Posted on 06/28/2012 5:34:54 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
“Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.” With those historic words, the Supreme Court forced upon the United States a bleak dawn of a brave new world in which the federal government cannot be checked in its march toward totalitarianism.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld the joint venture of the President and Congress to force every American, regardless of ability or desire, to purchase a qualifying health care insurance plan by 2014 or face a tax penalty for failure to comply.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.
One practical effect of today’s ruling is that by removing the ObamaCare scheme from its safe and secure Commerce Clause mooring, the Supreme Court has rewritten the law and converted the individual mandate into a tax, thus placing it within the authority of Congress to define.
This is judicial activism at its finest. The Supreme Court was so determined to endow the federal government with unlimited power and to toss the notion of enumerated powers onto the scrap heap of history that it was willing to effect a fundamental change to the law as enacted by Congress and the President.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court not only re-wrote ObamaCare, but it simultaneously united the power of making and interpreting law into their own unelected hands.
As the states have become servants, they may yet regain their proper role as masters. In this there is hope, in fact.
The states, through the exercise of the Tenth Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities, may stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law and criminalizing state participation in administering or executing the unconstitutional provisions thereof.
Salve.
While many run on emotions, and surely they are right to be upset of this, this battle might be lost, but war is still ongoing.
I would like to bring something to this equation, from different prospective.
I call it Avalanche scenario.
1. With this ruling, taxes will have to be raised in order to compensate for all the suppose services giving to those who can’t or will not be able to have Health proper insurance.
2. Problem – sole purposes of business is to make profit, if small businesses, and I would like to emphasize this can’t or will not be able to afford taxes, or will decide to pass those taxes on products which will be the case, costumers will be hit in their packet harder as will others, who believe in free trading of assets.
3. After while majority of people will left work force for reasons that if you make 1300$ a week or two weeks and your check after deduction of this expenditure comes to 700$ that person better and will move from be a producer to be on government sponsors programs, therefore unemployment will rise, less revenue’s will be giving to Government, and you will have more people on paper money then real money. Absolute destruction of private enterprise.
4. Doctors as well private physician’s will have no choice but either to close their private clinics and move off shore, or removed themselves from system all together, this will hit preventive care as well all serious medical conditions, and most insurances will either not cover the treatments or will be force to raise premiums on those who have and work hard.
5. Majorities of companies will not be able to sustain heavy adding of services into insurances as many workers will decide to on government bailout then work, for it makes no sense to work, if you can receive same plan as those who do.
6. This will have unprecedented effect of effecting any business abilities in USA, as it will be too expensive to conduct research and development of new effective drugs, and other medicine, when majority will be on subsidies and will hamper on capabilities for Pharmaceutical companies to introduce new products, even with expenditure of governmental breaks out.
7. At the end once Avalanche process is finish, you have a good idea what will happen to rest of the country –…….
Now, this battle is not over, there are still some choices left, limited yes, they are still there. Now is up to you to unite and bring true conservatives to Both Chambers of your government. Real ones who know how to fight a real fight not a girly stance.
If I have offended any one, my apology, but more you cry less you will pee, time to start cleaning the house friends your style in your house.
Merci.
“VALID, TAXING POWER, BY CONSTITUTION
ILLITERATE, WRONG
The Bill and its Taxing Power originated in the Senate, not the House. That is NOT the way it works under the Constitution, Judge Roberts.”
Not only that traitor John Roberts also seems to have overlooked that such a taxed upon each american head is known as a Capitation, and must be apportioned among the States By population.
“no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Did traitor John find time to rewrite that apportionment into his law? If so how does it work dear dictator John? How much does my state of Texas pay?
ginsburg recently said it was “contentious”. The obama commie threats were directed at roberts.
The ruling is so incoherent that I can’t tell what exactly is establishes. I don’t see how it unmoors Congress’s taxation power from the requirement to be necessary and proper, even though it apparently did so in this particular case. How often does it happen that Congress passes a law involving a penalty that is then transformed into a tax by the Supreme Court? I think future laws involving taxes that don’t have this kind of magical birth will be subject to the necessary and proper requirement just like such laws always have.
obama threatens supreme court!!!...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/obama-threatens-the-supreme-court-again/
So let me get this right. The fact that the Obamanation insisted from the start that it wasn’t a tax should have had no bearing on the court’s (primarily Roberts’) decision that it was a tax?
Paying a tax for me to pay for someone’s abortion is against my conscience.
So what do we do? File a class-action suit?
That's true so long as Romney is elected.
Lets hope the states have the guts to take action under the 10th amendment, this could bring on a constitutional crisis but it’s long overdue. It’s time the states take a stand.
Roberts knows that. That’s the loophole for all of us to get out of this.
Roberts is far smarter than Obortion O.
I feel sure they did, to no avail. Or don't they try to persuade each other?
If so, it begs the question: how did they get to Roberts? Does Anyone think he was threatened? And if he was looking to his legacy by being "apolitical," if Obamanationcare is implemented he may not be happy with his position in history.
There is no doubt that Patrick Henry's cry is being heard today.
“The title isn’t quite right. They ruled that Obamacare WAS a tax, not necessarily that it was a permissible one....or did I not get that correct?”
Seems they ruled that as a mandate it’s unenforceable, but enforceable as a tax penalty which is a clear contradiction. That would still make it a mandate. Basically they ruled that purchasing health insurance can’t be mandated, but at the same time a tax can be imposed for not purchasing it, in other words we can’t force you to buy it, but we’ll tax you and force you to buy it. So the question is what kind of a tax is it since that doesn’t seem defined in the legislation, other than a tax on a person for non-compliance? Does it meet the criteria of a constitutionally legislated tax? I did read on some other threads that it may no be a permissible tax and that it improperly originated in the Senate and not the House.
"In order to help lower the costs of law enforcement that effect everyone, every able bodied male between the ages of 21 and 65 will, by Jan 1, 2013, arm himself with a handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition or pay a $50 fine."
This ruling makes that possible.
Having the IRS run the collections department was my first clue this is a tax, no matter what the Dems choose to call it.
They're just imitating Obama. If he can legislate via EO's, why shouldn't Roberts, et al legislate from the bench? /s
Obama and his Supreme Court lapdogs render Congress irrelevant.
Roberts...courtesy Bush.
And folks wonder why we conservatives who don’t like Obaba, also disliked Bush?
Bush gifts like RINO Roberts...that will vote with the Obaba’ites.
Our long time problem, strong enemies and weak friends.
With friends like Bush/Roberts, who needs enemies.
Our country’s enemies shoot us in the front and our “friends” shoot us in the back.
I wonder if Obamacare could now be challenged separately for the reasons you stated.
“All revenue/appropriation bills must originate in the house”
And I heard something about the Bill actually originating in the Senate. Is that true?
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.