Help End FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 07/08/2012 9:51:49 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
I think you are correct. What I am really asking is what would they do if there was widespread non compliance on supplying information even if you do have insurance. I wonder if they would tax you like you don't have insurance, separately fine you for not filing a complete tax return, or what? The IRS needs to be buried by a widespread movement that says we will not comply.
My theory is that the answer will perhaps never be found because it lies in the act of Obama's second swearing-in ceremony.
Recall, the first swearing-in was in public and was bungled. To be safe, Roberts ostensibly applied the oath to Obama in a second ceremony held in private and veiled in secrecy.
There was no Bible at the second oath. Besides the Chief Justice and the Usurper, there were no witnesses other than Obama's thugs, Axelrod and Gibbs, and perhaps an anonymous aide or two. No cameras or tapes recorded the deed as should have been done for an historic act, even an act to correct a bungle.
Did something happen.....or maybe more importantly, did something NOT happen at the second oath-taking? Is there a dark secret about that singular rite which was unrecorded and remains shrouded in a purposeful black-out?
Did Justice Roberts (or maybe even Obama) "bungle" something vital again during the second oath session....and therefore Roberts ended up "owing" something to Obama in regards to him being a legitimate president...and the "payback" came in the form of Roberts' bizarre legal opinion granting Obama his heart's desire and "legacy"?
Something is and was never right about Obama's two immaculation swearing-ins to the office of the presidency. But lips are sealed and the nation is permanently in the dark about the whole affair.....unless.......
Leni
Easily!
Google "Dred Scott" and "Frederick Douglass."
The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision MADE law in declaring slavery legal; and it made Frederick Douglass (a brilliant negro) happy in that the lousy Dred Scott decision led to Civil War ... to free slaves.
Roberts is making history ... in a way that's remindful of the Dred Scott decision. What we have now is a lousy LAW that came from "Democrats."
Well you stand with Roberts, Ginsburg and the Wise Latina, I’ll stand with Scalia.
What, in the Constitution, was violated?
June 28 = Roberts Dependence Day
Part of the law was declared unConstitutional.
The whole law should have been struck down and sent back to the (new) Congress elected in 2010, from whence it wouldn't re-emerge.
The people did speak.
Roberts refused to hear. He now bears the responsibility of making a partisan political ruling against the wishes of The People. He'll never be remembered as the second coming of John Marshall.
“What, in the Constitution, was violated? “
LOL...simply read the Dissenting Opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Amendment 10, where they struck down the Medicaid provision.
The federal government does not have the authority to compel me to buy a product. Any assertion that they do is simply wrong. As a power not enumerated to the feds, it’s is clearly left to the states. It’s right there in the very unfashionable black and white. The commerce clause was designed for one basic thing. To keep states from enacting interstate tarrifs.
Defend Roberts all you want. But the homo was blackmailed and basically sold his vote. However you slice it, the healthcare law was a fundamental transformation of America into the exact opposite if what our constitution laid out.
Roberts couldn’t see that. By Roberts logic, anything passed by congress is legal.
How cool is that?
Mandating that everyone buy health insurance is not among the ennumerated powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
How can you defend that?
Duh, Traitor John hasn’t been invited to their cocktail parties?
I believe in fact that they just did make law, Navy vet. In fact they have been making law since Marbury. AO-62
I answered before seeing your comment.
This is such a horrible nightmare.
Bearing responsibility means absolutely nothing, ask Janet Reno what the cost was to her, nothing.
It is the burden that counts, and that falls on the people. Old people that are not suicidal will start to avoid hospitals like the plague, and most doctors will have no problem taking on their new responsibilities
American laws come from legislatures (and/or local authorities), and executives such as Presidents, Governors and etc.
The Supreme Court's job is to determine whether a law, even clumsy law, adheres to the US Constitution.
The ObamaCare law might stink to high heaven, but clumsy wording as to whether a fine is a tax, or vice versa, isn't enough to overturn a legitimately passed lousy law.
As hard it might be to take , Chief Justice Roberts did America a favor in voting as he did.
It's my hope that the ObamaCare issue takes Obama and Obamanites down.
Remember this when you vote.
Remember a penalty is different than a credit. Also, ONLY ascension to wealth triggers the income tax, excise, and direct taxation. What triggers the mandate "tax" and where is that penalty enumerated at?
Do you actually believe that the Founders promoted a Constitution in which they could have the right to tax individuals for an exhaling penalties because they did not purchase mandated oxygen credits? Ditto with the proponents of the 16th Amendment, even they were not draconian enough for that kind of "taxation" because of failure to purchase a certain "thing".
Roberts is a simple Statist who used the fine art of disingenuous lawyerese language/witchcraft that destroyed the spirit of the law in order to pull a rabbit out of his ass to justify a certain ideology. Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg treated the Constitution as a personnel play toy and read into “shadows” instead of intent. For that Roberts is another activist and not a promoter of negative rights upon the other two Branches (And of course, the current Court he sits on).
Who needs a Constitution when we have cheerleaders for activism, like yourself, who go orgasmic over this decision because it might win elections. Romney and the rest of the GOP leadership are too collectivist for my taste anyway; apparently you are too ignorant to tell what is going on so enjoy your November and the grifting from either side of the aisle.
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.