Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
Posted on 07/02/2012 11:30:05 AM PDT by Weight of Glory
Remember, Obamacare is only legal if it's understood as a tax. But normally when Congress amends tax law, which the mandate would do, there is language in the text of the bill that references the U.S. Tax Code and how the current bill will amend it. For example, here is the text of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2003:
"AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE
.—Except as otherwise expresslyprovided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressedin terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or otherprovision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a sectionor other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986"
That is how a typical tax bill begins. It's the very first item in the bill, right after the Shorter Title. Does anyone know if any language like that is in ObamaTax? I suspect not. That means ObamaTax is not actually in the Tax Code of this country. So where does that leave us legally?
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
We are in a new place in this country where all the old rules have been thrown out. Think Venezuela.
Sounds like it leaves us with legislation yet to be written.
Seeing as how such taxing legislation must, per the Constitution, arise in the House, and seeing as how the House is GOP controlled, you just might be on to something.
You might recognize the concept as a sin tax, or a luxury tax. The idea is to levy the tax under presumably rational and lawful attributes but with the intention of punishing the guilty or motivating behavior.
If you had a special tax on yachts, that'd probably be OK if the levy were uniformly applied to all yacht owners. If, on the other hand, you levied the tax only on those yachts seen with nekkid women on board on Saturday evenings, it could be fairly inferred that you were levying a sumptuary tax. It'd be prohibited by the courts.
Here the stated goal was to PUNISH FREE LOADERS. I think that pretty well identifies the intention ~ and from that we may infer the type of tax ~ to wit: a sumptuary tax.
The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to levy sumptuary taxes. Roberts made a lame attempt to tie it to the income tax but I don't think he could get that one past a room of third graders. Still, there's the authority of the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and she said exactly what the purpose was, so that's what it is.
Don't worry about the "form" in which it was passed, or the introductory statements, or even Robert's stressed language ~ the thing is a tax of a well known type although it is less well known these days.
I am sure Congress knows how to get rid of this sucker.
BTW, Obama and his running dog lackeys undoubtedly understand that there are things that need to be fixed in obamaKKKare lest the whole game be lost ~ but they'll have to run them by the Republicans!
Bwahahahahahahha!!!!
Does it really matter if it is in the US tax code or not? Obama and his cronies have already proven that they are lawless and will do whatever they want regardless.
With at least 4000 IRS agents (including the IRS SWAT teams) that will be hired and an increased operating budget of at least $300 million to take care of this collectivist deathcare scheme it’s going to be difficult to stop this army of bureaucrats from destroying the citizenry.
Obama is sending in the plagues and pestilences.
“You are evidently laboring under the delusion that we still live under the rule of law.”
We used to live under the rule of law but it changed to the color (appearance) of law and stayed that way for the longest time. Now that veil is being ripped away and we get to see what that has been transforming into.
Yes yes yes, I get it. But you’re missing the point. Everyone, when they fight, tries to justify it in their minds that they are doing the “right” thing. It’s why the Founders actually listed the long train of abuses in the Dec. of Ind. To be taxed by a law that’s not in the U.S. Tax Code (which only exists as the result of proper legislation) is an “abuse.” It goes to the heart of taxation without representation. Thus, it is VERY important to communicate these specific examples.
Thanks for your information. So federal taxes can be imposed without language in the bill amending the current tax code or even stating that it’s part of the tax code? Is that what you’re saying?
der 0berFuhrer, Emperor Hussein 0bama, will make an edict and enact the tax if necessary. He don’t need no steenken’ congress to pass a tax!
I’m sure Obama and his new BFF, John Roberts are out at Roberts’ “impregnable fortress” hashing out the details. Announcement of a new executive order to follow.
*snicker* Good one!
This is old but it could be retitled
Dr. Obama’s book of Government Approved Medical Treatments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZQ01IrU5d0
The Individual Mandate is in the Tax Code (26 U.S.C. section 5000A).
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.