In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, the delegates took up the exact wording of Article 1, Section 8. The original text read,
Congress shall have the power…to borrow money, and emit bills, on the credit of the United States.
The original clause, from the Articles of Confederation said,
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority…to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States…
As you can see, the delegates believed that Congress needed the power to print paper money. Mostly because the Articles of Confederation did not give Congress the power to tax. However, during the constitutional convention, an objection arose over those three words, and emit bills. There was a motion to stike the words, it was seconded, and the discussion began.
Some delegates believed the words should stay because they could not foresee all possible circumstances. However, with the country going through the ravages of a paper money based economy, one delegate likened bills of credit to the Beast in Revelation. That got the attention of many other delegates.
But the best argument against bills of credit came from Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. He said, “If the credit be good, a bill would not be necessary. If the credit be bad, a bill would not be accepted.” The argument was flawlessly logical and led to the vote on the motion to remove those three words. The vote, taken by states, was 9-2, in favor of the motion. The words and emit bills were struck from the Constitution. Congress was denied the power to print paper money through ommission of that power.
In 1884, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Juilliard vs Greenman, that Congress did have the power to emit bills of credit. In direct violation of the convention, of the Third Article, which limits the power of the federal judiciary, and of the Fifth Article which explains how to amend the Constitution. Because of this decision, George Bancroft wrote A Plea for the Constitution in 1886. If you don’t have it, get it and read it. As the preeminent American historian of the 19th century, Bancroft laid out how the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and handed down a decision that was as unconstitutional as the bills of credit it allowed.
We now have the decision on Obamacare. The court has upheld this horrendous “law” as constitutional. Our Plea for the Constitution was not heard. Chief Justice Roberts was seduced by the dark side and voted with the socialist koolaidians. But there is a silver lining here. The court found it constitutional as a tax. And there’s no way to pay for this monstrosity by taxing the 50% of Americans that pay taxes. And it also means that everyone’s taxes just jumped by about $5000 per year.
My answer is simple. Governor Romney holds a press conference and says, “Obama has granted thousands of waivers, for his friends, so they don’t have to comply with his own healthcare law. Well, if I’m elected, I’ll grant a blanket waiver to 300 million of my closest friends!”
With everyone getting a waiver, the law is unenforceable and will be rendered useless. Because there will be no reason to keep the law, there won’t be a fight over it’s repeal; it can just happen.