Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What am I Missing? [Vanity}
self | 6 July 2012 | self

Posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:12 AM PDT by ShadowAce

OK, this was this first thing that sprung to mind last week when SCOTUS announced its decision. Since then, I've been surprised by both the Administration's response and the media. No one has brought this up:

Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?

Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?

Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scotus; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:18 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

..no one in Government can make a decision, ONLY the libtard media can


2 posted on 07/06/2012 4:32:05 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Well, one way of looking at is that they are moving the Overton window so as they do other openly unconstitutional things, no one will be surprised.


3 posted on 07/06/2012 4:33:11 AM PDT by Pecos ("We hold these truths to be self-evident ..... ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

It is all spin to take your attention away from the economy, period!

Smoke and mirrors.


4 posted on 07/06/2012 4:40:25 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

it all depends on what the definition of is is.


5 posted on 07/06/2012 4:43:57 AM PDT by fatrat (extremely extreme right-wing radicalized veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

I agree completely. Romney’s safe approach so far won’t allow him to point such things out. I sure hope his troupe change their tune into a more, Levin-style attack and campaign. Stark differences and loud pitches in one’s voice - err, a little emotion would be nice.


6 posted on 07/06/2012 4:45:12 AM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatrat
Another thing that is confusing to me is that the Repubs insist on calling this a tax and saying that the Admin is lying. Accept what the Admin is saying and then nullify the law!

That's the easiest way of getting rid of this thing.

7 posted on 07/06/2012 4:46:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Listen to the real power behind this WH. Valerie Jarrett said they will take it anyway they can. Even Obama said the Obama(Roberts)Care is here to stay. IOW. the law is constitutional, and will be enforced since last Thursday.

The others are there on behalf of Obama’s campaign throwing smoke screen, since a tax obviously will hurt Obama’s chance.

Another thing is they obviously also ‘hope’ the longer we talk about Roberts, the less we will pay attention to his other performance (UN gun control, Sea Treaty, miserable handling of ME, etc) let alone consistently bad economy.

8 posted on 07/06/2012 4:49:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

How does Congress nullify it without a vote?


9 posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:06 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Sure, just ‘nullify’! Er, what’s nullify? Has it been used in the last twenty years? Is ‘nullify’ the good twin of ‘deem it passed’?


10 posted on 07/06/2012 4:54:22 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John W; jjotto
OK--IANAL, but since SCOTUS pretty much did declare unconstitutional if it's not a tax, then treat it as such.

Whatever the process is.

11 posted on 07/06/2012 4:56:53 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
I started asking that yesterday on several threads where Regime Representatives refuse to call it a tax or outright deny it is a tax.

If the intent of the law was not a tax...and the court said it is only valid as a tax...then the law is unconstitutional under any other interpretation. As Carney called it a "tax fallacy," then the law cannot stand according to the Court. Right?

12 posted on 07/06/2012 4:58:05 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

You have one problem with your argument. It might have been ok before the judgement, but today, it is a tax.

There is no valid argument to the contrary

It is a tax and the law of the land........ period


13 posted on 07/06/2012 4:58:05 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bert
If it truly is a tax, then the administration would be calling it a tax.

They're not. Call them on it. Declare this thing unconstitutional and then see their reactions.

14 posted on 07/06/2012 5:00:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?

The whole damn thing is unconstitutional. However, Roberts, Kagan et al said otherwise.

Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?

I'm not sure that everyone is going along, but so what. Roberts & company said it was OK, so it is now established in case law.

Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?

Not sure I get what you're asking.

15 posted on 07/06/2012 5:01:19 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

That’s my interpretation of what happened.


16 posted on 07/06/2012 5:01:18 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

If it is a tax, then shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House of Representatives and not the Senate? Shouldn’t that have rendered it unconstitutional due to process if not content?


17 posted on 07/06/2012 5:02:18 AM PDT by Never on my watch (I'd rather light a candle than curse the flatulence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

Another excellent point.


18 posted on 07/06/2012 5:03:09 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

While seldom done, I agree that Congress can end a tax.
And if it’s a Penalty, Congress again can nullify a penalty.
Just getting it thru the Senate will be the problem. I doubt GOP will win Senate.


19 posted on 07/06/2012 5:10:22 AM PDT by theDentist (FYBO/FUBO; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Cincinatus' Wife

Actually, there’s no mechanism for Congress to as you say, nullify it.

Perhaps you mean repeal it.

You said nullify it without a vote? That’s a dog that won’t hunt. Congress has to vote in order to do something about whatever it might be.

Perhaps you are thinking of the state nullification possibility. States, unlike Congress, could nullify this law by refusing to implement it (and by passing laws in their legislatures followed by governors signing them, saying their state citizens do not have to comply with Obamacare).

There is a very good thread on this based on Rush’s sub, Dr. Walter E Williams, advocating this very thing.

Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2903330/posts?page=3

As to what to call it, a tax, and on the basis of the Robert’s opinion act against it in whatever way, there I see that as quite murky.

I’m not certain what force of law the Robert’s opinion has. He certainly failed to overturn Obamacare, because he refused to join with the four justices who voted to overturn.

Where I get lost in the weeds is, how can he simply CALL it a tax in his writings, when it didn’t come before him as tax because it was not passed in Congress as a tax...at least everyone behind it screamed it was not a tax.

And how can he as one man get away with claiming it is upheld as a tax even though there’s a law that says tax cases cannot be brought until people are having to pay the tax.

Also, it was my understanding that the libs did not agree with Roberts to call it a tax. They wanted to hold that it stood under the Commerce Clause, not even to mention that it even might be a tax, much less it is one.

I do know they agreed with him not to overturn the law, but they were writing their own views as to why.

What, do we have rule by a one man dictator, John Roberts?

So, states CAN nullify, and they can do so no matter what Roberts wrote or what it means.

Congress can repeal, by voting, but it must pass the Senate which means Reid must go, and a new president must sign the repeal


20 posted on 07/06/2012 5:12:45 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Why yuh gotta be a hate-uh? /s


21 posted on 07/06/2012 5:14:17 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert
I take a contrarian view...

The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Anti-injunction Act as such.

The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Commerce Clause either.

Those two rulings make it very clear it must be a tax in order to be Constitutional.

You also see in the ruling where the government changed positions and basically said, ‘fine...it is a tax.’ And argued that it was a tax. Now the regime is standing by post ruling saying it is NOT a tax.

There is the other saying too...when your enemy is falling on his sword...don't stop him.

The intent of the law before the ruling was it was not a tax under the two provisos. The court struck that idea down.

The intent of the law was not to lay it as tax, but the court said it looks like duck, quacks like duck...then it must be a duck.

Post ruling they are still crowing it is not a tax...?

Then logically, they cannot implement it and the government committed perjury in the Supreme Court in an attempt to argue the law as a tax.

22 posted on 07/06/2012 5:20:18 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I just want to point out Obamacare wasn’t challenged in toto. The court, unless I’m mistaken, only considered the Medicare and individual mandates. It can be challenged again and again as other issues arise, like forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs by providing insurance with contraceptive and abortion services. It’s NOT carte blanche for the administration to do whatever it wants.

Additionally, even the individual mandate stands only as an income tax. It can be legislatively rescinded.


23 posted on 07/06/2012 5:20:45 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
RE :”Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?

Oh brother!

Maybe they can nullify the law of gravity (without a vote) while they are at it too.

.....then nullify Obama’s 2008 election without a vote.

You think congress has a magic genie?

24 posted on 07/06/2012 5:21:51 AM PDT by sickoflibs (ABBBO chant: "We must support Romney because he doesn't matter." (Obam-ney Care is bad now ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

Basically, what happened was that the Senate took an unrelated bill that originated in the house, “amended” it so that the original language was removed and replaced with the text of the Obamacare bill, and passed that bill. So, technically, the bill did originate in the house. It’s a parliamentary trick the Senate uses from time to time.


25 posted on 07/06/2012 5:22:46 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Post #11


26 posted on 07/06/2012 5:23:21 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch; ShadowAce

Unfortunately...and very few people know this...the bill DID originate in the House, TECHNICALLY.

In substance, it ended up as a bill that had in it what Harry Reid wanted it to have, in the Senate, then it went to the House...the reverse of what a tax bill is supposed to do.

However, Reid pulled a technical trick.

He took a bill that came to him from the House, which wasn’t even about healthcare, and literally kept the NUMBER of the law, then added the Senate NUMBER, which is routine, then stripped out the words in the bill and substituted the words of his version of Obamacare.

Yes, apparently this is a legal loophole.

It is totally deceitful and wrong, but apparently Reid could do that. THe Democrats get away with this kind of stuff all the time. Most of the public never knew it happened. Even you did not, and you care about this.

THerefore, the law has been treated as a legitimate law and would be so even if described as a tax, because of the trick Reid pulled by using a vehicle, a piece of paper passed from the House, with a number on it, to make it a Senate bill with a number, and claiming it originated in the house even though every word was obliterated and Obamacare was substituted.


27 posted on 07/06/2012 5:25:40 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million
are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator,
a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has
the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker,
who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members,
not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence
and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth
that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice
they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you
into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take
an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!


28 posted on 07/06/2012 5:26:28 AM PDT by sunny48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch
If it is a tax, then shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House of Representatives and not the Senate? Shouldn’t that have rendered it unconstitutional due to process if not content?

Yes, but it didn't thanks to John Roberts and his act of what Sowell rightly called 'judicial betrayal'.

Congress can now tax or regulate anything it chooses. SCOTUS was supposed to serve as a check on such things. I'm not sure a lot of folks are getting just how bad this decision screwed the country.

29 posted on 07/06/2012 5:26:52 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

What you are missing is that bills do not become unconstitutional because of what people in the administration call them. The Supreme Court ruled (incorrectly) that Congress passed Obamacare constitutionally, based on Congress’s taxation power. The fact that people are (for political purposes) now calling it something other than a tax does not mean that the bill is now magically overturned.


30 posted on 07/06/2012 5:26:52 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Do you have any idea how the constitition setup the Federal government to operate? A introductory course sounds in order.


31 posted on 07/06/2012 5:27:50 AM PDT by sickoflibs (ABBBO chant: "We must support Romney because he doesn't matter." (Obam-ney Care is bad now ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

What you’re missing is that the RINOs have a new political toy to play with for the next umpteen years, while they dally and tinker with this unconstitutional monstrosity. Within a year or two, no one will even pretend to be talking about repeal, it will simply be “Vote for us, WE can do government intrusion the RIGHT way!”


32 posted on 07/06/2012 5:28:16 AM PDT by workerbee (June 28, 2012 -- 9/11 From Within)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Obama’s presidency and his handmaidens on the Left have furiously tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole and cannot make it fit.

Debate over definitions and Constitutionality of this “laughable” “Cornhusker Kickback” bill of deception (while the country sinks into an abyss of debt due to it) shows the pure evil and twisted methods done to assist Obama’s socialist push to control our rights.

This is Obama’s legacy.

Justice John Roberts cannot paper over and rebrand this slap in the face.

The people must go to their governors and state legislators and demand action.


33 posted on 07/06/2012 5:29:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Roberts essentially ruled that the administration and Congress can call the tax whatever they want. It doesn’t change a thing. They could call it a ham sandwich if they wanted, but from a SCOTUS perspective it’s still a tax. I think the four conservative justices had it right, but I didn’t think Roberts’ ruling was incoherent.


34 posted on 07/06/2012 5:29:35 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
OK. Thanks makes sense. I think that is the answer I was looking for.

I don't agree with it, but it's politcally, twistedly, logical.

35 posted on 07/06/2012 5:30:40 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

You’re asking the wrong guy here ShadowAce. I’ve been asking some of my friends the same thing; they don’t know, and I still don’t know.


36 posted on 07/06/2012 5:34:11 AM PDT by no dems (On June 28th, they shoved ObamaCare down our throat. On Nov. 6th, we'll shove it up their ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Let me spell this out for you, the process to repeal it is identical to the one used to pass it:

1) Repeal it in the House
2) Repeal it in the Senate, full repeal 60 votes, partial repeal 50 votes +VP
3) get the POTUS to sign the common bill

That is how it was passed, that is how it is repealed.

DUHH!


37 posted on 07/06/2012 5:35:36 AM PDT by sickoflibs (ABBBO chant: "We must support Romney because he doesn't matter." (Obam-ney Care is bad now ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
That process assumes the law is constitutional.

My original question asked how could it be constitutional?

I believe my question was answered in Post #30.

Once Post #30 is taken into account, then I can see the process as you outlined it (and I knew it to be for "normal" laws).

Thank you.

38 posted on 07/06/2012 5:39:21 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Ah...but what cannon fodder to be used against a Constitutional scholar such as 0bama. He needs to be called on it! Make them squirm for heaven's sake! Somebody give them the loaded follow-up question,

Then are you saying it is unconstitutional?

39 posted on 07/06/2012 5:39:21 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
SCOTUS ruled that it was Constitutional only as a tax. So for all legal purposes it's a tax(really its a punitive tax). If you, I or Obama want to call it something else, that's fine, but it's still a tax.

If the Admin. want to call it a mandate/penalty, they should be asked why they support an Unconstitutional law.

The law was intended to be a tax all along, it never would have passed as one, so they called it a mandate to more or less get it through Congress. Knowing they already had 4 votes on SCOTUS to support it, no matter what it was called; all they needed was to convince 1 of the other 5 to go along. In rode Benedict Roberts(apologies to Benedict Arnold) to save the day.

So now the Admin. is trying to have it both ways. They're calling it a penalty now, so they don't have to defend passing the largest tax increase in the history of the world 4 months before the election. They hope if they say it enough, they'll convince enough people that it is so. They're counting on the stupidity of the American electorate.

40 posted on 07/06/2012 5:41:00 AM PDT by skully (My pets are Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Sorry, but that is not how I interpret the ruling.

Roberts ruled it can be applied as a duck(tax), but not as a fox or a snake.

The regime insists on calling it a fox/snake, not the court...the court said duck.


41 posted on 07/06/2012 5:46:21 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

All Levin’s rants amount to is this - The ONLY thing you serfs can do about this is VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!


42 posted on 07/06/2012 5:49:38 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

When is a tax not a tax, when it is a penalty.


43 posted on 07/06/2012 5:51:05 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

“Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?”

Because they don’t have the stomach for a fight with their masters.


44 posted on 07/06/2012 5:51:40 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
RE :”My original question asked how could it be constitutional?

constitutionality of laws is not decided on the Hannity or Rush shows believe it or not. just because they dont like the laws doesnt make them automatically nullified.

Obama only argued it was not a tax to the MSM to get it passed, they dont care about that now. In court they argued it could be seen as a tax making it constitutional. (And it does look like a income tax.)

It's long past time to move on from this silliness.

45 posted on 07/06/2012 5:52:27 AM PDT by sickoflibs (ABBBO chant: "We must support Romney because he doesn't matter." (Obam-ney Care is bad now ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: skully

Yes, but they do have a backup plan to keep the federal law regulating all medical treatment in place even if they lose the election. It’s called Romney. It’s also called “repeal and RELACE”.


46 posted on 07/06/2012 5:55:58 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bert

The law of land you say. And when a law favors some to the exclusion of others, is it still a law? When some are prosecuted while others escape, is it still a law?

Here are three charges against the King contained in the Declaration of Independence:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Sound like anyone we know? What was true then is still true. I REFUSE to accept this as law. It is a bureaucratic mess designed to rob us of our freedoms - AT BEST. At worst, it is a cold and calculated way to install a tyrant.


47 posted on 07/06/2012 6:00:30 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; ShadowAce; Cincinatus' Wife

I agree bills don’t magically become unconstitutional based on what people call them.

I say they don’t magically become constitutional based on what one man calls them either.

I also say, everything governmental has a process. That process needs to be followed in order to produce the desired result. So there’s no magic there, either. There’s a process.

Please see the thread by cincinatus’wife on Dr. Walter Williams calling for nullification by the states.

Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2903330/posts?page=3

And please see post #33, here, for another, excellent summation and overview of where we stand with this law.

Final words: don’t look to Roberts for the guideposts on how to proceed.

Do look to Congress, as it passed there, and to the Presidency, as it was signed there, to undo it, if we elect enough of the right people and hold them accountable, to REPEAL IT.

But the BEST way of all is to look to the STATES.


48 posted on 07/06/2012 6:01:15 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ngat
I know. I'm not thrilled that Romney is going to be President, but at least with him, and hopefully a more Conservative Congress; there's at least a chance for repeal. With Obama there would be no chance.

Sadly that's the hand we've been dealt.

49 posted on 07/06/2012 6:09:16 AM PDT by skully (My pets are Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EBH

I think we’re writing essentially the same thing. The Obama administration says the mandate is a penalty (even though they defended it before the SCOTUS as a tax). Congress called it a penalty. Roberts ruled it’s a tax. Like you wrote, a duck is still a duck even if someone says it’s a snake. (I wonder if a duck is still a duck if everyone knows it’s a snake, but that’s another issue entirely).

Roberts seemed to make the argument that legislative wording aside, constitutional interpretation cuts to the heart of what a bill does, not just what it’s called. As I recall, he claimed the mandate couldn’t be a penalty because it didn’t have criminal penalties, the IRS couldn’t enforce it the same way as other penalties, etc.

I’m not really defending Roberts so much as saying I think I under what he was getting at. I personally find the four conservative justices better, because they took the bill at face value. Even if the mandate really is a form of income tax, Congress passed it as a penalty. Should the SCOTUS uphold the right of Congress to deceive people in the bills it passes? The whole Obamacare fiasco is one deception layered on another. The whole thing is sickening.

Even if the US Constitution is null and void except for the favored few: abortionists and sodomizers, let’s not forget ANY of these expansions can be eliminated. Just because the SCOTUS says regulating interstate commerce means telling people they can’t grow their own wheat on their own farm for their own use, Congress doesn’t have to do so. The behemoth can be rolled back if we win elections. All Roberts did was prove the SCOTUS doesn’t have our backs. We must win elections.


50 posted on 07/06/2012 6:09:27 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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