Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ObamaCare. Justice Roberts started out well but he finished poorly
ChristianConceptsDaily ^ | July 11th, 2012 | Dr John Sparks

Posted on 07/11/2012 11:02:22 AM PDT by se99tp

The point is that whether a “tax” or “penalty,” the exaction is a heavy burden on low- and middle-income Americans for a product that they may or may not want to “purchase.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: healthinsurance; individualmandate; obamacare; tax

1 posted on 07/11/2012 11:02:36 AM PDT by se99tp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: se99tp

"He chose... poorly."

2 posted on 07/11/2012 11:16:11 AM PDT by Noumenon (I will not pay the Obama jizya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

And here I thought he acted stupidly....

3 posted on 07/11/2012 11:18:54 AM PDT by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: se99tp

It is obvious that Roberts’s true opinion of the law was that it was unconstitutional, just as stated in the conservatives’ dissent. It is equally obvious that the vain, cowardly Roberts changed his vote, true opinion notwithstanding, to enhance his legacy and/or to protect The Court As An Institution (As Liberals See It).

He violated his oath and should be treated as such.

4 posted on 07/11/2012 11:25:44 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: se99tp
In a flimsy and unconvincing argument, Roberts concluded that the individual mandate can be upheld under Congress’ power “to lay and collect taxes.”
Why isn't Dr. Sparks jumping on the administration and its lawyer for their argument?


3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
He gave the government what they wanted, right?

Foremost among them is that Congress itself framed the requirement to purchase insurance as a “mandate” enforced by a “penalty” and not as a “tax.”
IMO the Doctor needs to read The Congressional Record for that day before he makes that comment.
Congressional Record (particularly S13830)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our committee and the HELP Committee have given a lot of thought to the provisions in this legislation. We also gave a lot of thought to the constitutionality of the provisions—how they work and the interrelationship between the power of Congress and the States and what States will be doing, particularly under the commerce clause and the tax-and-spending powers of the Constitution.
It is very strongly our considered judgment, and that of many constitutional scholars who have looked at these provisions—and many articles have been put in the Record-that clearly these provisions are constitutional.


5 posted on 07/11/2012 11:42:18 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pogo101

>He violated his oath and should be treated as such.<

Sheesh. Are you proposing that American politicians be held accountable for their actions?

How quaint.

6 posted on 07/11/2012 11:51:55 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: se99tp
Readers of Justice Roberts’ opinion must be surely scratching their heads here. Isn’t this the same justice who earlier, in the Commerce Clause portion of the opinion, pointed out that the government could not properly claim to regulate “inaction” by persons? Now, he contradicts himself by claiming that the government can tax “inaction.”

Actually, what has readers scratching their heads is wondering why Dr. John A. Sparks, dean of the A. J. Calderwood School of Arts & Letters at Grove City College (Grove City, PA) where he teaches constitutional law and business law, and a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, practicing member of the State Bar of Pennsylvania, and a member of the State Bars of Michigan and Ohio...

... doesn't know that the answer to his question is found in Roberts use of different definitions of "person" - specifically:

1) that of a natural non-corporate human being person who is not subject to being regulated for "inaction" under the Commerce Clause,


2) the Title 26, §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) "person" defined as the TAXPAYER who is an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs..

Especially since Roberts himself WARNED that This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.“

Or maybe Dean Sparks DOES know, and he just doesn't want YOU to know.

How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

7 posted on 07/12/2012 1:43:38 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson