Chief Justice John Roberts gives Obama and Democrats a Trojan Horse

The Washington Times Communities ^ | June 29th, 2012 | Amanda Read

[SincerelyAmanda]

After wounding socialism, why didn’t Roberts go for the glory and slay Obamacare while he could? Chief Justice stepped aside to let We the People do the honors.

[chainsaw]

Chief Justice stepped aside to let We the People do the honors.

Chief Justice wimped out, because he couldn’t take the heat.

[philman_36]

They re-wrote the law to fit their needs in order to make it Constitutional.

Here is the syllabus...

@NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

What, in your opinion, was "rewritten"?
Here is the Court's opinion of how the bill was written...

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

I'm frankly shocked to see so many on here falling for it.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I see a Justice who exposed an income tax that some in Congress were deliberately trying to hide from being recognized as such.
I think you need to read the decision again, but that's just my opinion.

[philman_36]

Congress did not vote to pass a tax bill.
That's funny! What kind of bill did they pass then?

If it had been considered a tax bill, it's doubtful it would have ever made it out of committee.
Yet there is example after example of taxes being levied in several places in the bill and many of them were noted.
Here is an article from www.washingtontimes.com from 2009...
EDITORIAL: Obamacare’s tax hikes

The bill does contain new taxes — plenty of them. Pages 167 and 168 impose an income tax of 2.5 percent on any individual who chooses not to buy government-approved health insurance. Pages 149-150 impose a tax of between 2 percent and 8 percent on the payrolls of all companies whose payrolls exceed $250,000. Pages 197 and 198 outline income tax surcharges to be imposed on individuals with incomes over $350,000, rising to a highest surcharge of 5.4 percent.
I've got plenty of other examples, some even from the websites of our legislators where they knew the bill imposed new taxes if you would like to see them.

Not reading the bill is biting some in the backside now.
Simply raging against the machine isn't an effective debate technique.

Telling me that that particular Democrat majority Congress didn't know exactly what they were doing is BS!

[philman_36]

Do you consider the Washington Times "liberal lamestream meadia BS"?

I used one of their 2009 articles. You might find it of interest as well as to what was and wasn't known way back then.

They called it an income tax well before the Court did...which is what that Democrat majority tried to hide through word craft.

[Bratch]

But if it's a tax bill, it shouldn't have been considered by the courts until the taxes are actually levied.

The Chief Justice seems to want to be able to have it both ways. I disagree.

Either it's not a tax bill, and

- the courts can rule on the case,

- it's unconstitutional because the mandate can't be justified by the Commerce Clause.

Otherwise, it's a tax bill, which means the courts have no standing yet to consider the case.

Confusing, ain't it?

[PGalt]

WELCOME ABOARD! Interesting post, fascinating thread.

Thanks to every poster. BTTT!

[philman_36]

“Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the (health care) statute to change this from a requirement, or mandate, to an option to buy insurance or pay a penalty,” Barnett explained. “This is far less dangerous than had the mandate been upheld under the commerce power. Because a Commerce Clause regulation could be upheld up to and including imprisonment as drug laws are, but this power is limited to paying a tax (for those who pay taxes) and can be as politically toxic as taxes are.”

Once again I go to the decision for an answer, not an article...

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

If the question hadn't been raised it wouldn't have been necessary to address. Since it was it had to be...and it was.

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
The individual mandate is another progressive income tax.

This tax thing is easily fixed.
Tell Congress to fix it by doing away with it!
(which is exactly what this article implies)

[usconservative]

I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I see a Justice who exposed an income tax that some in Congress were deliberately trying to hide from being recognized as such.

What you 'feel' is irrelevant to the discussion. Congress put into the legislation the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty."

It was Roberts who re-wrote the bill to use the word TAX.

What you're referring to is the Court's opinion of how the bill was written, not the bill itself. You're trying to justify a bad conclusion by making a wrong argument.

Is that deliberate on your part or not?

[Drew68]

Yes, but the Supreme Court is suppose to strike down bad laws, and this is a bad law.

No. It is the Supreme Court's job to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not it's good or bad law.

Bad law? Absolutely. Bad laws are what we get when our fellow countrymen elect Democrats. But is it constitutional? Five Justices appear to believe it is.

[philman_36]

But if it's a tax bill, it shouldn't have been considered by the courts until the taxes are actually levied.
Wasn't it necessary to first find out if it was even Constitutional to enact such a tax?

Confusing, ain't it?
Not really. The cart comes after the horse, not before.

[philman_36]

I'm frankly shocked to see so many on here falling for it.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything.

What you 'feel' is irrelevant to the discussion.
Boy, you sure are trying to twist what I wrote, aren't you.
Not very nice at all.

It was Roberts who re-wrote the bill to use the word TAX. Congress put into the legislation the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty."
You and I differ on this then. To me Roberts exposed the individual mandate as the income tax that it was all along.

Psssst...Congress also put into the legislation the words "tax" many, many times. Or did you not know that?
The Democrats and the crafters of the bill tried to hide that tax...don't you get that? They tried to BS people and you're berating the man who is telling you..."Hey, I'm here to tell you that they're putting an income tax on you and they tried to be sneaky in doing so by using the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty" instead of tax."

I can't believe you're falling for that trick.

[Bratch]

Wasn't it necessary to first find out if it was even Constitutional to enact such a tax?

Sure. After the tax has been levied.

We can't allow them to call it a mandate just to justify considering the bill, then change it to a tax after the fact. If this precedent survives, the Supreme Court will have unlimited power.

Which I'm afraid has already happened.

[sand88]

but protecting the American people from future socialist interpretations of the Commerce Clause

I strongly suggest that you call into Mark Levin's show on Monday and discuss this matter with him.

He clear explained on Friday that Robert's ruling in no way limits future CC issues.

I am sorry you set upon yourself to justify Robert's decision.

I pray in twenty years you go back to what you wrote. I have no doubt you will say to yourself, How can I be so naive.

If you have time please read, The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. You will learn the true nature of most in government, including the disHonorable Roberts.

[sand88]

In 20 places, a tax was called a tax.

Please show me in the actual bill where this is stated.

[philman_36]

We can't allow them to call it a mandate just to justify considering the bill, then change it to a tax after the fact.
That's just it! It wasn't done "after the fact".
As I gather from what the opinion says, from the way the bill was written in the first place everyone should have known the individual mandate was a tax to begin with!
The Democrats tried to sneak it through, plain and simple, with nobody being the wiser! That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Snip... Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one. Snip... The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below. It really isn't that hard to understand. They got what they asked for and now they have to tell the American people that they lied to them.
If it isn't the one thing then give us the other...and brother, did they ever get it!

[philman_36]

randita - In 20 places, a tax was called a tax.

sand88 - Please show me in the actual bill where this is stated.

If I may...how about the actual law that was passed instead of the bill? Here is the link to the law.

@ Public Law 111–148 111th Congress
An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care

[PGalt]

A vast number of "We the people" are currently the most dumbed down, ill-educated, easily manipulated, guileless, ungodly, lazy, misinformed, unprincipled, parasites ever to inhabit the country, I'm not even including the millions of illegals here sucking off the system

Thanks for your link; post/sentence

Fascinating thread bump!

[PGalt]

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.

The Law - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

[PGalt]

“...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...”

C’mon November

[FredZarguna]

As you eventually discovered, Roberts' statement -- I won't dignify it by calling it reasoning -- eventually gets around to insinuating that the tax is an "Income Tax."

This is "permitted" because Amendment XVI grants Congress the power to tax "income" from whatever source derived. Implicitly, it also grants Congress the power to tax the income of any legal entity, although so far its greedy claws have found only individuals and corporations. [Fear not! Leftists are noting if not creative, handed the right weapons.]

The real conservatives on the Court were having none of it:

Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 38 (1922).

Too many of the commentators holding (very desperately) forth that Roberts' has "cleverly" boxed the left into a corner have siezed on a syllabus which allows them to indulge their Pollyanna fantasies, of which they will disabuse themselves very quickly if they would simply read the conservative dissent, which is blistering and merciless.

A sample:

The values that should have determined our course to- day are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty. The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it. For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act in- valid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent