Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Your first mistake is assuming that the courts are objective, and rely on the constitution.
answer:
Because it is ONLY a tax for non-Moslems who are not
related to, or working for, those very special,
unique, powerful, self-serving, members of Congress.
Exactly! And how can it originate in the Senate?
There were many waivers granted when Social Security was formed. You will note they are now going after those assets too.
The waivers are all temporary. In concentration camps some prisoners were given power and privileges over the others and considered themselves immune from the horrors. But in the end they too died. So shall the unions and special interests lose their waivers once their support is no longer needed.
you have raised an excellent point. I think you should write your representatives. seriously.
it IS unconstitutional...
read Roberts ruling...
then ask yourself one question..
why would fubo delay implementation????
Absolutely right! But in politics, logic means nothing. In communism, and in American politics, logical contradictions are created, handled, and sustained every day.
In politics, everything is done for its expediency. If it furthers the cause, it’s good.
Everything about liberalism is logically contradictory.
I want to know exactly how the bill is worded,if you pay attention all the media is Talking about is the “mandate”taking effect on Jan 1st,but what exactly is the mandate and how is it worded in the actual bill.
I hear that the word penalty is used as being applied if you don’t purchase Health insurance,but the court ruled that unconstitutional,you can’t penalize someone for not purchasing a product,so Obama’s lawyers said ok,it’s a tax,Roberts said ok,the Congress does have the power to tax so the bill is ok.
So now does the bill actually say the mandate is a penalty or does it say it’s a tax,I don’t think this question has been decided at all because it has not yet been implemented,once it is someone can then challenge it in court as unconstitutional,by forcing someone to buy a product from a private business,and I believe John Roberts stated this in his decision when he said he could not rule on this part of the law being constitutional until someone has been harmed by it.
In the legal realm they argued that it was a tax. In the political realm, they argued that it was not a tax. They seem to able to have it both ways. A partisan media helps.
the IRS makes tax deals all the time.
I think we all missed the “Common Crap” lesson: The president makes sure the laws are fair.
Roberts altered the entire concept of law-making with his pretzeled decision on Obamacare.
With his ‘you voted for them, so live with their laws’ decision, he basically negated the courts regarding constutionality of any law Congress passes.
His precedent will impact all future legislation. Roberts did as much damage to the 3-branches of government concept as Obamacare will do to our health/insurance industries.