Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”

Washinton Examiner ^ | June 29, 2012 | Philip Klein

[gusopol3]

Back in 2010, Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, who has been described as the legal architect behind challenges to the health care law,.......Yet in the wake of the Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision to uphold the mandate on taxing power grounds, Barnett has been downplaying the legal significance of that precedent, especially relative to the Court’s ruling that the law was not allowable under the Commerce Clause.......“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....

[uncbob]

We only have two or three decades-worth of brilliant decisions from this Chief Justice ahead of us.

Not really --Dictatorship doesn't need no stinkin court

[uncbob]

But the administration’s own attorneys stated that it is a tax during the oral arguments. Looks like Roberts simply took them at their word!

Ironic isn't it--the GOP members of congress were warning it was a tax when tying to get votes against it and the democrats and Obama were saying it isn't

[Toaster tank]

“The taxing power just became the over-arching power in the Constitution. Heck, they could gut just about any other section as long as a tax is involved.”
Correct—with one huge BUT. Congressmen need to get re-elected, and hiking taxes of nearly any variety won’t get them there.”

With fewer and fewer citizens shouldering the tax burden, enacting new taxes becomes less and less problematic. Any new tax can be easily sold as taxing the evil rich.

[BCrago66]

Even if we had won the entire Obamacare case 5-4, with Roberts on board, we would still be in the same precarious position we are in now. The Supreme Court libs to not respect any precedent that restricts government power over economic affairs or curtails the Commerce Clause. The first of such precedent in recent times happened almost 2 decades ago, US v. Lopez (1995), and every single lib on today's court - Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagen - would reverse it (and Morrison from 2000) in a New York minute if Obama got another lib on the court to form a majority block. And the majority lib block would do the same thing to a 5-4 decision killing Obamacare. Obamacare would be dead, but a all-encompassing Commerce Clause allowing for a even more coercive ObamaCare II would be on the way. Right now we have 3 solid conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Alito), with 2 waverers: Kennedy & Roberts (but Kennedy was great on this decision, reportedly angry when reading the dissent from the bench.) We need a couple more conservative justices for when Ginsberg & Breyer exit stage left post-2012. A solid conservative block of 5, with the occasional help of 1 or 2 of the waverers, is the only solution to our present predicament.

[BCrago66]

Formatting fail. Sorry about that. Let me try again.

Even if we had won the entire Obamacare case 5-4, with Roberts on board, we would still be in the same precarious position we are in now. The Supreme Court libs to not respect any precedent that restricts government power over economic affairs or curtails the Commerce Clause. The first of such precedent in recent times happened almost 2 decades ago, US v. Lopez (1995), and every single lib on today's court - Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagen - would reverse it (and Morrison from 2000) in a New York minute if Obama got another lib on the court to form a majority block. And the majority lib block would do the same thing to a 5-4 decision killing Obamacare. Obamacare would be dead, but a all-encompassing Commerce Clause allowing for a even more coercive ObamaCare II would be on the way.

Right now we have 3 solid conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Alito), with 2 waverers: Kennedy & Roberts (but Kennedy was great on this decision, reportedly angry when reading the dissent from the bench.) We need a couple more conservative justices for when Ginsberg & Breyer exit stage left post-2012. A solid conservative block of 5, with the occasional help of 1 or 2 of the waverers, is the only solution to our present predicament.

[samtheman]

“Taxation with misrepresentation.”

Now that is a very, very good line. Maybe the best line I've read on this subject since the infamous decision was handed down. Did you make that up?

[newzjunkey]

I know this has been a talking point for a long time but the bill technically did originate in the House. It was the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act" which the Senate then used amendments to gut and insert the language of ObamaCare.

Crass, deceptive, plainly offensive to our democratic processes and yet all perfectly legal.

Bill history

[gusopol3]

I thought of it at 3 AM Friday, and came down to post it on a thread. When I googled it, it has been used before.

[samtheman]

Well, you thought of it independently, kudos to you.

Regardless, I’m lifting it. It’s now in my tagline.

[rurgan]

This Roberts is a communist , marxist, lying POS. He struck down Arizona’s state rights and a law that Arizon’s elected representatives passed but within a week twisted to rewrite a law that would enslave us and turn us into a socialist country.

[gusopol3]

I’m hopeful there are unintended consequences for him and the side he has chosen, then.

[TennesseeProfessor]

Wow, thanks for the link. I guess I lost track of that with all of the other “deem passed” shenanigans.

[Hostage]

> “3. By laying a tax that is not an income tax”

OBAMACARE HAS INCOME TAXES (also more see after TITLE IX below):

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W-2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

Subtitle B—Other Provisions
Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit.

And the government is going to take taxes out of paychecks and they are going to administer the mandate penalty via IRS form 1040 for individual income taxes.

Don’t anyone tell me this is not related to the 16th Amendment!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900492/posts

[dennisw]

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor2/west-sitting-hall.htm

Photo of Justice Roberts and his “Central American” adopted children.

___________________
___________________
___________________

INTERNET FRAGMENT>>>> Supreme Court Wusses Out On Sending Kids To Jail For Life, And ...
wonkette.com/.../supreme-court-wusses-out-on-sending-kids-to-jail-f...
5 days ago – Roberts illegally adopted kids from Ireland by using a central american intermediary to do some “orphan laundering.” Irish law does not allow ...

___________________
___________________
___________________

WIKIPEDIA
Adoption records

While investigating Roberts’ life, the New York Times was accused of attempting to unseal records detailing the 2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two infants born in Ireland[6] via a Latin American country.[7] The Times denied any attempts to unseal legal records and stated that “[o]ur reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions” and “[t]hey did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”

The Times was condemned by the National Council for Adoption, “NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.”[8]

The reasons for the adoption happening in the unnamed Latin American country remain unclear, though it was noted that the Irish 1991 Adoption Act only allows adoption of children born in Ireland by people resident in Ireland.[9]