Skip to comments.What am I Missing? [Vanity}
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?
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.
All Levin’s rants amount to is this - The ONLY thing you serfs can do about this is VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!
When is a tax not a tax, when it is a penalty.
“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.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
Sadly that's the hand we've been dealt.
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.
The day Obama signed the ACA, it became law. The two year long court battle only delayed its implement. And last Thursday, it is full steam ahead. Besides, the bunch of thugs really are not concerned about law abiding (Eric Holder, need I say more?).
All Republicans can and have said they will do, is after the election if Romney wins presidency and Republican control both houses. We can only HOPE this time GOP won't negate their promise, and my prediction is they will go wishy washy on us again.
Who cares how the constitution set up the federal government? The states can nullify any action they see fit to. The federal government is not the neighborhood policeman sent to bash the states over the head. It’s the other way around.
Actually, I think the contraception mandate IS being fought in the courts as we write. Obamacare, in its entirety, is far from settled law. Other provisions will be contested as they arise. I think the individual mandate was only challenged first, because it seemed like a slam dunk. However, I agree with your point that the Roberts Court is left leaning. Kennedy, for example, is no sure vote for the right.
Actually, I don’t even like to consider it as right or left. It’s called obeying the clear intent of the constitution and upholding the rule of law versus warping the law to mean whatever one wants. In that case, the court definitely favors the barbarians.
Oh brother, this explains alot.
There in lies what I am trying to get at. The court can't rule about procedural stuff in Congress. They rule on the law and/or the intent of the law.
Now that it has ruled and found the snake is indeed a duck, and the regime insists on still calling it a snake...it is a bait & switch. A fraud.
If the 0bama campaign continues to try and bait & switch a Supreme Court ruling to win the election, is there not some further recourse?
And I am asking, I wonder if a duck is still a duck if everyone knows its a snake, but thats another issue entirely.
This conversation reminds me of this trick.... Penn and Teller - cups and ball trick
Have a vote. Is it a penalty or a tax.
Repubs should introduce a bill declaring it a penalty not a tax.
Let the dems vote against it or pass it and let Zippo veto it.
Dems claim they didn't pass a tax, let them vote on it and make it clear it's not a tax, or make it clear it is a tax.
>>> Actually, I dont even like to consider it as right or left. Its called obeying the clear intent of the constitution and upholding the rule of law ....
Sad, isn’t it?
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Until we get some representatives with the courage of founding fathers, I am not sure how we beat this back short of some level of physical resistance which results in the government resorting to imprisonment or violent suppression of those who resist. Even then, I doubt the will of the Congress to act. I have a very real sense of trepidation that our children will experience the same risk and strife as those in the Revolutionary and Civil wars.
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.