Posted on 09/25/2013 11:16:02 AM PDT by JOHN W K
After reviewing the constitutionally authorized taxing powers granted to Congress and the limits placed upon each specific kind of tax, a question arises as to which specific taxing power granted to Congress can be pointed to and levied as Obamacare’s "shared responsibility payment" and be within the limits of the specific tax pointed to.
Roberts never answered this question but merely indicated the individual mandate tax levied upon those failing to have federally approved health insurance is to be collected along with income taxes.
And so, a question arises as to which constitutionally authorized taxing power granted to Congress, when adhering to the constitutional limits placed upon it, can be pointed to and be levied as a "shared responsibility payment"?
We can immediately exclude imposts and duties as being the taxing power allowing the individual mandate tax because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.
And in reference to the power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes can be levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter, and may also be levied upon a particular piece of property or is use. But I cannot imagine how this power of taxation may be used to levy the “shared responsibility payment”.
With reference to the power to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without apportionment, this taxing power requires a realization of profits or gains which then becomes the subject of taxation. But the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a profit or gain, collectively called “income”. The subject matter being taxed is a failure to have federally approved health insurance which triggers the tax and obviously excludes this taxing power to be used to levy the shared responsibility payment.
But we still have Congress’ power to lay and collect direct taxes, but direct taxes by our Constitution, requires an apportioning among the States which Obamacare’s individual mandate tax fails to do.
When Roberts wrote that “The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States”, he totally ignored the historical characteristics which identify a direct tax as understood by our founders. In fact, the shared responsibility payment is characteristic of a direct tax! A review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were familiar with, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:
“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.
The shared responsibility payment is in fact to be computed from the wages which working people earn, and thus takes the form of a direct tax as understood by our founders!
There seems to be a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'
Is it not a fact that the shared responsibly payment is proposed to be assessed from a working person’s annually earned wage, and not upon a thing which the individual is free to acquire or reject? And so, if Roberts was right and the individual mandate is an exercise of the taxing power, the question remains unanswered as to what tax authorizes Congress to enter a State and directly tax the people therein for not having federally approved health insurance?
JWK
If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?
The 16th amendment basically overrode the apportionment clause:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Although, on reading it, that refers to an income tax. So you may be right. Never mind.
I like your definition best (above), but I think to Roberts, who was looking for some way, any way to justify this, the subject matter being taxed is "existence," which makes it a Capitation Tax? I think that's an incorrect view, because you can avoid the poll tax by purchasing something. IANAL, so my opinion on this isn't worth much, admittedly, but it seems to me one has to consider the insurance premiums a Capitation Tax, and that violates all the words in Webster's Dictionary.
Sometimes it's a tax, sometimes it's a fee, depending on which definition works best at any given moment.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle of federal regulation.
The individual penalty is not a tax on income. It is a tax on lack of action—that is, not having insurance.
It rectified differences in incomes.
Wages could always be taxed as an indirect tax. Rent on property could not until the amendment was passed.
the supreme court held there was no difference in taxing property directly and taxing the rent gained from the property, that both were direct taxes on property. That was the injustice that the amendment was to correct.
I believe you are correct, however John Roberts said it didn’t matter and only his opinion counts.
Good points. Listening to Harkin defend the ACA, one can see that it is income redistribution. He’s talking about all the new benefits some people will get (while other people, the ones who have been responsible all along, will have to pay for them; he doesn’t mention that part of it, of course). He thinks he’s making such amazing sense, but he’s just enumerating the specific ways in which income will be redistributed.
FUJR!
MAKE DC LISTEN: TELL YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE CLOTURE ON H.J. RES 59
We must oppose cloture on H. J. Res. 59, so that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats cannot sneak in funding for Obamacare. We need you to call your Senators right now: tell them to oppose cloture on H.J. Res 59 and remind them that a vote for cloture IS a for funding Obamacare.
State Senator Party Phone
AK Mark Begich D (202) 224-3004
AK Lisa Murkowski R (202) 224-6665
AL Jeff Sessions R (202) 224-4124
AL Richard C. Shelby R (202) 224-5744
AR John Boozman R (202) 224-4843
AR Mark L. Pryor D (202) 224-2353
AZ Jeff Flake R (202) 224-4521
AZ John McCain R (202) 224-2235
CA Barbara Boxer D (202) 224-3553
CA Dianne Feinstein D (202) 224-3841
CO Michael F. Bennet D (202) 224-5852
CO Mark Udall D (202) 224-5941
CT Richard Blumenthal D (202) 224-2823
CT Christopher Murphy D (202) 224-4041
DE Thomas R. Carper D (202) 224-2441
DE Christopher A. Coons D (202) 224-5042
FL Bill Nelson D (202) 224-5274
FL Marco Rubio R (202) 224-3041
GA Saxby Chambliss R (202) 224-3521
GA Johnny Isakson R (202) 224-3643
HI Mazie K. Hirono D (202) 224-6361
HI Brian Schatz D (202) 224-3934
IA Chuck Grassley R (202) 224-3744
IA Tom Harkin D (202) 224-3254
ID Mike Crapo R (202) 224-6142
ID James E. Risch R (202) 224-2752
IL Richard J. Durbin D (202) 224-2152
IL Mark Kirk R (202) 224-2854
IN Daniel Coats R (202) 224-5623
IN Joe Donnelly D (202) 224-4814
KS Jerry Moran R (202) 224-6521
KS Pat Roberts R (202) 224-4774
KY Mitch McConnell R (202) 224-2541
KY Rand Paul R (202) 224-4343
LA Mary L. Landrieu D (202) 224-5824
LA David Vitter R (202) 224-4623
MA Edward Markey D (202) 224-2742
MA Elizabeth Warren D (202) 224-4543
MD Benjamin L. Cardin D (202) 224-4524
MD Barbara A. Mikulski D (202) 224-4654
ME Susan M. Collins R (202) 224-2523
ME Angus S. King I (202) 224-5344
MI Carl Levin D (202) 224-6221
MI Debbie Stabenow D (202) 224-4822
MN Al Franken D (202) 224-5641
MN Amy Klobuchar D (202) 224-3244
MO Roy Blunt R (202) 224-5721
MO Claire McCaskill D (202) 224-6154
MS Thad Cochran R (202) 224-5054
MS Roger F. Wicker R (202) 224-6253
MT Max Baucus D (202) 224-2651
MT Jon Tester D (202) 224-2644
NC Richard Burr R (202) 224-3154
NC Kay R. Hagan D (202) 224-6342
ND Heidi Heitkamp D (202) 224-2043
ND John Hoeven R (202) 224-2551
NE Deb Fischer R (202) 224-6551
NE Mike Johanns R (202) 224-4224
NH Kelly Ayotte R (202) 224-3324
NH Jeanne Shaheen D (202) 224-2841
NJ Jeff Chiesa R (202) 224-3224
NJ Robert Menendez D (202) 224-4744
NM Martin Heinrich D (202) 224-5521
NM Tom Udall D (202) 224-6621
NV Dean Heller R (202) 224-6244
NV Harry Reid D (202) 224-3542
NY Kirsten E. Gillibrand D (202) 224-4451
NY Charles E. Schumer D (202) 224-6542
OH Sherrod Brown D (202) 224-2315
OH Rob Portman R (202) 224-3353
OK Tom Coburn R (202) 224-5754
OK James M. Inhofe R (202) 224-4721
OR Jeff Merkley D (202) 224-3753
OR Ron Wyden D (202) 224-5244
PA Robert P. Casey D (202) 224-6324
PA Patrick J. Toomey R (202) 224-4254
RI Jack Reed D (202) 224-4642
RI Sheldon Whitehouse D (202) 224-2921
SC Lindsey Graham R (202) 224-5972
SC Tim Scott R (202) 224-6121
SD Tim Johnson D (202) 224-5842
SD John Thune R (202) 224-2321
TN Lamar Alexander R (202) 224-4944
TN Bob Corker R (202) 224-3344
TX John Cornyn R (202) 224-2934
UT Orrin G. Hatch R (202) 224-5251
UT Mike Lee R (202) 224-5444
VA Tim Kaine D (202) 224-4024
VA Mark R. Warner D (202) 224-2023
VT Patrick J. Leahy D (202) 224-4242
VT Bernard Sanders I (202) 224-5141
WA Maria Cantwell D (202) 224-3441
WA Patty Murray D (202) 224-2621
WI Tammy Baldwin D (202) 224-5653
WI Ron Johnson R (202) 224-5323
WV Joe Manchin D (202) 224-3954
WV John D. Rockefeller D (202) 224-6472
WY John Barrasso R (202) 224-6441
WY Michael B. Enzi R (202) 224-3424
- See more at: http://tedcruzforsenate.org/tell-your-senators-to-oppose-cloture-on-h-j-res-59/#sthash.CvqYzXvd.s4d7EOIg.dpuf
Is Roberts a heavy drinker of alcohol in the morning?
I have posted this many times, and, because it directly deals with the survival of the country, I will now post it again. Hopefully, someone will read it.
But in short, what it says is that Roberts addressed the fact that this "healthcare" law was placed within the tax code.
Ever wonder about that? Ever wonder why, since it's so huge, it's not just it's own section of federal law, like any other section of federal law?
That's what Roberts drilled in on. You use words like "individual" and "the people" without realizing that the tax code specifies these as very different things. "Individuals" and "persons" are not the same as "the people" - the former are corporate entities or people with corporate authority, and the latter are non-corporate human beings.
What Roberts ruled was based on these distinctions. He ruled that yes, Congress can tax a corporation any way it wants, but it cannot so do so to a non-corporate human being. And that that distinction applies to Obamacare.
But did anyone GET that? It certainly doesn't seem so.
If you want to read the details, and see what Roberts really did, and how brave and valuable and freeing his ruling actually was, read the following. Because we don't have to overthrow Obamacare if it doesn't apply to us in the first place, and THAT is was Roberts REALLY ruled.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Does this mean the penalty imposed on you when you fail to pay your taxes is itself not a penalty but a tax?
(Another legalistic mind-bender from the idiot in the black dress at the USSC. How embarrassing.)
A more careful reading tells us that your FAILURE to get the surgery will be the cause of a new tax on your income.
I don’t know, but contemplating Capitation Taxes this early in the day makes *me* want a drink....
But if you need to replace a valve, that’ll be extra because of the Medical Devices Tax. This bunch has you screwed coming and going, Raps....
No it didn't, it said that a tax on income was permissible. Direct taxes other than taxes on income still must be apportioned.
This would come into play in the case where someone who is self-employed shows a loss for the year. If they do not have income, a penalty (tax) for not having insurance would be an impermissible unapportioned direct tax.
As the godfather said, A good citizen is one who stays screwed....
Right. See my next post down. I realized my error.
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.