Posted on 10/23/2013 4:56:24 PM PDT by dontreadthis
I of all people am for independent thinking and action on the part of people, but we have been sooo brainwashed by the government and U.S. press most people don't have a clue as to what is happening.
You should certainly do what you want, but I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY. Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at nesaranews.blogspot.com ...
Yeah good luck with that argument.....
Yep. Roberts basically said, "America can survive Ubama and the rats, but America cannot survive the morons who elect them. You elected this scum, America, and I ain't bailing you out. Good luck."
It doesn’t matter whether or not the Supremes ruled that it was unconstitutional. The fact that the very lawmakers who rammed this down our throats are exempting themselves from this so-called law, makes it unconstitutional.
Bullcrap. The bottom line is he voted with Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, etc. for this pile of crap. The rest is just noise.
And you are equally wrong....good luck trying to win any case against the IRS or in court against Ocare with your ‘legalese’
Roberts unconstitutional rationalization was so clever that it was actually retarded.
Don't worry about it - it wasn't written for your level of comprehension.
How Chief Justice Roberts Screwed Americans in His Totalitariancare Ruling.
FURoberts
FUUSSC
FUCONgress
FUBO
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Check with Mark Levin or Clarence Thomas or maybe even Scalia.....they all disagree with you and your ridiculous argument
Indeed, the analysis is tortured as well. Ultimately, all Roberts had to do to shoot this down is join the majority opinion— that the people cannot be compelled by their govt. to buy a product, insurance (or anything else). It is as simple as that. And the mandate is a tax (which is what obamaumao’s people argued) as such it should have originated in the House and since it did not— is not Constitutional, either or enforceable.
Civil disobedience in regard to the penalty,fine, tax whatever— does not have criminal consequences, but enforcement has yet to be seen. The country is being turned inside out by the power freaks in the dem party. And they will suffer— in many ways.
Roberts sold us out.
It’s just that plain.
I’m impressed by the explanation and I didn’t find it too confusing, merely too wordy. Justice Roberts called it a tax and a tax can only arise in the House of Representatives which this tax did NOT. The Dems then began calling it a tariff. A tariff is a tax on imported goods which has nothing to do with this law.
>>>Civil disobedience in regard to the penalty,fine, tax whatever— does not have criminal consequences, but enforcement has yet to be seen. The country is being turned inside out by the power freaks in the dem party. And they will suffer— in many ways.>>>
AGREED!
I would love for them to address this analysis. At the very least, they would give reasoned, specific responses rather than your schoolyard taunts, or the rest of the ridiculous levels of namecalling on this thread.
And what is the sum total of the justification for all this abuse? Incredibly, self-declared ignorance. "I didn't read it, so it's wrong." I can't concentrate long enough to understand it, so it's wrong." Lot's of really important people never mentioned this, so it's wrong."
LOL, the intelligence level of the responses on this thread don't crack 100. It's like reading a DU thread.
I must have touched a nerve to have stimulated such ignorant enthusiasm. And how very interesting that this thread is posted, after an entire year... today... of all days!
Fingerprints, fingerprints everywhere...
ain’t no C flat.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, it's "wordy" on purpose for two reasons. First is that it stuffs a lot of information into a relatively small space, and it's just hard to know what to include and what not. Second is that it was obvious when I wrote it that it was going to take flak, so I opted for explaining a little more, rather than a little less, to support the arguments and interpretations. It's really not an "article" - it really IS a legal analysis, because it has to be to make it's point. And legal analysis, by and large, are not light reading.
Also, there's one more important thing - it is based, in its entirety, on what Roberts wrote in his ruling. Roberts invoked these issues, terms and associations - I didn't. I just showed what he was directing everyone's attention to. He's a lawyer and a judge - those people live in a world of very careful definitions and terms and usages and phrases and contexts. That's what they DO. And the fact is that they, by "doing" that, set up the legal framework for our country.
So if Americans want to understand the law, they have to go where the law IS, not where they want it to be, and they have to study it as it IS, not as they want it to be. So that's what I did.
In essence, what Roberts did was legislate from the bench, something that Judge Bork noted was a growing problem during his approval hearing. He also played semantics with the words "penalties" and "taxes". After twisting and turning his opinion every which way, CJ Roberts arrived at his now infamous convoluted ruling that stuck us all with this pig legislation.
The nitwit who wrote this article ignores the thousands of pages of legal analysis following Roberts' ruling that highlighted how far he had to go around the bend to make a very poor, very weak argument to allow ZeroCare to become law. Dozens of legal analysts far more educated and experienced than nitwit all agreed that Roberts had more twists and turns in his opinion than pretzel dough, but nitwit thinks he knows better.
Gee, four "nitwits" to refer to one person. Four and one, what an interesting ratio. How clever.
And "nitwit" means "fool," and fool kinda reminds me of a... a tarot deck, yeah, that's it. My, my, you have been practicing your tracings, haven't you?
BTW, I'm the person who wrote the article. And I don't want to upset you or anything, but judgin by the level of comprehension and communication skills you've shown in your posts on this thread, I seriously do not reccommend you look for legal analysis work.
May I suggest, instead, something that allows you to hit things with a large hammer? As long as it doesn't require you to chew gum at the same time?
I stopped reading at about the point quoted above.
When a law states that the term person "includes" certain people, that does not constitute a definition of the term; it merely clarifies that the definition includes some who might not have been explicitly included previously.
According to a law professional in #14, who you, curiously enough, haven’t addressed with your insults, the article is ‘nonsense’. I concur.
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.