
visit the very real life, easy to locate families of the victims and tell them
you don't even believe that those deaths were real? This make me sick. And
secondly, yeah, I know the cop video in question. That was one evil cop, but
that was ONE. And despicable as it was, it PALED in comparison to the horrific
method of deaths suffered under ISIS. Did you even WATCH an ISIS video? In
particular the mass beheading on the beach video? Stop apologizing for them.
You don't hurt, let alone KILL people in the name of religious statism! I care
about freedom for all and equal justice against those who are corrupt in
government, but I do not hate for America itself or government itself or the
good people in law enforcement and politics. America is the greatest, most
free system the world has ever seen, when it's allowed to work. The problem
does not lie with America. It is people who disobey and disregard the law and
turn the system of justice into a sword to attack freedom who are the problem.
Hating all cops and sympathizing with evil (ISIS) is not the answer. The
answer is making the corrupt abusers of power, who think they are above the
Constitution, face justice. Only when enough people care about their own
freedom, and that of their fellow man, will that happen.
soupksx6vqh3ydda.onion
WikiLeaks is pathetic. I wonder what their true motives are, but it's surely
not in the name of freedom. I conducted a search on their web site, after
clearnet searches failed, to see where I can find the most recent "leaked"
Hillary Clinton emails. The searches yielded nothing from those, or the past,
or anything important. But they sure did turn up a lot of pro-Hillary pages on
their site, including tons of pages of fundraising. WikiLeaks and Julian
Assange are stupid. Edward Snowden they are not. Evil for evil's sake. Their
statement must be, "if we can steal it, we'll post it, just because we can.
Let the chips fall where they may." The only thing they were good for were the
ClimateGate emails, and I found them somewhere else!
WikiLeaks
Not even noting the URL as I'm sick of them. Why would I need it if I don't
even want to visit?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Zinov's site contains texts of in-
ALL POINTS BULLETIN terest to libertarians. He asks for
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& people to write to him, but there is
no contact information anywhere on
LiberTORian is seking a deep web the site. If Zinov, or anyone who
user named Zinov. He runs an onion knows how to reach him, has an email
site called "Zinov's Gopher Menu". address, please send this informa-
The site as located at this address: tion to LiberTORian at:
http://jewjewkeei4o4bvn.onion synonymous1@ruggedinbox.com
-page 22-
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CLASSIC .TXT FILE OF THE DAY >> 1776paid.txt <<
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
It's the 4th of July as I'm typing this, so I thought you'd like a reminder,
or to be informed for the first time, what happened to the 56 signers of the
Declaration of Independence. I think this file dates from the late 1980s.
But it still circulates today on clearnet. Here's the original text, exactly
as it originally appeared, formatting and all.
- ***********************************
THE PRICE THEY PAID
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the
Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured
before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two
lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons
captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships
of the revolutionary war.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their
sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation
owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the
Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty
would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his
ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and
properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to
move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress
without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions
were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery,
Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the
British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his
headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to
open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy
jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
-page 23-
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.
Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his
gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in
forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his
children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a
broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution.
These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were
soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they
valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they
pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance
on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to
each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Targetshooter's notes:
They gave you and I a free and independent America. The history
books never told you a lot of what happened in the revolutionary
war. We didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at
that time and we fought our own government! Perhaps you can now see
why our founding fathers had a hatred for standing armies, and
allowed through the second amendment for everyone to be armed.
Frankly, I can't read this without crying. Some of us take these
liberties so much for granted.
We shouldn't.
Peace my friends,
Garry Hildreth
(Targetshooter)
Erie, Pa
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
R E S T O R I N G L I B E R T Y
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Our Constitution needs our help. But our responsibility is to defend
We've all seen or read in the media it. It's not much to ask a liber-
stories of people who made a diff- tarian to be active. You are free
erence, but does it inspire you? not to oblige, but remember that
Probably not. But you really don't not to act is to act. Individual
realize how many people you affect liberty is worth defending.
in your life, and it is for the
better or worse depending on what Here are some suggestions to help
you choose to do. I'm not saying restore liberty.
to go out and change the world
overnight. Just do something and 1) Acquire a copy of the Declaration
you'll see a difference on a human of Independence and United States
level, bringing the best out of Constitution.
individuals. We were given the
liberty by God (or for those who These documents aren't that long.
don't believe in God, natural law.) read it. Then go the extra mile to
-page 24-
learn the intent of the words in the self, do the following:
important documents.
o Offer pocket Constitutions
2) Join a local Tea Party.
o Hold meetings in a public place,
Tea parties tend to lean libertarian where attention to it can be
and are heavily reverent toward the drawn. If you hold meetings at a
Constitution, and rule of law, equal library, for instance, it may help
application of justice, and limited you promote it.
government. Tea parties are often
sources for pocket Constitutions, o Be courteous. People of differing
available for a dollar donation. opinions will attend. Libertarian
minded people ought to respect
3) Join a 9/12 group. each other's opinions.
Sometimes a tea party is not right o Educate yourself. Do learn as
for you. I stopped attending my much as you can on your own.
local tea party meetings for a few
reasons: 1) they featured a guest o Be a leader. People will look to
who advocated active euthanasia. the founder of the group for
Active euthanasia means that the guidance.
patient or their family have no say
when it comes to allowing a person o Be compassionate. Do good works
to live, and the government health for people in need and the less
system says that the patient must fortunate in your area, not in
be direcly killed even if not term- order to improve a false image of
inal. This is far beyond passive such groups, but because it will
euthanasia, where a person is re- bless your group.
moved from life support and allowed
to die naturally. 2) The guest was o Begin the meetings with a prayer.
hostile to Catholics for opposing If atheists object, advise them
active euthanasia, and even helped that the prayer is an exercise of
to foster anti-Catholicism among out First Amendment rights, and we
a few of its members. 3) The do not wish to compel you to pray.
system itself was too organized; The prayers are voluntary. Be-
people had little room for input, lievers are to respect atheists'
and everyone followed a strict rights to their deeply-held con-
structure. victions, and atheists are to
respect people of faith's right to
A 9/12 group may be more for you. pray.
For those of you who are Christian,
a good analogy for a 9/12 group is o Don't ostracize people for speak-
a Bible study group for the U.S. ing an unpopular opinion. That
Constitution. 9/12 groups are more speaks of statism. Besides, maybe
social than tea party groups in it's you who are wrong!
general, offer an intimate setting,
and provide discussions of the o IMPORTANT! Be wary and always on
understanding of founding documents a lookout for infiltrators. Do it
and their writers' intent. with vigilance. Progressives HATE
people with opinions different
4. Form your own tea party or 9/12 from their own and will go to
group. great lengths to destroy you.
Cass Sustein instructs statists to
Is there not one of these where you do this everywhere at a local
live? Your work could fill in a level. There is usually one in
much-needed void. If you wish to every group who is also astute at
form one of these groups for your- weeding out such people. Let
-page 25-
each member of a group use his/her 9. Get involved in your local home
talents. schooling group.
5. Join your local libertarian party While the public school system is
busy making children uneducated and
There may be a libertarian party in ignorant and unable to think for
your area. Join them and do what themselves (this is NOT hyperbole),
you can to raise awareness of issues you can use your talent to teaching
of individual liberty. children libertarian principles.
One of the goals of school is not
6. Run for local office as a liber- only educating, but to advocate free
tarian. thought: the cornerstone of liber-
tarianism. If only children today
Many offices in your local area are learned basic civics, as adults they
probably unopposed. Why not run for would not stand for gross violations
office as a libertarian? You can of their basic rights that used to
fill a position and actually influ- only take place in third world
ence the outcome of events. Keep in dictatorships. They deserve this.
mind that campaigning and your work give the children the education they
requires an investment of much time. need and want. With so much on edu-
Run as a democrat or republican if cation being a "right", they are
you wish, but be libertarian, and certainly being unserved by the very
proclaim yourself as such. government who keeps chanting this
absurd mantra!
7. Form a libertarian party in your
area. * * *
Maybe you need to fill a void where These are just a few ways a person
both parties in your area don't re- can make a difference. Why not
spect freedom. A new libertarian consider one or two, pray on the
party will energize people looking decision if you are faithful, or
for a new solution. This will also make a reasoned contemplation if you
take a lot of your time, but you can aren't, and do the part you think
seek out and support other candi- is the one you were meant to fill.
dates if you are not interested in
pursuing office yourself. Conduct Don't go in with the mission to
your party as you would a tea party change the world. Those people will
or 9/12 group. rarely succeed, and when they do,
they tend to be statists who impose
8. Be social on the internet. their will on others and strip the
rights of mankind. Just go in with
You don't know how many people you the wish to be the one person who
can reach by connecting to others. wants to be active for good. And,
Keep in contact with others on your if the one person goes in with sin-
favorite, or least despised, social cerity and humility to help defend
media. Twitter hashtags to read are the rights of everyone, that one can
#tcot (top conservatives on Twitter) touch ten people, who in turn will
and #tlot (top libertarians on touch a hundred, who will touch a
Twitter). Follow people who use thousand, and so on, until the world
these hashtags and read their posted DOES become a better place.
stories. Retweet and "favorite"
them. Spread the message. Also do So what are you waiting for? ((L))
not forget the power of REAL LIFE
socializing, which is the reason the
real-life 9/12 and tea party groups
are so crucial! > Don't hurt others <
> and don't take their stuff. <
-page 26-
. SCALIA, J., dissenting .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14�114
DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA
BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 2015]
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says
�Exchange established by the State� it means �Exchange established by the State
or the Federal Government.� That is of course quite absurd, and the Court�s 21
pages of explanation make it no less so.
I
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes major reforms to the
American health-insurance market. It provides, among other things, that every
State �shall . . .establish an American Health Benefit Exchange��a marketplace
where people can shop for health-insurance plans. 42 U. S. C. �18031(b)(1). And
it provides that if a State does not comply with this instruction, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services must �establish and operate such Exchange within
the State.� �18041(c)(1).
A separate part of the Act�housed in �36B of the Internal Revenue Code�grants
�premium tax credits� to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance made on
Exchanges. The tax credit consists of �premium assistance amounts� for �coverage
months.� 26 U. S. C. �36B(b)(1). An individual has a coverage month only when he is
covered by an insurance plan �that was enrolled in through an Exchange established
by the State under [�18031].� �36B(c)(2)(A). And the law ties the size of the
premium assistance amount to the premiums for health plans which cover the
individual �and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State
under [�18031].� �36B(b)(2)(A). The premium assistance amount further depends on
the cost of certain other insurance plans �offered through the same Exchange.�
�36B(b)(3)(B)(i).
This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an
exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the
answer would be obvious�so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme
Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under �36B, an
individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an �Exchange established by
the State.� The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an
Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the
State�which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no
money under �36B.
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is *not* established by a State is
�established by the State.� It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax
credits to state Exchanges than to use the words �established by the State.� And
it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words "by"
-Page 27-
the State� other than
the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. �[T]he plain, obvious, and
rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow,
hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and
study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.� *Lynch v. Alworth
Stephens Co.*, 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under
all the usual rules of interpre-tation, in short, the Government should lose this
case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding
principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
II
The Court interprets �36B to award tax credits on both federal and state
Exchanges. It accepts that the �most natural sense� of the phrase �Exchange
established by the State� is an Exchange established by a State. *Ante*, at 11.
(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!) Yet the
opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that �it is also possible that
the phrase refers to **all** Exchanges�both State and Federal.� *Ante*, at
13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)
The Court claims that �the context and structure of the Act compel [it] to depart
from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory
phrase.� *Ante*, at 21.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying
attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated
sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context
matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for
rewriting them.
Any effort to understand rather than to rewrite a law must accept and apply the
presumption that lawmakers use words in �their natural and ordinary
signification.� *Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.*, 96 U.
S. 1, 12 (1878). Ordinary connotation does not always prevail, but the more
unnatural the proposed interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contex-
tual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Today�s interpretation is not
merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt [sic] that
�Exchange established by the State� means �Exchange established by the State or the
Federal Government�? Little short of an express statutory definition could
justify adopting this singular reading. Yet the only pertinent definition here
provides that �State�means �each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.� 42
U. S. C. �18024(d). Because the Secretary is neither one of the 50 States nor the
District of Columbia, that definition positively contradicts the eccentric theory
that an Exchange established by the Secretary has been established by the State.
Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the
Court�s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To
begin with,other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment
of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal
Government. The States� authority to set up Exchanges comes from one provision,
�18031(b); the Secretary�s authority comes from an entirely different pro-vision,
�18041(c). Funding for States to establish Exchanges comes from one part of the
law, �18031(a); funding for the Secretary to establish Exchanges comes from an
entirely different part of the law, �18121. States generally run state-created
Exchanges; the Secretary generally runs federally created Exchanges. �18041(b)�(c).
And the Secretary�s authority to set up an Exchange in a State depends upon the
State�s�*[f]ailure* to establish [an] Exchange.�
-Page 28-
�18041(c) (emphasis added).
Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some
sense also established by a State.
Reading the rest of the Act also confirms that, as relevant here, there are
- only* two ways to set up an Exchange in a State: establishment by a State and
establishment by the Secretary. ��18031(b), 18041(c). So saying that an Exchange
established by the Federal Government is �established by the State� goes beyond
giving words bizarre meanings; it leaves the limiting phrase �by the State� with no
operative effect at all. That is a stark violation of the elementary principle that
requires an interpreter �to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a
statute.� *Montclair v. Ramsdell*, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883). In weighing this
argument, it is well to remember the difference
between giving a term a meaning that duplicates another part of the law, and
giving a term no meaning at all. Lawmakers sometimes repeat themselves�whether out
of a desire to add emphasis, a sense of belt-and suspenders caution, or a
lawyerly penchant for doublets (aid and abet, cease and desist, null and void).
Lawmakers do not, however, tend to use terms that �have no operation at all.�
- Marbury v. Madison*, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). So while the rule against
treating a term as a redundancy is far from categorical, the rule against
treating it as a nullity is as close to absolute as interpretive principles get.
The Court�s reading does not merely give �by the State� a duplicative effect; it
causes the phrase to have no effect whatever.
Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of
provisions beyond �36B that refer to the establishment of Exchanges by States.
Adopting the Court�s interpretation means nullifying the term �by the State� not
just once, but again and again throughout the Act. Consider for the moment only
those parts of the Act that mention an �Exchange established by the State� in
connection with tax credits:
o The formula for calculating the amount of the tax credit, as already
explained, twice mentions �an Exchange established by the State.� 26 U. S.
C. �36B(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i).
o The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility for �[tax
credits]
under section 36B� and for �any other assistance or subsidies available for
coverage obtained through� an �Exchange established by the State.� 42 U. S.
C. �1396w�3(b)(1)(B)�(C).
o The Act requires �an Exchange established by the State� to use a �secure
electronic interface� to determine eligibility for (among other things) tax
credits. �1396w�3(b)(1)(D).
o The Act authorizes �an Exchange established by the State� to make
arrangements under which other state agencies �determine whether a State
resident is eligible for [tax credits] under section 36B.� �1396w�3(b)(2).
o The Act directs States to operate Web sites that allow anyone �who is
eligible to receive [tax credits] under section 36B� to compare insurance
plans offered through �an Exchange established by the State.� �1396w�3(b)
(4).
o One of the Act�s provisions addresses the enrollment of certain children in
health plans �offered through an Exchange established by the State� and then
discusses the eligibility of these children for tax credits. �1397ee(d)(3
(B).
It is bad enough for a court to cross out �by the State� once. But seven times?
Congress did not, by the way, repeat �Exchange established by the State under
[�18031]� by rote throughout the Act. Quite the contrary, clause after clause
-Page 29-
of
the law uses a more general term such as �Exchange� or �Exchange established under
[�18031].� See, *e.g.*, 42 U. S. C. ��18031(k), 18033; 26 U. S. C. �6055. It is
common sense that any speaker who says �Exchange� some of the time, but
�Exchange established by the State� the rest of the time, probably means
something by the contrast.
Equating establishment �by the State� with establishment by the Federal
Government makes nonsense of other parts of the Act. The Act requires States to
ensure (on pain of losing Medicaid funding) that any �Exchange established by the
State� uses a �secure electronic interface� to determine an individual�s
eligibility for various benefits (including tax credits). 42 U. S. C. �1396w� 3
(b)(1)(D). How could a State control the type of electronic interface used by a
federal Exchange? The Act allows a State to control contracting decisions made
by �an Exchange established by the State.� �18031(f)(3). Why would a State get to
control the contracting decisions of a federal Exchange? The Act also provides
�Assistance to States to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges� and directs
the Secretary to renew this funding �if the State . . . is making progress . . .
toward . . . establishing an Exchange.� �18031(a). Does a State that refuses to set
up an Exchange still receive this funding, on the premise that Exchanges
established by the Federal Government are really established by States? It is
presumably in order to avoid these questions that the Court concludes that federal
Exchanges count as state Exchanges only �for purposes of the tax credits.� *Ante*,
at 13. (Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)
It is probably piling on to add that the Congress that wrote the Affordable Care
Act knew how to equate two different types of Exchanges when it wanted to do so.
The Act includes a clause providing that �[a] *territory* that . . .
establishes . . . an Exchange . . . shall be treated as a State� for certain
purposes. �18043 (a) (emphasis added).Tellingly, it does not include a comparable
clause providing that the *Secretary* shall be treated as a State for purposes of
�36B when *she* establishes an Exchange.
Faced with overwhelming confirmation that �Exchange established by the State�
means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble
argument to support its contrary interpretation. None of its tries comes close to
establishing the implausible conclusion that Congress used �by the State� to mean
�by the State or not by the State.�
The Court emphasizes that if a State does not set up an Exchange, the Secretary
must establish �such Exchange.� �18041(c). It claims that the word �such�
implies that federal and state Exchanges are �the same.� *Ante*, at 13. To see the
error in this reasoning, one need only consider a parallel provision from our
Constitution: �The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but
the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter *such Regulations*.� Art. I, �4,
cl. 1 (emphasis added). Just as the Affordable Care Act directs States to establish
Exchanges while allowing the Secretary to establish �such Exchange� as a fallback,
the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations
while allowing Congress to make �such Regulations� as a fallback. Would anybody
refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a �regulation prescribed by the
state legislature�? Would anybody say that a federal election law and a state
election law are in all respects equivalent? Of course not. The word �such� does
not help the Court one whit. The Court�s argument also overlooks the rudimentary
principle that a specific provision governs a general one. Even if it were true
that the term �such Exchange� in �18041(c) implies that federal and state Exchanges
are the
-Page 30-
same in general, the term�established by the State� in �36B makes plain
that they differ when it comes to tax credits in particular.
The Court�s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the
Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal
and state Exchanges. *Ante*, at 13�14. It is curious that the Court is willing to
subordinate the express words of the section that grants tax credits to the mere
implications of other provisions with only tangential connections to tax
credits. One would think that interpretation would work the other way around. In
any event, each of the provisions mentioned by the Court is perfectly consistent
with limiting tax credits to state Exchanges. One of them says that the minimum
functions of an Exchange include (alongside several tasks that have nothing to do
with tax credits) setting up an electronic calculator that shows �the actual cost
of coverage after the application of any premium tax credit.� 42 U. S. C. �18031(d
(4)(G). What stops a federal Exchange�s electronic calculator from telling a
customer that his tax credit is zero? Another provision requires an Exchange�s
outreach program to educate the public about health plans, to facilitate
enrollment, and to �distribute fair and impartial information� about enrollment and
�the availability of premium tax credits.� �18031(i)(3)(B).What stops a federal
Exchange�s outreach program from fairly and impartially telling customers that no
tax credits are available? A third provision requires an Exchange to report
information about each insurance plan sold�including level of coverage, premium,
name of the insured,and �amount of any advance payment� of the tax credit.26 U. S.
C. �36B(f)(3). What stops a federal Exchange�s report from confirming that no tax
credits have been paid out?
The Court persists that these provisions �would make little sense� if no tax
credits were available on federal Exchanges. *Ante*, at 14. Even if that
observation were true, it would show only oddity, not ambiguity. Laws often
include unusual or mismatched provisions. The Affordable Care Act spans 900
pages; it would be amazing if its provisions all lined up perfectly with each
other. This Court �does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as
written creates an apparent anomaly.� *Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community*,
572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 10). At any rate, the provisions cited
by the Court are not particularly unusual. Each requires an Exchange to perform
a standardized series of tasks, some aspects of which relate in some way to tax
credits. It is entirely natural for slight mismatches to occur when, as here,
lawmakers draft �a single statutory provision� to cover �different kinds� of
situations. *Robers v. United States*, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at
4). Lawmakers need not, and often do not, �write extra language specifically
exempting, phrase by phrase, applications in respect to which a portion of a
phrase is not needed.� *Ibid*.
Roaming even farther afield from �36B, the Court turns to the Act�s provisions
about �qualified individuals.� Ante, at 10�11. Qualified individuals receive
favored treatment on Exchanges, although customers who are not qualified
individuals may also shop there. See *Halbig v. Burwell*, 758 F. 3d 390, 404�405
(CADC 2014). The Court claims that the Act must equate federal and state
establishment of Exchanges when it defines a qualified individual as someone who
(among other things) lives in the �State that established the Exchange,� 42 U.
S. C. �18032(f)(1)(A).Otherwise, the Court says, there would be no
qualified individuals on federal Exchanges, contradicting (for example) the
provision requiring every Exchange to take the ��interests of qualified
individuals�� into account when selecting health plans. *Ante*, at 11
(quoting�18031(e)(1)(b)). Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends
around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the �interests of graduate
-Page 31-
students� into account when setting office hours, but that some professors
teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly
presupposes that every professor has�graduate students,� so that �graduate
students� must really mean �graduate or undergraduate students�? Surely not. Just
as one naturally reads instructions about graduate students to be inapplicable to
the extent a particular professor has no such students, so too would one naturally
read instructions about qualified individuals to be inapplicable to the extent a
particular Exchange has no such individuals. There is no need to rewrite the term
�State that established the Exchange� in the definition of �qualified individual,�
much less a need to rewrite the separate term �Exchange established by the State�
in a separate part of the Act.
Least convincing of all, however, is the Court�s attempt to uncover support for
its interpretation in �the structure of Section 36B itself.� Ante, at 19. The
Court finds it strange that Congress limited the tax credit to state Exchanges
in the formula for calculating the *amount* of the credit, rather than in the
provision defining the range of taxpayers *eligible* for the credit. Had the
Court bothered to look at the rest of the Tax Code, it would have seen that the
structure it finds strange is in fact quite common. Consider, for example, the
many provisions that initially make taxpayers of all incomes eligible for a tax
credit, only to provide later that the amount of the credit is zero if the
taxpayer�s income exceeds a specified threshold. See, *e.g.*, 26 U. S. C. �24
(child tax credit); �32 (earned-income tax credit); �36 (first-time-home buyer
tax credit). Or consider, for an even closer parallel, a neighboring provision
that initially makes taxpayers of all States eligible for a credit, only to
provide later that the amount of the credit may be zero if the taxpayer�s State
does not satisfy certain requirements. See �35 (health-insurance-costs tax
credit).One begins to get the sense that the Court�s insistence on reading things
in context applies to �established by the State,� but to nothing else.
For what it is worth, lawmakers usually draft tax-credit provisions the way they d
�i.e., the way they drafted �36B�because the mechanics of the credit require it.
Many Americans move to new States in the middle of the year. Mentioning state
Exchanges in the definition of �coverage month��rather than (as the Court proposes)
in the provisions concerning taxpayers� eligibility for the credit�accounts for
taxpayers who live in a State with a state Exchange for a part of the year, but a
State with a federal Exchange for the rest of the year. In addition, �36B awards a
credit with respect to insurance plans �which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer�s
spouse, or any dependent . . . of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through
an Exchange established by the State.� �36B(b) (2)(A) (emphasis added). If Congress
had mentioned state Exchanges in the provisions discussing taxpayers� eligibility
for the credit, a taxpayer who buys insurance from a federal Exchange would get no
money,even if he has a spouse or dependent who buys insurance from a state Exchang
�say a child attending college in a different State. It thus makes perfect sense
for Exchange established by the State� to appear where it does, rather than where
the Court suggests. Even if that were not so, of course, its location would not
make it any less clear.
The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case
necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law.
Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court�s
interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter:
�Exchange established by the State� means what it looks like it means.
III
For its next defense of the indefensible, the Court turns to the Affordable
-Page 32-
Care
Act�s design and purposes. As relevant here, the Act makes three major reforms.
The guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements prohibit insurers from
considering a customer�s health when deciding whether to sell insurance and how
much to charge, 42 U. S. C. ��300gg, 300gg�1; its famous individual mandate
requires everyone to maintain insurance coverage or to pay what the Act calls a
�penalty,� 26 U. S. C. �5000A(b)(1), and what we have nonetheless called a tax, see
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius*, 567 U. S. ___, ___
(2012) (slip op., at 39); and its tax credits help make insurance more affordable.
The Court reasons that Congress intended these three reforms to �work together to
expand insurance coverage�;and because the first two apply in every State, so must
the third. Ante, at 16.
This reasoning suffers from no shortage of flaws. To begin with, �even the most
formidable argument concerning the statute�s purposes could not overcome the
clarity[of] the statute�s text.� *Kloeckner v. Solis*, 568 U. S. ___, ___, n. 4
(2012) (slip op., at 14, n. 4). Statutory design and purpose matter only to the
extent they help clarify another wise ambiguous provision. Could anyone
maintain with a straight face that �36B is unclear? To mention just the
highlights, the Court�s interpretation clashes with a statutory definition,
renders words inoperative in at least seven separate provisions of the Act,
overlooks the contrast between provisions that say �Exchange� and those that say
�Exchange established by the State,� gives the same phrase one meaning for
purposes of tax credits but an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and
(let us not forget) contradicts the ordinary meaning of the words Congress used.
On the other side of the ledger, the Court has come up with nothing more than a
general provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one,a handful of
clauses that are consistent with either understanding of establishment by the
State, and a resemblance between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax
Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous,everything is ambiguous.
Having gone wrong in consulting statutory purpose at all, the Court goes wrong
again in analyzing it. The purposes of a law must be �collected chiefly from its
words,�not �from extrinsic circumstances.� *Sturges v. Crowninshield*, 4 Wheat.
122, 202 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.). Only by concentrating on the law�s terms can a
judge hope to uncover the scheme *of the statute*, rather than some other scheme
that the judge thinks desirable. Like it or not, the express terms of the
Affordable Care Act make only two of the three reforms mentioned by the Court
applicable in States that do not establish Exchanges. It is perfectly possible for
them to operate independently of tax credits. The guaranteed-issue and community
rating requirements continue to ensure that insurance companies treat all customers
the same no matter their health, and the individual mandate
continues to encourage people to maintain coverage, lest they be �taxed.�
The Court protests that without the tax credits, the number of people covered by
the individual mandate shrinks, and without a broadly applicable individual
mandate the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements �would
destabilize the individual insurance market.� Ante, at 15. If true, these
projections would show only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw; they
would not show that the statute means the opposite of what it says. Moreover, it is
a flaw that appeared as well in other parts of the Act. A different title
established a long-term-care insurance program with guaranteed-issue and
community-rating requirements, but without an individual mandate or subsidies.
��8001�8002, 124 Stat. 828�847 (2010). This program never came into effect �only
because Congress, in response to actuarial analyses predicting that the
[program] would be fiscally unsustainable,repealed the provision in 2013.�
- Halbig*, 758 F. 3d, at 410. How could the Court say that Congress would never
-Page 33-
dream of combining guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements with a
narrow individual mandate,when it combined those requirements with no individual
mandate in the context of long-term-care insurance?
Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services originally interpreted
the Act to impose guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements in the
Federal Territories, even though the Act plainly does not make the individual
mandate applicable there. *Ibid.*; see 26 U. S. C. �5000A(f)(4); 42 U. S. C.
�201(f). �This combination, predictably, [threw] individual insurance markets in
the territories into turmoil.� *Halbig, supra*, at 410. Responding to complaints
from the Territories, the Department at first insisted that it had �no statutory
authority� to address the problem and suggested that the Territories �seek
legislative relief from Congress� instead. Letter from G. Cohen, Director of the
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, to S. Igisomar, Secretary
of Commerce of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (July 12, 2013). The
Department changed its mind a year later, after what it described as �a careful
review of [the] situation and the relevant statutory language.� Letter from M.
Tavenner, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to G.
Francis, Insurance Commissioner of the Virgin Islands (July 16, 2014). How could
the Court pronounce it �implausible� for Congress to have tolerated instability in
insurance markets in States with federal Exchanges, *ante*, at 17, when even the
Government maintained until recently that Congress did exactly that in American
Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands?
Compounding its errors, the Court forgets that it is no more appropriate to
consider one of a statute�s purposes in isolation than it is to consider one of
its words that way. No law pursues just one purpose at all costs, and no
statutory scheme encompasses just one element. Most relevant here, the
Affordable Care Act displays a congressional preference for state participation
in the establishment of Exchanges: Each State gets the first opportunity to set
up its Exchange, 42 U. S. C. �18031(b); States that take up the opportunity
receive federal funding for �activities . . .related to establishing� an
Exchange, �18031(a)(3); and the Secretary may establish an Exchange in a State
only as a fallback, �18041(c). But setting up and running an Exchange involve
significant burdens�meeting strict deadlines, �18041(b), implementing
requirements related to the offering of insurance plans, �18031(d)(4), setting
up outreach programs, �18031(i), and ensuring that the Exchange is self-sustaining
by 2015, �18031(d)(5)(A). A State would have much less reason to take on these
burdens if its citizens could receive tax credits no matter who establishes its
Exchange. (Now that the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted �36B to authorize
tax credits everywhere, by the way, 34 States have failed to set up their own
Exchanges. *Ante*, at 6.) So even if making credits available on all Exchanges
advances the goal of improving healthcare markets, it frustrates the goal of
encouraging state involvement in the implementation of the Act. **This** is what
justifies going out of our way to read �established by the State� to mean
�established by the State or not established by the State�?
Worst of all for the repute of today�s decision, the Court�s reasoning is
largely self-defeating. The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable
in States that do not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrous economic
consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn�t one expect States to react by
setting up their own Exchanges? And wouldn�t that outcome satisfy two of the Act�s
goals rather than just one: enabling the Act�s reforms to work and promoting state
involvement in the Act�s implementation? The Court protests that the very existence
of a federal fallback shows that Congress expected that
-Page 34-
some States might fail to
set up their own Exchanges. *Ante*, at 19. So it does. It does not show, however,
that Congress expected the number of recalcitrant States to be particularly large.
The more accurate the Court�s dire economic predictions, the smaller that number is
likely to be. That reality destroys the Court�s pretense that applying the law as
written would imperil �the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act.� *Ante*, at
20. All in all, the Court�s arguments about the law�s purpose and design are no
more convincing than its arguments about context.
IV
Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that �established by
the State� means �established by the State or the Federal Government,� the Court
tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as �inartful drafting.� *Ante*, at
14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power �to rescue Congress from its
drafting errors.� *Lamie v. United States Trustee*, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Only when it is patently obvious to a
reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the
mistake. The occurrence of a misprint may be apparent from the face of the law, as
it is where the Affordable Care Act �creates three separate Section 1563s.� *Ante*,
at 14. But the Court does not pretend that there is any such indication of a
drafting error on the face of �36B. The occurrence of a misprint may also be
apparent because a provision decrees an absurd result�a consequence �so monstrous,
that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.�
- Sturges*, 4 Wheat., at 203. But �36B does not come remotely close to satisfying
that demanding standard. It is entirely plausible that tax credits were restricted
to state Exchanges deliberately�for example, in order to encourage States to
establish their own Exchanges. We therefore have no authority to dismiss the terms
of the law as a drafting fumble. Let us not forget that the term �Exchange
established by the State� appears twice in �36B and five more times in other parts
of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same
slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places? No provision of the Act�none at
all�contradicts the limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. And as I have
already explained, uses of the term �Exchange established by the State� beyond the
context of tax credits look anything but accidental. *Supra*, at 6. If there was a
mistake here, context suggests it was a substantive mistake in designing this part
of the law, not a technical mistake in transcribing it.
V
The Court�s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever
interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the
statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people�s decision to
give *Congress* �[a]ll legislative Powers� enumerated in the Constitution. Art.
I, �1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and
mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power�the power to pronounce the
law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not
work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office
if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that
�[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.� *Pavelic & LeFlore v.
Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.*, 493 U. S. 120, 126
(1989).
Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional
authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the
Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress �meant [it] to operate.� Ante, at
-Page 35-
17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress �meant� tax credits to
be available everywhere? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the
terms of the law, and those terms show beyondall question that tax credits are
available only on state Exchanges. More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is
a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our
laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. �If Congress enacted into law
something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to
conform to its intent.� Lamie, supra, at 542. In the meantime, this Court �has no
roving license. . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . .
Congress �must have intended� something broader.� *Bay Mills, 572 U. S.*, at ___
(slip op., at 11).
Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court�s claim that its interpretive
approach is justified because this Act�does not reflect the type of care and
deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.� Ante, at 14
15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went
into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no
deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years
of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our
place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job
properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the
people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.
Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court
should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act�s limitation
of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the
Act�s applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in
every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Act�s implementation, it
could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps
to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants
to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while
offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if
Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could
do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely
abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Court�s insistence on
making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power
and encourages congressional lassitude.
Just ponder the significance of the Court�s decision to take matters into its own
hands. The Court�s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to
spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges.
It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the
participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the
reach of the Act�s individual mandate, whose scope dependsin part on the
availability of credits. What a parody today�s decision makes of Hamilton�s
assurances to the people of New York: �The legislature not only commands the purse
but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be
regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse;
no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution
whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.�
The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
* * *
-Page 36-
Today�s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of
the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In *National Federation of
Independent Business v. Sebelius*, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major
components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act
that Congress passed provides that every individual �shall� maintain insurance or
else pay a �penalty.� 26 U. S. C. �5000A. This Court, however, saw that the
Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So
it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___�___ (principal
opinion) (slip op., at 15�45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every
State accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid
funding. 42 U. S. C. �1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does
not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the
- incremental* funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___�___
(principal opinion) (slip op., at 45�58). Having transformed two major parts of the
law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress
passed makes tax credits available only on an �Exchange established by the
State.� This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the
rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make
tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUS care.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring
status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this
Court�s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The
somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (�penalty� means tax,
�further [Medicaid] payments to the State� means only incremental Medicaid payments
to the State, �established by the State� means not established by the State) will
be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the
cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the
United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes
to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
D. N. S. L O O K U P F A I L E D - By Synonymous 1 -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Well, that was quite a bit of heavy folks at BIG BROTHER know what is
reading, but expect yet another FATT best for us much better than we do!
issue of LiberTORian next time! You Or it just part of what needs to be
see, next issue we'll be talking all done now that they've taken over,
about human rights and fat! Trans- and now have to ration, health care?
Fat, in particular. The U.S. FDA, As a libertarian, I'll leave it to
under our esteemed leader, has made you to decide. Until then, continue
trans-fat illegal as of zero hour: to fight for your rights, be it
June 17th, 2018. Until then, expect economic, social, or whatever. And
Barack and Michelle to hoard a stock since the forces of tyranny are
pile for themselves so they'd still striking at freedoms from all sides,
be able to enjoy it, while the rest we must be ever-vigilant!
of us suffer, since it's obvious the
--- E N D O F F I L E ---