Posted on 07/01/2012 12:16:38 PM PDT by kristinn
Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control. See, e.g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471 (1867). And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999) . These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203–206 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).
Only when it went before the Court then...wallah...the Dems say if the law is unconstitutional then as a last resort if it takes calling the individual mandate a tax then it's a tax.
Is it possible (gasp) that the GOP were the ones who got to Roberts?
Oh, my!
(hey, with all of the weirdness I've seen in the last few days this isn't all that weird)
Wake me up when the free people of this Nation are ready to secede.
I thought Kim Wong Ark was one of the worst SCOTUS cases..but I think this Health Care opinion may be right in the top 5.
“He was threatened.”
I hate to think this way, but it makes sense.
Either him, a family member, or blackmail of some sort.
At this point, I despise him and can’t imagine changing my opinion.
Nope. That was Robert's opinion, not the "court's."
Read Levin's take.
Thanks; I take it you don’t buy into his citing of precedent.
This was a f*** up of epic proportions.
**Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law**
No, I don’t believe that’s the reason he did it.
The implementation of ObamaCare will be a death kneel to the US, but it will take many years to accomplish this. It is also possible that Bam has reduced his chances of reelection via this ruling. So if it is Soro’s plan to take down the US, wouldn't he want Bam to get reelected and doesn't this rule affect his chances unfavorably?
Are you suggesting Soro’s is the AC or a precursor to such?
Interesting stuff.
schu
A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html
____________________________________________________________
Roberts on I.8.1:
The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.
____________________________________________________________
Are those two views of I.8.1 consistent with each other, in your opinion?
Keep an eye on July 17th.
at the minimum, a small little man who should have never been placed in the position he is....
Roberts is either a coward - he won’t risk himself or his family to cross the organized crime that now rules this country - or he is one of them who believes that America must become an enslaved nation.
Or both.
He is the single most revolting, despicable...evil public official in the history of this nation.
He is the antithesis of Sir Thomas Moore. He is the Rosenbergs cubed.
so he was threatened.....lots of people are threatened yet don’t devastate their own countries...and honorable men would do the right thing, take the whack, or commit harikari...
You're not worth educating "researcher."
Wow, that pic is almost as gay as the one with Charlie Crist in the pool... which somehow has completely disappeared off the internet.
Good point. Any comments from our legal people on this? Can this be pursued? Is this an "unlawful tax" as some have said? Discriminatory? Out of the SCOTUS purview? Has to be readjudicated by Congress as Obama and every dem spokesman all along has said it wasn't a Tax?
If Roberts = Solomon, then here's the context:
1 Kings 11
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
That said, it would be well to consider another angle (if good may result), one that need not ascribe wisdom to Roberts' evil deed:
Gen 50
19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
21 Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.
The brothers weren't playing chess, they merely wanted to be rid of that annoying 17 YO dreamer who was their father's favorite son.
And we shall see what will become of his dreams...
Another lawsuit needs to be brought before the Supreme Court: Can the federal government tax a citizen for inactivity while giving waivers to others for the same inactivity?
Good point. Any comments from our legal people on this? Can this be pursued? Is this an "unlawful tax" as some have said? Discriminatory? Out of the SCOTUS purview? Has to be readjudicated by Congress as Obama and every dem spokesman all along has said it wasn't a Tax?
. . . . Also check out # 257.
.
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.