He gave the federal government the right to demand we buy something by simply calling it a tax and buying it for us. THAT is not a win.
I agree with this. Oh, I’d have liked to see it thrown out, but I really can see the upside.
It’s a tax. That’s why the IRS is enforcing it. A mandate IS illegal, a tax is not.
The Republicans have already raised millions of dollars today. Zero’s people were all set up to run their campaign on the Republicans denying people’s health care. Now it will run on this hugely unpopular law, that every doctor hates, that old folks are already seeing their benefits decline.
People HATE this law, in a bipartisan manner. Rush said it -”Obama is now responsible for the largest tax on the middle class in history”. Everyone knows it is death to the economy, to the budget. Last night Frank Luntz had on a whole bunch of Obama voters who hated this law.
The Senate is now well in play. The only problem I see, is that our Republican legislators, like all politicians, tend to lie their faces off about what they will do when they get in power. They view us as useful idiots.
PS Put my Gadsen flag out this am.
Assuming it’s truly a clever win, he perhaps forgot that most citizens won’t parse their way thru 200 pages of dense legalese. Practical upshot is the government does have an apparently unlimited power to tax not only activity, but mere simple existence - consequences of which will involve more than a brick.
Roberts, you Magnificent Bastard?
BS!
It is not their job to rewrite and legislate from the bench, which is what this is.
We have all lost today.
'John McCain is a genius for rising above the fray and not playing dirty politics.'
'Mitt Romney is a genius for not getting involved in the illegal immigrant argument and keeping the focus on the economy.'
'Roberts is a genius by upholding unconstitutional law so it can be brought back to SCOTUS and semantically declared unconstitutional.'
My favorite I heard today, 'Roberts is a genius and knew what he was doing all along; he just handed Romney the election.'
Question: If an attacker cuts my arm rather severely, does shooting myself in the head with a shotgun so I won't bleed to death make me -
A: A Genius
B: A Complete idiot
C: A Republican
D: Both B and C
Our country, our very way of life is being sold down the river and everyone thinks it's genius.
Yes, I wholeheartedly expect King Romney and his magic underwear to swoop in and save us by REPLACING 0care.
Let's see, under current sheeple logic this makes Romney like super-duper double genius with seventy-eleventy billion IQ points......he created Romney Care in Mass. (that was such a stunning success) so that 0bama and the commies in Congress would later use Romney Care as a building block for 0care, so that it could be used to take over and socialize the American people, so that it would go to SCOTUS, so it could be declared an unconstitutional constitutional tax, so that Romney could be elected President.......?
BRILLIANT why didn't I think of that?
Be no wonder the GOPe doesn't need to pick conservative candidates.......they just need ones as dumb as their constituents; that will call them "genius" on the paved highway to hell.
/rant
Chief justice Roberts is a fool. His genius just handed us Obamacare. Now it will be almost impossible to get out from under its thumb. They will start implementing it and once they’ve started, it will not be possible to turn back. Any other interpretation is dilirious.
B.S.
It’s ‘Robertscare’ now. He bought it. He owns it.
Remember that it is the “Individual” in question.
This term individual is used in sections 26 U.S.C. §1 and 26 U.S.C. §6012(a). It is never defined anywhere in the I.R.C. The reason it is not defined is that it would give away the IRS’ ruse. Therefore, we have to look in the legal dictionary for the definition:
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 773]
Note that this definition above does not necessarily imply a natural (biological) person. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code cannot be said to necessarily apply to natural persons. Here is the proper definition of “individual” in the context of the IRS form 1040 and within the meaning of the code, as we understand it:
Individual
An artificial federally-chartered entity, meaning a federal (but not state) chartered corporation or partnership or trust. Such an entity is a citizen of the “United States” because it must have a physical presence in the District of Columbia to be subject to the exclusive legislative or territorial jurisdiction of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This “individual” is NOT a natural person with income from outside the district (federal) United States who is living and working for a private employer in the 50 united States of America because of the restrictions on direct taxes imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution..>[1]
We will now examine the definition of “individual” found in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3):
26 CFR 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
(c ) Definitions
(3) Individual.
(i) Alien individual.
The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c).
(ii) Nonresident alien individual.
The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
The above definition ought to raise some BIG red flags! First of all, if you live in the [federal] United States** as a natural person, you aren’t an “individual” because the definition of “individual” doesn’t include citizens or residents of the United States**! This is the ONLY definition of the term “individual” found ANYWHERE in either the Internal Revenue Code or the 26 CFR Regulations. Therefore, the tax code can’t apply to you even if you claim to be a U.S.** citizen or a U.S.** resident! This is also consistent with our findings earlier. It also explains why a U.S. citizen is defined as someone who lives in the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa, as follows:
26 CFR 31.3121(e) State, United States, and citizen.
(b)…The term ‘citizen of the United States’ includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
The definition for “individual” that the government wants you to incorrectly assume, however, is that found below:
5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2):
(2) the term ‘’individual’’ means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
But this definition of “individual” is superseded by the only definition of “individual” found in the Regulations for taxes in 26 CFR 1.1441-1 above. You therefore can’t be a “individual” who can be the “person” against whom the income tax is imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 unless you either reside OUTSIDE the “United States**” under 26 CFR § 1.1441-1(c )(3) or you reside INSIDE the United States** and are not a U.S.** citizen. That’s why they created a definition of “U.S. citizen” that means you are living outside the United States (in the Virgin Islands) so they can “pretend” that you are taxable! That way, even when you tell them you live in the “United States” by giving them an address in the 50 states on your tax return, they can still claim that you live in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands because of your status as a “U.S. citizen”! This whole scheme can be confirmed by ordering a copy of your Individual Master File (IMF) from the IRS and looking at the transaction codes on the IMF. If you look at your IMF and you have been filing 1040 forms for a while, chances are your record reflects that you reside in the Virgin Islands, even if you really live in one of the 50 states outside the federal zone! That’s why the IRS made the Publication 6209, which is used for decoding the IMF file, “For Official Use Only”, which is short for “Don’t let Citizens get their hands on this at all costs!”. They know they are committing fraud and they don’t want you, the Citizen, to know the horrible truth and expose that fraud, because then they lose their ability to claim “plausible deniability”.
I bet this all sounds pretty crazy to you, right, but I swear to God it’s the truth! These are the kinds of sneaky tricks that IRS lawyers make their living dreaming up in order to make the illegal fraud and extortion called the income tax look more “civilized” and believable and well hidden from public view. If they wanted it in public view, they would have put the definitions of “U.S. citizen” and “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code right? But they instead buried it deep inside regulations that few Citizens ever view and only the agency itself usually looks at because they wanted to hide it!
The above definitions of “Alien individual” and “Nonresident alien individual” in 26 CFR §1.1441(c )(3) can also seem a little confusing initially. You will find out that we suggest to people later in this book (in section 5.6.9 to be exact) that they should renounce their “U.S.** citizenship” and become “U.S.*** nationals”. However, looking at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) above leads one to believe that they cannot be a nonresident alien if they are a “U.S. national”. However, “nonresident aliens” are defined below:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/individual.htm
-PJ
Who is this author “I.M. Citizen” and what mental defect does he suffer from? It must be a doozy of a handicap because Roberts just set the single worst precedent since Wickard v. Filburn — that the govt can now *COMPEL* you to engage in commerce when you have no need or desire to under penalty of an additional tax.