**click to donate - help FR fight to end this madness!**
Posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:07 PM PST by STARWISE
This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!
Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).
The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours -- are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.
But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn't check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President's men say it's not a tax; in court, they say it is.
If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:
President Obama faces reelection in November 2012. ObamaCare doesn't go into full operation until January 2014. The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015. The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.
Until now, everyone has been assuming the Court will rule on the law's constitutionality in early July, five full months before the 2012 elections.
And we've all been assuming that, however the Court rules, the ruling will provide voters with a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?
Alas, today's development calls that assumption into doubt. The Court might punt!
The expanded time given to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act issue suggests two things:
1) The high Court is taking seriously the idea that the mandate is a tax -- the strongest possible basis for finding ObamaCare constitutional.
2) If the Court decides that the mandate is a tax, it may be forced to postpone a ruling on the mandate's constitutionality until after the tax has actually been collected on a citizen -- three years hence.
Today's development is just another reason why we cannot count on the courts to repeal the government takeover of health care. However the Supreme Court finally decides, we citizens must keep fighting to protect our threatened health care liberties in the halls of Congress -- and at the ballot-box.
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy
P.S. Last week, we filed a formal legal brief in this important litigation.
Here is the problem as I see it. The number of informed voters who understand and defend the intent of the Constitution are in the process of being dwarfed by the number who don't understand it and are anxious to give the government absolute power in exchange for stuff, ease and perceived safety.
So yes, it is all well and good to say that we should know that it is up to us to consent or not consent to the government's power, but that isn't happening anymore. When it did happen, we got good government, or at least better government. When the government feared the people, we got better government.
It is great that you are making the effort to really understand the purpose and details of the US Constitution. Meanwhile, more than half the nation doesn't give a damn. They could care less what this old piece of paper says as long as they get their constant and ever increasing flow of benefits from the government. So those of us who know the Constitution are fighting a losing battle.
As Tyler noted, the average age of Democratic nations is about 200 years after which they self-destruct because the majorty of voters who are controlling elections realize that they can vote themselves more goodies and will vote in the lying bastard who promises them the most entitlements. We are beyond that point now.
I hate to say it is over, but it is over. We failed to keep the Republic, as Benjamin Franklin implied would happen. We failed to give future generations of Americans the remnant of the diminishing gift of freedom we received. This grieves me to no end. I wish we could make all the bums, slackers, takers, and ignorant fools read, learn and know the Constitution, but we can't. The Government schools have been putting out 30 years of brainwashed sheep who mostly have no knowledge or appreciation of their Constitutional rights against the government's power.
But then you have to again ask, "Why?" At some point, you start to come to some of the things Friedman talks about.
Post-Regean Lawlessness. Top-Down
1. Bureaucratic and government bondage, Fairfax and Connecticut-New York City.
2. “Financial” crisis of bureaucratic pensions, and retirements.
3. Plan: Arbeitsziehungslager: Permanent leverage system to secure so called “banks”, insurance company government contractors, Fairfax government, (movable goal-post)
Purpose: to bondage every individual. Arbeitsziehungslager
3. Bribes (lawlessness)+ selective discrimination (lawlessness), to pass Arbeitsziehungslager
4. “Passed”:
5. Current: CONSOLIDATION of Arbeitsziehungslager
6. Population x MOVABLE mandates/tax/fee bondage.
7. Free-ride Fairfax, Connecticut, New York.
“And where lawlessness increase, the love of many shall grow cold.”
Thou Shall Not Steal
Thou Shall Not Covet
The Word does not go out in vain.
No time to read the comments so sorry if this has been drummed in many times ...
The article states it is great for ZeroCare and Zero’s administration that the ruling may not come until 2016.
I disagree.
If SCOTUS fails to declare ZeroCare unConstitutional this year, the 57% or so of Americans who oppose it will be much more likely vote to turn out anyone who supported it.
That would be Zero’s and the Dems worst case situation.
Make sure you learn about this and pass it on to others in your class.
UCC 1-308
Does anyone sign their name “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308”? [Ron Paul’s website]
http://www.dailypaul.com/78775/does-anyone-sign-their-name-without-prejudice-ucc-1-308
THE UCC CONNECTION- by Howard Freeman
http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html
Hope this guy is grossly over-stating the situation to get attention and donations to his website...or something like that.
>Talk about a headline guaranteed to make a stomach drop! 2016 far too late to save America.
Is it? I don’t think so, God can and does perform miracles.
The big question, IMO, is if we will believe what God said in the New Testament:
“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” — 2 Chronicles 7:14
>They’re really begging the body politic to fix the problem. Once they dug in on letting Kagan participate, they found themselves in a credibility hole.
Many people clam that the Constitution is what the USSC says it is, if that is so then there are not three co-equal branches but the Executive and Legislature (being bound by the Constitution) are subordinate.
Many people claim that there is no way to be rid of a corrupt Supreme Court, but the Legislature CAN impeach them; but even if there was no such recourse (as seems the practical the case, given the Congress’s behavior) there is still the fundamental right of the people to “vote from the rooftops” — the Declaration of Independence said it thusly: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness], 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. [...] But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
>2016 huh?
>
>That’s exactly what I would expect from a “stacked” court. Doesn’t it seem strange that the decision will be made AFTER Obama’s reign?
It does, it does; and it also seems to indicate that they believe Obama’s going to get a second term*.
(* Romney, in this case, would likely be another Obama term.)
If the court rules the surcharge is a tax on omission of commerce... and is legal...
we’ve entered a fully Fascist system.
>I really hope the government starts doing what The People want and the Constitution requires. The other option is not pleasant, but is coming much closer.
It seems to me there is much wisdom in finding and joining (or forming) a militia. (Also in stockpiling ammo, food, and field gear.)
1. A mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance (or have it as part of employment).
2. A penalty if health insurance is not purchased.
It would seem the argument of what is or is not a tax could only be made for the second, penalty stage.
The Administration is [NOW] arguing before SCOTUS that the mandate is a "tax" - which is something that the Administration said IT WAS NOT when the bill was being debated in Congress.
Talk about talking out both sides of your ass ...
If the Administration is successful at SCOTUS [arguing the mandate is a "tax"], then the fine for NOT purchasing insurance IS legal.
If SCOTUS rules that the mandate IS NOT a "tax" [or that Congress exceeded its taxing authority] or that it violates the Commerce Clause [which it obviously does], the penalty would also be null and void ...
By 2016 it is certain that some of the present members of SCOTUS will be gone.
Even if the SCOTUS were to overturn 0bamacare tomorrow, the 0bama regime would simply ignore their ruling just like they’ve ignored upholding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is Federal Law.
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.