Posted on 07/29/2014 9:32:29 AM PDT by jazusamo
A key appeals court on Tuesday ruled that despite including a tax, Obamacare doesn’t violate the Constitution’s requirement that all tax bills originate in the House of Representatives, giving the Obama administration another health care win. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution. “Some exercises of the taxing power are not subject to the Origination Clause,” the unanimous panel concluded. The issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Since the key language of Obamacare came from the Senate, opponents then said it violated another part of the Constitution that requires tax bills — or, more specifically, revenue-raising measures — to begin in the House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So the Roberts said that Obamacare is not a valid exercise of the regulation of interstate commerce. Roberts said it was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing authority.
Despite Roberts' proclamation that Obamacare was a valid tax bill, the Circuit Court says it doesn't violate the origination clause because it isn't primarily a tax bill.
Not interstate commerce. Not taxing authority. What enumerated power does Obamacare fall under?
Depends on how you define “Constitution”.
There are two nations within our borders. There is The United States Of America and there is Democratland. The citizens of Democratland make their living by taking money from the citizens of The United States Of America. Some of the citizens of Democratland wear black robes.
There is also group of people called Coffee Can Republicans. These are the two faced RINOs that are kept in folgers coffee cans under the sink. The democrats bring them out whenever they need a few extra votes. The RINOs brag about it in public and call it “reaching across the isle!”
Also, what the meaning of “is” is.
You may not understand that many federal spending programs are unconstitutonal, these programs having been established under Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR in the 1930s and 40s. FDR was reelected enough times that he was able to nominate state power-ignoring activist justices who promoted FDR's unconstitutionally big federal government.
We will see.
I wish more people would realize this is where we are as a nation. It's been so turned upsidedown that it is no longer a government of the people, by the people. Instead it has become government by those in Democratland, for the benefit for those in Democratland. Like you said, the citizens of the U.S. are forced to support Democratland with little or no representation in government these days.
We truly are back in the days of taxation without representation.
CGato
Ad hoc enforcement of the law is what the left is all about. In other words, they are lawless.
The left is looking for and pushing for an “excuse” to fulfill their fondest dream of using the power of the State to punish and exterminate those who oppose them.
There are still two law suits still to go before the supreme court. The one I am most familiar with is the Hotze suit.
I still hold hope that this law which originated in the house, was stripped of all it’s original content in the senate behind closed doors with little or no republican input will be found to be unconstitutional on grounds it violates the origination clause.
You can read more at this link:http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/08/Obamacare-Lawsuit-from-Houston-Moving-Forward
They threw Article 1 a bone a few months ago when they ruled Congress in session to invalidate Obama's fake recess appointments, but they just took the bone away when they disregarded the Origination clause just to protect Obama.
-PJ
Can you name one judge or one member of the House or the Senate who is willing to claim that Medicare is unconstitutional? I can't think of even one - not one.
We have a huge and growing glut of seniors right now and they vote. Maybe when they're gone, our politicians and judges will take a fresh look at the constitutional limits of federal power. Until then, the federal government will continue to be up to its neck in our healthcare system unless the people themselves boycott that system to force change.
They are ALREADY doing that with the current Constitution, CURRENT LAWS passed by The People (i.e.: Homosexual marriage bans) are being struck down in an avalanche of judicial orders from on high.
Why would you think any Amendment V laws passed and ratified would be immune from the same treatment?
Then it`s game on and SHTF
It is ALREADY GAME ON - the shitte is ALREADY hitting the fan (Southern border invasion - instant Amnesty anyone?) but the majority of the people are fast asleep and this regime is licking their chops for some Conservative to do something that will give them the justification for what they are prepared to do to us.
It's win-win for them now. If we do nothing - they impose themselves without any opposition and the slow grind to oblivion will crush us all- OR - if we resist, they put all that military hardware they are stockpiling to work against those of us they have spent years demonizing and preparing the people to accept the punishment of.
We are under Judgment. These are the consequences of a people gone wicked with the nation's churches and synagogues sitting on their hands in mute silence and capitulation.
Who cares what judges or members of Congress think about Medicare?
I have already posted 5 excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions which reasonably clarify that the states have never delegated to the federal government, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish federal programs like Medicare.
So are you choosing to ignore what the Supreme Court has said about this issue because Constitution-ignoring judges and members of Congress are telling you what you want to hear?
No, I'm well aware of the history of those decisions.
The Butler case (the most recent of the cases you cited) was decided in 1936, one year before "the switch in time that saved nine." In early 1937, there was an abrupt change in the opinions of the Supreme Court on the question of federal power. One of the decisions in 1937 (post-"switch") found that the Social Security program was constitutional.
You began this exchange by pointing out that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a "federal public healthcare program." i just pointed out that that analysis would render unconstitutional the Medicare program and that, while you and I might believe that program is unconstitutional, no one who is close to any political or judicial lever of power in this country agrees with us. And, when I say no one, I mean no one.
If the Obamacare tax is really a tax, it is a tax on what? A tax is usually a tax on something. John Roberts is a giant phoney calling it a tax. Every tax I can think of is a tax on something you get. This is a penalty paid on nothing to punish people for not succuming to Obama’s mandate that you buy health insurance, nothing else. No tax is a tax on nothing received. It is a penalty, nothing more.
Consider that for many generations, possibly from the time that the Constitution was ratified, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, the power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes not one of the fed's delegated powers.
As a consequence of epidemic ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers by FDR's time, voters simply did not question that the states had never granted the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to establish many of FDR's "New Deal" federal spending programs that he encouraged Congress to establish.
But given FDR's popularity, I don't understand why he didn't encourage Congress to propose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states for his programs. Then, given that the states had chosen to ratify FDR's amendments, Congress would have had the constitutional authority that it needed to establish FDR's government spending programs.
Instead, FDR made a fool of himself with his plan to increase the number of justices as if he didn't understand the Constitution's amendment process.
Regarding what judges and lawmakers would say about the constitutionally of Medicare, please consider the following. The basic reason, imo, that post-FDR, institutionally indoctrinated judges and federal lawmakers would say that Medicare is constitutional is likely because they are as clueless or indifferent about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as presidents who appointed them and the voters who elected them are. I suspect that, unless they lurk in FR, they have never seen the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions that were previously posted.
Also, note that many corrupt federal lawmakers probably ran for office just so that they could fill their pockets with their "fair share" of the tsunami of constitutionally indefensible taxes that are going to DC. Here's the relevant excerpt from Gibbons v. Ogden again.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
You quote Justice Marshall in Gibbons:
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.”
Who can disagree with that?
In Mcculloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall held that the federal government had the power to create a national bank. Where is that in the constitution?
Marshall agreed that the federal government is "one of enumerated powers." Marshall then acknowledged that "[a]mong the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation." Shouldn't that be the end of the matter? Nope:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."
I'll let you read the whole opinion for yourself. Marshall is really just regurgitating similar arguments that were made by Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton in opposition to the objections of Secretary of State Jefferson during the Washington administration. (BTW, Washington sided with Hamilton on the U.S. Bank.)
The legitimacy of implied federal powers under our constitution concerns an argument that people began having during the Washington administration in the 1790's. You and I seem to agree with Jefferson that the use of implied powers will mean that there are no real limits on federal power. FDR (and just about everyone else now it seems) tends to agree with Hamilton, Washington and Marshall.
So, you and I are a bit behind in this game. ;-)
A tax?
Roberts was focused on the individual mandate as a tax, not on the Origination Clause. He decided the mandate was a tax in order to avoid finding that it was an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause (which was what the bill's authors actually intended).
But the bill actually contains a slew of new, unambiguous taxes, such as the medical device tax. The individual mandate was one among many.
Okay, but the fact is that Roberts will look like a dolt if he ruled the Obamacare tax was constitutional the first time but rules that another aspect of the Obamacare tax makes it unconstitutional the second go round.
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.