Posted on 10/26/2013 11:11:56 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In finding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional, 5 justices of the Supreme Court literally ignored the statutory language of the law and the wishes of Congress. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts rewrote portions of the Act in order to bring its substance into line with his own politically motivated preferences.
In May, the IRS also ignored the will of Congress as expressed in the ACA. The law specifically states that subsidies and tax credits provided to certain ObamaCare enrollees may be awarded ONLY by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity [ObamaCare exchange] that is established by a state.”(My emphasis) But this would prevent subsidies being awarded in the 33 states which have refused to build an ObamaCare exchange. Such a setback would effectively ruin the Affordable Care Act. (1)
So the IRS decided to rescue its master’s namesake healthcare plan by presenting ObamaCare enrollees with $800 million worth of subsidies and tax credits even in states which have not built an exchange. After all, defenders of ObamaCare maintain that the whole affair simply represents “…a minor drafting error [in the law] that courts will and should overlook.” (1)
But not everyone agrees that the IRS may legally assume the lawmaking powers of Congress. In 2012, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed an amended suit, claiming the IRS...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Let's keep our facts straight" The Supremes did not find ObamaCare constitutional. They found that the law did not violate the specific clauses under which a particular lawsuit was filed. They could easily find this terrible law unconstitutional and that it violates some other part of the Constitution without contradicting the opinion drafted by Chief Justice (and Chief Traitor) John Roberts.
So it’ll go back to Roberts who will again find no problem with letting the bill stand.
Exactly, and that is more likely with libt7ards like Shaheen bailing on the law.
“could finish”..............NOT
* Members of the party that passed the law admitted to a person (when asked) that they never read it.
* They argued it was a purchase enabled by the commerce clause and NOT a tax.
" John Roberts said it is law because it IS a tax.
* Barack Obama has made over a dozen unilateral changes to the law, therefor it can no longer be law, it's just become a bundle of define as you go directives created to cover for yesterday's mistakes.
And still my question is, what did they have on Roberts?
The amount of wealth that has already been lost on that steaming pile of healthcare law is astounding. No one is talking about how much business is bleeding dollars just trying to get ready for this monstrosity. If (and hopefully that if is soon) it finally fails and is slapped down, that wealth can never be recovered. The democrats and marxists have found their perfect tool for ending capitalism, but hey, something cool is on TV about now, so no need for the low-info voter to worry themselves.
* Members of the party that passed the law admitted to a person (when asked) that they never read it.
The Constitution never mandated that the public not elect booger-eating morons who don't care enough about their jobs to bother reading the legislation they passed.
* They argued it was a purchase enabled by the commerce clause and NOT a tax.
Thankfully this idiotic claim was known by everyone to be a ridiculous expansion of the commerce clause that would give congress unlimited power to control EVERYTHING done by every person.
" John Roberts said it is law because it IS a tax.
I would imagine that should any judge CHANGE the claims of a lawyer in any criminal or civil case, that would be grounds to have the case thrown out and appealed. However, who would be able to appeal Roberts' decision?
* Barack Obama has made over a dozen unilateral changes to the law, therefor it can no longer be law, it's just become a bundle of define as you go directives created to cover for yesterday's mistakes.
This is the key... Hopefully the courts aren't so corrupted that they'll just ignore the way Barky and his minions have violated the law, by giving out exemptions and ignoring dates, especially in the unequal way the "law" is enforced.
Mark
lawsuits are not going to finish ObamaCare
Someone posted that the birth control mandate has been put down by courts 35-2 but the mandate is still there.
Probably the only constitutional "experts" who agree that the IRS may legally assume the lawmaking powers of Congress are lawyers who were indoctrinated with PC interpretations of the Constitution in law school.
Otherwise, note that the Founding States made the Constitution's Sections 1-3 of Article I to clarify that all legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the elected members of Congress. So Congriess has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.
By the way, here's my Supreme Court-issued "license" to interpret the Constitution with uncommon common sense.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.
The subsidies provision will involve entire states.
wait... NOBODY should think that the IRS can have the power of Congress
This is a wet dream by someone. It won’t take Obama long to just nullify what the Constitution says.
“Hopefully the courts aren’t so corrupted”
Dream on.
The sooner Obamacare ends, the sooner government takes over all of the health care industry because it’s just so much better at running something that big.
"Thankfully this idiotic claim was known by everyone to be a ridiculous expansion of the commerce clause that would give congress unlimited power to control EVERYTHING done by every person."
At that point in the arguments shouldn't the court have just said "Your argument didn't fly" and dismissed the whole thing instead of making up, then upholding, their own argument on behalf of the traitors?
Please let it be so!
We’ll never know unless he doesn’t do as he is told.
If it is true as you suggest, Roberts will go down as one of the biggest traitors of all time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.