The Republicans will back off of OBAMATAX leading up to the election because Obama will beat the drum of ‘discrimination’ and they’ll cower.
Go get ‘em, tiger.
Events if commiecare is repealed, they now have a precident for unbelievable power.
Yeah nothing like seeing Obama trolls like you out today trying to assure his reelection.
For once, I completely agree with you, Tom.
“I will NOT be a ward of the State.”
###
Money feeds the beast. Rhetoric aside, it is, and always will be, the key to power.
So we can assume you will NOT be paying your taxes? Let us know how that works out.
You tell them, Tom!
Reject Obama!
Reject Romney!
Reject Obamacare!
Reject Romneycare!
Over the years I’ve come to the realization the court system is a joke. Laws aren’t followed and upheld. Rulings are made to mirror political leanings. The public is scammed. The Constitution has been twisted. Judges are power-hungry.
Just what we need. Another Presidential candidate declaring he’ll ignore the SCOTUS.
So much for your big talk about the Constitution.
Romney’s on now...sounds weak to me. He should be angry!
So, the federal government can now mandate commerce; they simply need to represent it is a negative tax: Buy this or else get taxed. So much for the US Constitution.
The US Supreme Court also ruled recently that all property is subject to confiscation to be sold for profit of the government with the owner getting what the government decides to give them. Combined with this ruling the property owner can now be taxed the entire amount of the proceeds and receive nothing.
We are now literal slaves to the government.
Since the federal government refuses to obey the constitution we should too! REVOLT!!!
The Constitution is too vague on what is a tax bill and what is not a tax bill. It clearly says that tax bills must originate in the House. The 16th Amendment is meant to give the Congress the power to tax incomes.
Over the years, Congressional rules and laws have become such a huge pile of complex, ambigous and contradictory mess that we now have this behemoth nobamacare bill (written by the nightmarish combination of the statists/new left and healthcare “industry” lobbyists) being declared a tax bill by the ever-illogical, half-partisan, mostly-confused SCOTUS.
This is the Court that upholds the right to fornication by ensuring that unwed mothers can kill their babies as long as they do it early on (it’s not about murder, it’s the fornication that is “wanted”; the murder is simply getting rid of the “unwanted” child).
The idea of a “tax bill” or “revenue bill” could quite simply be made clear in the Constitution. A tax bill should have NOTHING else in it.
If the taxes and the mandates for nobamacare were in two separate bills, and the tax bill had to originate in the house, it would have been even harder to get them passed politically. And the mandate bill would have had to undergo scrutiny as to whether the mandate was Constitutional on it’s own, without regard to it’s even being considered a tax.
Politicians don’t want that though, because they “get things done” by what is called horse trading, e.g., well, I’ll vote for your tax if you vote for my highway project, etc.
We are so far from the original intent of the founding of America that it would unrecognizable to people of that day. In fact, they undoubtedly would consider it even worse than the empire they broke away from, Great Britain, where at least perversion was still legally considered perversion.
So we are left with enormous ambiguity as to what the rules by which the framework of government operates are and this enables the power-hungry to shackle those who work, produce and pay taxes.
When Christians get out of public office, government, law, media and business ownership, unregenerate sinners jump into those positions. Those who do not assume a role of dominion become the dominated, as someone else will assume the role of dominion over them.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
NFIB v. Sebelius
Quote:
The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.
Quote:
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Quote:
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.
Thanks,
MCB