Posted on 06/28/2012 11:50:49 AM PDT by nerdgirl
Chief Justice John G. Roberts is an evil genius. The ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act is, on its face, a win for President Obama both because the media are saying it is and because it is the signature piece of legislation of his first term. But it may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, as Roberts accomplished numerous, subtle victories for conservative Republicans.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/john-roberts-evil-genius-article-1.1103982#ixzz1z7DsG4zU
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Actually isn't his job to protect and defend the Constitution? You are full of it girl.
That’s a stupid argument, the court didn’t close down Route 66 (Commerce Clause) because you think the Ginsburg’s, Sotomayor’s, Breyer’s give a damn about precedents they don’t like.
Roberts opened up the Interstate Highway System to create the precedent of taxing inactivity thru the General Welfare clause of the preamble.
Simple. Congress has unlimited power to tax. There are no limits on what they can tax or how high they can jack the tax rates up to in the Constitution.
With Obamacare, the "penalty" is an income tax surtax which is permitted by the 16th Amendment.
However, after ruling as such, he stated that the Supreme Court would not permit Congress to tax with abandon and if a tax was "punitive" then the Court would rule it Unconstitutional.
However, Roberts wanted to rein in the Commerce Clause and did just that. He also nipped the "Necessary and Proper" clause. He went further and resurrected the 10th Amendment by telling the Feds that if they are funding something, they can't just threaten to cut off the funding.
Quite simply, he compromised and gave both wings of his Court what they wanted.
Now the fun part -- since Obamacare is now a tax, it can be challenged AGAIN in two years. This time without the media going bonkers over it, and it can be found Unconstitutional because HHS can't give a 'waiver' to a tax. Equal Protection and all that.
I am not a lawyer, but I do come from a family of them. This is what is going around presently.
Now the fun part -- since Obamacare is now a tax, it can be challenged AGAIN in two years.
But you are wrong because Roberts specifically wrote that it cannot be challenged as a tax. Now see his genius, now its a tax and now it isn't.
Yes it can, because of the HHS waiver system. You attack it through the fact that HHS can issue waivers.
Also, what has been lost here is that Roberts ruled that ANY regulatory mandate that regulates "inactivity" is Unconstitutional.
That is huge. That is gigantic. That is worth the price of admission. Think about how much of the Federal Government can be challenged simply because Roberts ruled that you can't "regulate inactivity" under the Commerce Clause.
Keep your eye on the long game. The short term will suffer some setbacks, but this is HUGE in terms of impact on Government's ability to issue regulatory demands.
The first time the Government issues a regulation to just go out and do something you aren't already doing, it can now be challenged using this precedent.
Also, The 16th does allow income tax, but not a tax for inactivity, hence congress' dependence on the commerce clause. Now, thanks to Roberts, they can just call it what ever they want and the court will fix it for them.
Congress can set a condition under which the tax is triggered. Remember, there are no limitations on the power of Congress to tax. There never have been. The Constitution is wide open in that regard.
It can still be litigated under the HHS waiver routine. You can always find someone who is an approved minority who is denied a waiver and then sue under the Civil Rights Act.
In a law this huge, there are always multiple targets. The obvious ones are sent up first. Then we go looking for nitpicky details.
Direct taxes are a muddled area but if it is a tax on income, then it falls under the 16th and is exempt from apportionment. But it is still subject to other rules.
But, my friend, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. Think about the Sackett case and the EPA. The Sacketts bought some land and EPA came piling in with a bunch of demands and fines based on their *commerce clause regulatory authority*.
Just because you own some land does not mean they can regulate you. Think about "inactivity". You may be a landowner, but you are doing nothing with your land.
How can EPA come in and regulate your "inactivity" under this ruling? The Sacketts had yet to break ground. There was no "activity" for them to regulate.
Put bluntly, regulatory authority has been restricted to actual activity now. Mandates under the Commerce Clause are now Unconstitutional.
Sure, Congress can tax you, but they have to pass a tax bill and that runs through the IRS, not the EPA.
As I said before, this is huge. Its just that people aren't realizing the ramifications of it yet.
You can bet some crafty attorneys are busy sharpening their teeth. This is a litigation gold mine.
It would be astoundingly hilarious if Roberts’ decision proved to be a victory for Liberty.
God Bless America... her story is far from over.
If that is so, why did they have to pass the 16th amendment.
And as far as lawyers contemplating appeals, thats what happens when you get a decision where the court has to twist itself into a pretzel to come to a conclusion.
In 1895 the Supremes ruled that a tax on personal property was a direct tax and had to be apportioned -- that was because the Feds were taxing rental income, interest income, and such as well with their 'income tax'. Yes, there was an income tax in the 19th Century. It started in 1861 to pay for the Civil War.
They didn't need the 16th Amendment to simply put an excise tax on wages.
In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. the Supremes ruled that the 16th gave *no additional taxing powers* to the Congress, but simply made it so that the courts could no longer rule that certain items were a direct tax and then subject to apportionment.
So as you see, Congress has had the power to tax anything they want since the Constitution was written. The manner in which they tax it -- that was up for debate and subject to the Supremes ruling on it. The 16th merely stopped the Courts from declaring certain items up for apportionment.
The Congress could have, in 1790, passed an excise tax on wages. The 16th simply removed the requirement to deal with certain things via apportionment. That is all it did. The 16th gave no new taxing power. It simply removed some items from the apportionment rule.
So even if we repeal the 16th Amendment, there is nothing stopping the Congress from putting forth an 'excise tax' on anything they want. The Courts have always ruled they can do that, subject to the few restrictions that Roberts lists in his decision like personal property.
But Roberts did stop a lot of the regulatory agencies dead in their tracks. This is a HUGE gift to us and in terms of rolling back Federal Power, is worth the price of admission as I see it.
Keep in mind, three years ago, everyone thought that a mandate could just run. Now we discover that a mandate is dead in its tracks. Neither Congress nor an Agency can just "order" someone to do something. They can only regulate activity.
I'll say it again: That is HUGE. People just don't appreciate the severity of it yet.
BTW, according to Mark Levin, who really is a lawyer, the so called "beat down" of the commerce clause is not a ruling of the court which would create a precedent since roberts did not join the 4 conservatives in this ruling, but issued his own separate opinion in the 5-4 decision. so it only applies to this case.
Congress can set a condition under which the tax is triggered. Remember, there are no limitations on the power of Congress to tax. There never have been. The Constitution is wide open in that regard.
was wrong.
You can hope all you want, but you aren't getting any argument and aren't really listening. Good luck in making lemonaid.
Oh and when you are done, explain why roberts ruling in the Arizona case was such a great decision.
My friend, I am not wrong. Congress can tax anything. The only rule they have to obey is whether it has to be apportioned among the states or not. That is it. The tax still stands whether we like it or not.
It has been that way since the Constitution was written.
I'm not going to comment on the Arizona case as I think it was a travesty. But this one, I've found a number of items that give me hope.
No lemonade needed; wait for the litigation. The first time that EPA starts making demands of a landowner who leaves his land fallow will see this case cited as precedent.
We want Federal authority to be curtailed. We got at least some of it here.
No Federal agency can issue a regulation any longer that compels people to activity. The Feds can only regulate existing activity.
I'm sorry you don't see that as being as huge as it is. It is a gigantic rollback of Federal authority. The leftie blogs are screaming about it.
I'm happy they are screaming. I want them to scream some more that their favorite toys have been taken away from them.
This is a long game. I am in it for the long term. It took decades to get into this mess. It will take a long time to dig ourselves out of it.
I have a shovel. Do you?
"...no limitations on the power of Congress to tax. There never have been."
DO you really not see that the fact that the 16th amendment was required proves your statement IN BOLD was wrong?
Honestly, you are starting to remind me of obama and his minions claiming the mandate is not a tax even after the scotus decision.
Lastly, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
No, it wasn't required to have the tax.
The ONLY thing the 16th did was remove the apportionment rule.
The Congress, in 1790, could have passed an income tax and sent it out to the States for Apportionment.
Now you want to tell me they couldn't have passed that tax at all?
My friend, please. Stop while you are behind. There never have been limitations on the ability of Congress to tax. The only question is how they collect the funds - either through apportionment or not.
The power to tax has never NEVER been questioned. Not even by the Supreme Court who has said, on a few occasions, "This needs to go out for Apportionment; as a direct tax it is unconstitutional."
The Supremes have NEVER said the Congress cannot tax. They have only said which method is used to collect the funds.
The only silver linings are that the state Medicare exemptions will likely kill ObamaCare. And that by approving it, Roberts has denied Obama a huge campaign issue for the fall, and re-energized Republicans and the Tea Party, and will likely DOUBLE the amount of money raised. Actually, those are pretty big ones.You left out: Gave the Republicans an anti-TAX battlecry for the 2012 elections... if they are smart enough to use it, and I mean really use it, not just sorta use it.
The Supremes have NEVER said the Congress cannot tax. They have only said which method is used to collect the funds
That is not a limitation?
That is why i asked you:
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
I don't give a damn what the lefty blogs are saying. They don't trust roberts for the same reason you are so adamant that he didn't betray you.
“Is it legal for anyone to force me to pay for NOT buying something?”
No lawyer here, but judging from the smug, arrogant looks on the faces of all those adolescent Progressives out there, it’s a moot point.
You’ll be getting prodded presently by Progressive intellectual geniuses who’ll take pleasure in “guiding” your behavior by way of their supreme brilliance.
IMHO
No, it is not. The tax still stands whether you pay it directly or it goes out for apportionment.
How they collect the money is irrelevant. That Congress can impose any tax they so desire IS relevant.
Take a hypothetical. The Congress wants a Property Tax on residential real estate. They can't do it as a direct tax, but they can do it as an apportioned tax.
Its still a property tax. It still stands. However, when apportioned, it goes out to the States.
The Congress gets its money still.
If the Congress levies a tax and they can get the money for it, no matter how they get the money for it, its a tax and it stands. Period.
They just don't like going the apportionment route because then they have to go after the States. But the power is still there whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
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.