Posted on 07/11/2012 6:57:39 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Paul Ryan was on with Mark Levin tonight to discuss how Obamacare would be repealed, and the budgetary process called reconciliation is the game plan. The nice thing about reconciliation is that it cannot be filibustered, but the down side is it only applies to legislation that has a fiscal impact. That’s why Ryan says that we can definitely repeal 85% of Obamacare because that percentage can easily be done via reconciliation. The remaining regulatory portion of Obamacare may still be included in the budget but that will be debated at the time. Even if it can’t be included Ryan says it would just be meaningless statute after the repeal of the rest of it.
But, he says, we must win the Senate or else we don’t stand a chance of repealing it with Harry Reid running the show.
Listen below:
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
4) The income tax, permitted by the 16th Amendment, which can be imposed without apportionment among the states.
Do you understand HOW the Supreme Court reconciled the direct contradiction between [Art 1, sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4], and the 16th Amendment?
It recognized that they addressed DIFFERENT "PERSONS" - non-corporate, and corporate, respectively.
As such, Obamacare is NOT under [Art 1, sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4], but IS Constitutional under the 16th Amendment.
That's what Roberts directly addressed when he wrote:
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
Bingo!
The Senate has nothing to say about impeachment charges being brought in the House, period.
Hope that clears that up for you.
Unless by two thirds majority, Chief of the KCOTUS presiding.
Perhaps you should read my short statements and what I posted more carefully. I did not imply what you seem to think I said.
In no way did I imply the Senate has any rule over the House procedures or vice verse. Their two independent bodies.
Because unless Barack Obama is caught in bed, with both a live boy and a dead girl, the current US Senate will never vote to convict him.
(And even then a number of Democrats would just say "It's just about sex!")
The House can impeach, whether or not the impeachment charge results in removal, depend entirely on the corrupt Senate.
If the House bring articles of impeachment, then they would have great power of discover and could reveal a lot of stuff, that otherwise will never come to light. The question is Why Don't They?
Sorry, I am not buying it. The 16th Amendment specifies that a tax can be imposed on income. There is nothing about income in the Roberts decision.
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.