Re "Obamacare appears cemented into law," June 26
To the Editor: Commentator Mark Levin has said that the actions by President
With his first ruling in 2012, he established that the federal government may tax us for not purchasing a good or service, ignoring the specific wording of the law that it was a penalty. The government may now take the fruits of your labor for not purchasing a product that it wishes for you to have. With his second and most recent opinion upholding the legality of federally run state exchanges, he argued that the clear and specific language of the law — that the exchanges were to be run by the states — did not mean what it said.
was justifiably outraged in his dissent. If specific language means whatever Roberts deems it to mean, the Constitution has died.
Stephen Smith, Eagle Rock
To the editor: "Words no longer have any meaning," Scalia was quoted as saying in his dissent. He also accused the majority of doing "interpretive somersaults."
Where was this deference to plain language when he wrote the majority decision in the 2nd Amendment dispute District of Columbia vs. Heller, ignoring the part of the amendment about militias being the reason we have a right to own guns?
Talk about “interpretive somersaults” in defending the 2nd Amendment.