YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

Season's Savings | $0.99/mo for 3 months

Auto-renews at $8.99/mo. after 3 months - terms apply.
YesToHellWith exposes the lies and condemns them to hell.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Hourly Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Chief Justice Roberts was not the first!

    Chief Justice Roberts was not the first!
    Oct 30 2026
    FROM SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO COURT JESTERWhen Magnificent Titles Conceal Questionable Judgment“IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.”Three little words.Three words Chief Justice John Roberts invoked when deciding whether to preserve Obamacare.But here’s my question.IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE, WHY NOT PRESERVE THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM?Why search for a way to save congressional legislation when the very purpose of constitutional limitations is to restrain governmental power?And what happens when the most prestigious judicial title in America becomes associated with reasoning that raises precisely that question?FROM SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO COURT JESTER.There is something remarkable about the way we regard people who occupy positions of great authority.We see their magnificent titles, their education, their credentials, and their prestigious offices.And we assume they possess wisdom, discernment, integrity, and the moral courage to do what is right.But what happens when their conduct reveals something altogether different?What happens when the person occupying an exalted office exercises judgment so questionable that the dignity of the title becomes almost comical?Consider Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court.In 2012, Roberts confronted the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.Legislation affecting an enormous portion of the American economy, enacted amid national controversy and fierce political opposition.At issue was the federal government’s attempt to compel Americans to obtain health insurance or face a financial penalty.Roberts acknowledged that Congress could not justify that command under its power to regulate interstate commerce.But rather than allow that constitutional limitation to determine the outcome, he found another pathway.THE TAXING POWER.Congress had called the payment a penalty.But Roberts concluded that it could be treated as a tax for constitutional purposes.And he invoked a remarkable principle:“IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.”If fairly possible, the Court should interpret legislation in a manner that preserves its constitutionality.But consider the entirety of what Roberts was examining.A nation deeply divided.Legislation that had provoked widespread public opposition.A Senate vote of 60 to 39 in December 2009, without a single Republican supporting the measure.And the House’s final passage of that Senate bill in March 2010, by 219 votes to 212, again without a single Republican voting in favor.This was not bipartisan consensus. It was a deeply contested political achievement.Now imagine that the legislation had received substantial support from both political parties. At least that would have demonstrated broader legislative agreement.But it did not.And while a partisan vote does not itself establish unconstitutionality, surely a justice examining such consequential legislation should consider the constitutional liberties at stake.THE PRESUMPTION OF FREEDOM.The freedom to make one’s own decisions.The freedom to enter—or refuse—a private contract.The freedom to determine how one will provide for one’s own health and welfare.And the freedom to live without being compelled by government to purchase something one does not want.A peaceful American who violates no one’s life, liberty, or property should not have to justify his decision to remain free.GOVERNMENT MUST JUSTIFY ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE.Congress was responsible for remaining within its constitutionally delegated powers.And the Supreme Court was responsible for determining whether Congress had done so.Yet Roberts acknowledged that the Commerce Clause did not authorize the purchase command and then sustained the financial consequence under a different constitutional power.IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.Why was that principle employed to preserve the legislation rather than to give full force to the constitutional limitations protecting the individual?Why should a judicial presumption favoring the constitutionality of legislation become the means of sustaining an exercise of federal authority that Congress had framed as a command backed by a penalty?And if Congress could not justify that command under the Commerce Clause, why should the Court’s interpretive ingenuity provide another pathway?IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.AT WHAT POINT DOES CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION BECOME JUDICIAL RESCUE?If fairly possible, preserve the legislation.If fairly possible, preserve the federal government’s reach.If fairly possible, transform a statutory penalty into a constitutionally permissible tax.BUT WHAT ABOUT PRESERVING THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM?IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.What about the right to decline a private transaction?What about the constitutional limitations upon governmental authority?WHAT ABOUT PRESERVING THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF?IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE.The Supreme Court is not obligated to rescue Congress from the constitutional consequences of its legislative choices.Its obligation is to determine whether those choices fall within the ...
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • How Government Expands...

    How Government Expands...
    Oct 30 2026

    theyneverhadit.com



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    2 mins
  • What is the purpose of government?

    What is the purpose of government?
    Oct 29 2026

    www.thelibertydialogues.com



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.