Posted on 06/30/2012 4:02:34 PM PDT by Innovative
It seems to be a stretch for Chief Justice John Roberts to re-label an unconstitutional health insurance mandate as a tax, after the legislative and executive branches of government insisted they were not passing a new tax on the American people. Had it been presented as a tax, it probably would not have been enacted. It seems like the judicial branch of government is doing the job of the legislature. Wouldn't it have been better for the Supreme Court to punt the law back to Congress? Yes, that probably would have caused great disarray, but it seems more appropriate.
President Obama is a constitutional attorney and scholar. I'm guessing he probably knew his mandate was safer cast as a tax. I wonder if he knowingly sold it to Congress and the American people with some deception in this context. Many Americans (including myself) don't accept new tax hikes easily, especially when Congress and the president sell them with marketing deception, making back room deals, and not listening to the American people.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I’m curious about your position. We just saw in very stark terms that this political game is completely rigged. So how does continuing to play it by the rules that our opposition sets help us one iota?
If nothing else, this has proven beyond all doubt that it no longer matters what the Constitution says.
What matters is what 5 members of the Supreme Court SAYS the Constitution says.
He called it a mandate. A mandate that will be enforced by the IRS. Sounds like a tax to me.
Or did Roberts legislate from the bench to call it a tax, so he can give a gift to Obama. And WHY?!
Roberts exercised judicial restraint. Why? Because Obama campaigned on "reforming" health care and Obama won. In short, he did what he said he was going to do when a majority of voters elected him to office; "reform" health care. Roberts basically said to America, "This is what you asked for. This is what you'll get. Have fun!"
Elections have consequences.
Now we can wail and gnash our teeth all day long over what Roberts did but all he really did was uphold the law that a majority of voters sent Obama to the White House to do. If you ask me, we ought to be blaming our fellow Americans for voting this absolute disaster in to office.
I DO blame my fellow Americans. And I said in 2008 to an Indian friend, Americans will have experience full-blown socialism to learn how evil it is. The rest of the world is turning away from socialism and to the free-market, but here in the US, we’ve had it good and never had to deal with an such an oppressive government. Experience is the only way some (not all) of these idiots will ever learn.
Have you read the decision? Roberts has just handed Congress the power to impose any regulatory penalty on each and every American by simply calling it a “tax”? They could make you buy an electric car, or tofu, or small-sized sodas and it would be constitutional. Roberts just invented out of thin air an unprecedented expansion of federal power. It’s the worst decision we could have gotten.
Or did Roberts legislate from the bench to call it a tax, so he can give a gift to Obama. And WHY?!
Well according to the Supreme Court, including Sotomayer and Kagan, Obama lied, and lied 1,000 times.
The Silver lining is that it will now be easier to overturn, since SCOTUS has already determined the "mandate" to be a "tax" (only 51 votes necessary in the Senate vs a very difficult to get 60).
Also Republicans can do full throated attacks on Dbama as serial liar, since that is what SCOTUS says he is.
So why don’t they appeal? It certainly seems like they’d have grounds including the fact that the government is screaming it’s not a tax.
I’d say they both are.
“This is what you asked for. This is what you’ll get. Have fun!” I guess he’s not aware of the 2010 elections.
This ruling means the government can subsidize liberal talk radio by charging a tax on conservative talk radio. There’s no bottom to this well.
You mean the election that sent a small handful of tea partiers to the House and retained Democrat control of the Senate? Yeah, that was an earth-shaker!
Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Obama and Romney polling about even.
“All we can hope for is that this unconstitutional treason ... will fire the base into action for November.”
Is that what Levin said?
I can’t quote him on that, but he definitely said something to that effect. Hannity, Rush and Beck did as well. But that is my thinking. We can’t allow this Communist puke to prevail. Even if it means that we must vote for a guy whom we’re not excited about! Bob
If that’s all Levin, Hannity, Rush and Beck think we can do (get the base into action in November and that we must vote for a guy whom we’re not excited about), then I am very disappointed in those four guys.
In the first place, there is no guarantee Obama loses. In the second place, there is no guarantee McConnell, Boehner, and Mittens The Inventor of Obamneycare, will repleal it.
I can think of actions we the people can take that are far better than sitting around for four months wringing our hands, waiting to see if more Oprah-watchers than FoxNews- watchers show up to vote November 4, for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum, like Levin wants us to do.
According to Hannity it was earth shaking. ha! I agree that it wasn’t the big deal people made it out to be. But if Roberts was saying “You got what you asked for” the take over of the house showed the people changed their minds.
I don’t get your criticism of these hosts. What do YOU suggest?
No, he did not.
Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax and that power is virtually unlimited:
Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1 Section 9:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Show us a limitation on their power to tax there beyond what is in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution and you'll have an argument.
Here is a hint: Congress has no limits on its taxing power. NONE! They can set a tax to 1000%. They can tax your wages at 1000% or even higher. They can tax your gasoline at $1000 a gallon. A million a gallon excise tax on gasoline? Sure thing! No limits means NO LIMITS!
Here is the solution: Make sure fiscal conservatives get into office, not loopy socialists.
First, the mandate isn't a tax at all. The primary function of a tax is to raise revenue. The mandate's prime function is to punish behavior. It's a regulatory penalty, not a tax. Justice Roberts admitted that it's not a tax in his analysis of the anti-injunction law - he found that the mandate was NOT a tax for purposes of getting jurisdiction, then he turned around and in the same opinion found that it's a tax for constitutional purposes.
Second, the mandate is clearly a direct tax; i.e. it places the taxpayer in a direct relationship with the IRS. The Constitution requires that such taxes be subject to apportionment among the States. Since apportionment - as required by the Constitution - would have rendered the mandate impracticable in application, Justice Roberts perfunctorily declared it not a direct tax, even though it places each and every American into a direct relationship with the IRS!
This is the worst decision I've ever read. It is the biggest federal power grab in nearly a century. To my mind the decisions this week - including the AZ decision - are clear grounds for secession, as Justice Scalia alluded to.
I want out. I don't want to have to call Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Obama et al. and the millions of fools who elected them my countrymen any longer. I'm done with this sick place.
“..serving the court’s interest in avoiding a constitutional crisis...”
The constitutional crisis would have been created by a Democrat party and a “mainstream” press whose objective is to question any decision that doesn’t coincide with the Progressive agenda.
A 5 to 4 decision against Obamacare would have been considered an indication of a Conservative-activist court.
And now, a 5 to 4 decision affirming Obamacare if perfectly fine.
A glaring double standard that has been repeated time and time again.
IMHO
I suggest these talkshow hosts all promote the conservative people participating in the political system just one step beyond voting in the general election every two years.
If even a small fraction of the voters against Obamacare (polls show the majority of the people are against it and understand yet another line has been crossed against individual liberty as well as stae sovreignty this past week) showed up for party meetings and conventions, this aggression would not stand.
But, I never hear these talkshow hosts truly explaining the convention and party system and how easy it would be for the grassroot majority to peacefully take back over under this system.
So, because these talkshow hosts all personnally understand this, but refuse to explain and educate the mass of conservatives to these facts over the air, I can only conclude the talkshow hosts are deliberately omitting this information to keep the people thinking that going to the circus called the general elections on November 4 is all they can do.
There are even stronger steps they could advocate, still peaceful, but they have no intention of publicizing those steps either.
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.