Chief Justice Roberts just lit a fire.  I can't tell you if he was right with malice intent or if he actually believes his decision.  What I do know is the Supreme Court is not there to strike down laws we don't like.  In his own way, Justice Roberts stated an undeniable truth; we get the government we vote in and its not his responsibility to correct our mistakes.  His responsibility is to review the law and in his case, contort and construe in his mind to make it fit constitutionally.   Remember, the SCOTUS makes mistakes: In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States.  

Justice Roberts clearly stated and expanded the ability for the Government to levy taxes.  Taxes are now the hammer to be used as punishment.  The enforcement comes from thousands of new IRS agents (that we freaking pay for). Therefore, failing to purchase insurance, one can be "taxed"?  Is this a tax or is this a penalty?  The income tax under the 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."  is rather wide ranging and is not constrained in its interpretation.  Maybe this might need some adjustment in the future!  In the very near future!!!  

Justice Roberts didn't just light a fire under us, he brought out the biggest freaking blow torch you can find and pointed it directly at our butts.  We get the government we deserve because most of us are all too busy trying to get ahead, we fall way short on reviewing and supervising the people we elect to represent us. And quite frankly we are too busy being entertained to deal with this.  Additionally, we fall prey to the go along and get along crowd with compromise and concessions to the liberals and progressives who think if they could just get more money and control of more things, that life would be better.  It is time we clear up that fallacy!  

"Obamacare" was crammed down our throats through obfuscation of the truth (ok, LIES).  There needs to be more plain spoken laws and less legalese so that normal people ( to which I consider myself to be ) can understand without diagramming a sentence.  Much less thousands of pages of these sentences.  One law needs to read that if a lie is told in the electoral process, the candidate either forfeits or sits in the county, state or federal penal institute for a day.   And if an elected politician is found to have lied, then they are removed from office.  I know this can not be done and is wishful thinking, but ethics and morality need to be reintroduced and reinforced into our political system.  It seems nobody cares if their name is associated with a lie anymore.  

I fear the Republicans, after November, will totally dominate the political landscape.  Its not a bad fear, but the pendulum swing could cause a greater swing in the other direction if not dampened and if not wisely and justifiably return this country to its origins.  I don't want to see Republicans "Cunninghaming" themselves.  This is in reference to the ex Navy fighter pilot turned congressman (R) now turned Felon.  I am not saying to shun people who get caught up in the moment!  I am saying, police ourselves and think like the original founders.  Be honorable in everything you do.

If a law is good enough for the population, its good enough for congress.  Make all laws apply to everyone.  That includes both houses of congress.  Especially conflicts of interest!  Every elected representative needs to understand what a conflict of interest is.  It seems not everyone does. 

The way I see it one of the most pressing TEA party goal should be to repeal the 17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

As we stand now, we have two houses of representatives.  Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are elected by popular vote.   Originally, Senators were to be "chosen by their state legislature" making them beholding to the state government and to look after the state's interest!  No one is representing the State's interest anymore.  Do you think, Federal law would have ever placed an unfunded mandate onto the states if the Senate were actually representing the states interest?  But because the Senate is beholding to their constituency (voters and not the state legislature) the impetus to look after the state's interest is secondary to their re-elected. 

As a result of the 17th amendment, the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." has no teeth!!!   The senate is supposed to be an elevated and a more learned group, not so much anymore, however, the oversight powers the Senate was given in the constitution reflect this.  "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."  as well as "He (President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." 

When you read the constitution and every time you see "senate", you substitute with "states" for example: with the advice and consent of the States brings you to the realization of what the 17th amendment actually did.  The states were the buffer but we took their power away and as a result we have had Federal power creep ever since.  The Federal government has seized more and more power from the states and as a result, the entire economy, freedom and the principal of limited government rests on the very next election. 

Do you think any State would continue to place in the Senate any person with Charles Schumer's attitude and focus?  He is able to maintain his office due to his financial backing, influences and organization in the state of New York.  Furthermore, We all complain about these people getting into office and staying there because they have an electoral advantage of incumbency.  What better augment is there than to return the Senate to the purview of the state governments.   As power shifts in the states so to will it shift in the Senate but with a buffering effect.  If there ever was a time to do so it is now!  OK after November when we hopefully have a super majority.