Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What am I Missing? [Vanity}
self | 6 July 2012 | self

Posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:12 AM PDT by ShadowAce

OK, this was this first thing that sprung to mind last week when SCOTUS announced its decision. Since then, I've been surprised by both the Administration's response and the media. No one has brought this up:

Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?

Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?

Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scotus; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

1 posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:18 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

..no one in Government can make a decision, ONLY the libtard media can


2 posted on 07/06/2012 4:32:05 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Well, one way of looking at is that they are moving the Overton window so as they do other openly unconstitutional things, no one will be surprised.


3 posted on 07/06/2012 4:33:11 AM PDT by Pecos ("We hold these truths to be self-evident ..... ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

It is all spin to take your attention away from the economy, period!

Smoke and mirrors.


4 posted on 07/06/2012 4:40:25 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

it all depends on what the definition of is is.


5 posted on 07/06/2012 4:43:57 AM PDT by fatrat (extremely extreme right-wing radicalized veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

I agree completely. Romney’s safe approach so far won’t allow him to point such things out. I sure hope his troupe change their tune into a more, Levin-style attack and campaign. Stark differences and loud pitches in one’s voice - err, a little emotion would be nice.


6 posted on 07/06/2012 4:45:12 AM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatrat
Another thing that is confusing to me is that the Repubs insist on calling this a tax and saying that the Admin is lying. Accept what the Admin is saying and then nullify the law!

That's the easiest way of getting rid of this thing.

7 posted on 07/06/2012 4:46:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Listen to the real power behind this WH. Valerie Jarrett said they will take it anyway they can. Even Obama said the Obama(Roberts)Care is here to stay. IOW. the law is constitutional, and will be enforced since last Thursday.

The others are there on behalf of Obama’s campaign throwing smoke screen, since a tax obviously will hurt Obama’s chance.

Another thing is they obviously also ‘hope’ the longer we talk about Roberts, the less we will pay attention to his other performance (UN gun control, Sea Treaty, miserable handling of ME, etc) let alone consistently bad economy.

8 posted on 07/06/2012 4:49:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

How does Congress nullify it without a vote?


9 posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:06 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Sure, just ‘nullify’! Er, what’s nullify? Has it been used in the last twenty years? Is ‘nullify’ the good twin of ‘deem it passed’?


10 posted on 07/06/2012 4:54:22 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John W; jjotto
OK--IANAL, but since SCOTUS pretty much did declare unconstitutional if it's not a tax, then treat it as such.

Whatever the process is.

11 posted on 07/06/2012 4:56:53 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
I started asking that yesterday on several threads where Regime Representatives refuse to call it a tax or outright deny it is a tax.

If the intent of the law was not a tax...and the court said it is only valid as a tax...then the law is unconstitutional under any other interpretation. As Carney called it a "tax fallacy," then the law cannot stand according to the Court. Right?

12 posted on 07/06/2012 4:58:05 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

You have one problem with your argument. It might have been ok before the judgement, but today, it is a tax.

There is no valid argument to the contrary

It is a tax and the law of the land........ period


13 posted on 07/06/2012 4:58:05 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bert
If it truly is a tax, then the administration would be calling it a tax.

They're not. Call them on it. Declare this thing unconstitutional and then see their reactions.

14 posted on 07/06/2012 5:00:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?

The whole damn thing is unconstitutional. However, Roberts, Kagan et al said otherwise.

Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?

I'm not sure that everyone is going along, but so what. Roberts & company said it was OK, so it is now established in case law.

Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?

Not sure I get what you're asking.

15 posted on 07/06/2012 5:01:19 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

That’s my interpretation of what happened.


16 posted on 07/06/2012 5:01:18 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

If it is a tax, then shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House of Representatives and not the Senate? Shouldn’t that have rendered it unconstitutional due to process if not content?


17 posted on 07/06/2012 5:02:18 AM PDT by Never on my watch (I'd rather light a candle than curse the flatulence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

Another excellent point.


18 posted on 07/06/2012 5:03:09 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

While seldom done, I agree that Congress can end a tax.
And if it’s a Penalty, Congress again can nullify a penalty.
Just getting it thru the Senate will be the problem. I doubt GOP will win Senate.


19 posted on 07/06/2012 5:10:22 AM PDT by theDentist (FYBO/FUBO; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Cincinatus' Wife

Actually, there’s no mechanism for Congress to as you say, nullify it.

Perhaps you mean repeal it.

You said nullify it without a vote? That’s a dog that won’t hunt. Congress has to vote in order to do something about whatever it might be.

Perhaps you are thinking of the state nullification possibility. States, unlike Congress, could nullify this law by refusing to implement it (and by passing laws in their legislatures followed by governors signing them, saying their state citizens do not have to comply with Obamacare).

There is a very good thread on this based on Rush’s sub, Dr. Walter E Williams, advocating this very thing.

Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2903330/posts?page=3

As to what to call it, a tax, and on the basis of the Robert’s opinion act against it in whatever way, there I see that as quite murky.

I’m not certain what force of law the Robert’s opinion has. He certainly failed to overturn Obamacare, because he refused to join with the four justices who voted to overturn.

Where I get lost in the weeds is, how can he simply CALL it a tax in his writings, when it didn’t come before him as tax because it was not passed in Congress as a tax...at least everyone behind it screamed it was not a tax.

And how can he as one man get away with claiming it is upheld as a tax even though there’s a law that says tax cases cannot be brought until people are having to pay the tax.

Also, it was my understanding that the libs did not agree with Roberts to call it a tax. They wanted to hold that it stood under the Commerce Clause, not even to mention that it even might be a tax, much less it is one.

I do know they agreed with him not to overturn the law, but they were writing their own views as to why.

What, do we have rule by a one man dictator, John Roberts?

So, states CAN nullify, and they can do so no matter what Roberts wrote or what it means.

Congress can repeal, by voting, but it must pass the Senate which means Reid must go, and a new president must sign the repeal


20 posted on 07/06/2012 5:12:45 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson