One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

Scribd.com ^ | July 7, 2012 | Talisker

[dfwgator]

Roberts voted WITH Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer.

‘Nuff said.

[dead]

[Monorprise]

Ok I read the whole article and what I gather from these analyses seems to be lost. What does the author or allegedly “John Roberts” expect us to do, constitutionally ban Corporation?
The truth is anything so subtle in court will most assuredly be lost not only on the public but to future federal employees in black robes seeking to push their own and(indirectly) their appointers agenda.
What that means is what Roberts actually said will be lost on future federal injustices in future cases, just as the wording of other Federal injustices have been lost over time. I’ve read case after case in which Federal judges as a matter of course read whatever they want into the edicts of past Federal judges to create effetely new edicts, just as congress often makes laws by amending existing codes this is for them a form of lawmaking.

Insolently the corporation is created by the State Not Federal Government and therefore if it is to save to anything it is the slave to the state in which it was created, not Washington. We know this because Federal Constitution does not mention the power to incorporate. The 2 government idea is yet another unconstitutional mess propagated by injustice John Roberts, assuming that was John Roberts “thinking” at all.
Honestly the income Tax is voluntary theory sounds rather conspiratorial, and as he pointed out himself its practically meaningless.

[Monorprise]

I’m afraid the very propose of our constitution is to protect the minority(political) from the foolishness of the voting majority.

[nerdgirl]

Thanks for one of the few intelligent comments on this thread.

[nerdgirl]

Thanks for the post. Hard to know if this is all correct as I’m not a lawyer and not very schooled in tax stuff either, but I appreciate the attempt to really look at what he actually ruled.

[Orgiveme]

Haven’t read the entire thread yet, been warned against all the knee-jerk reactions vs. Roberts and encouraged to read your response — thanks for yours.

Here’s my thought: how do we get this word out? Having read up a bit on the IRS taxation constitutionality issues, this move by Roberts was familiar territory and I think he hit the nail right on the head and should go down in history as not only pragmatic but a HERO for ruling the way he did — he’s absolutely right about the constitutionality distinction between individuals and contractual participants and the sleight of hand and fraudulent precedents set throughout our history since the income tax passed (also questionable as to whether it got the number of states voting for it, as well).

I’ll be sending the link to all the pundits at Fox and to all our local area patriots, as well, and to the Election Integrity Project heads in California — new group started 18 months ago and already active in 15-19 counties in California, where there is NO uniformity between counties in important aspects of preventing election fraud, and in Alameda County election workers are being drilled to ignore state election law in the way they process VBM (”vote by mail”) ballots handed in at the polls (all in order to prevent ADDITIONAL lawsuits by leftist groups against the county).

Press the issues and don’t quit. Thanks again.

[danielmryan]

Wasn’t their a guy going around stating that paying income taxes is unconstitutional and wrote a book about how you shouldn’t pay them.

At least one. Their line of reasoning goes like this: it's contrary to law for the IRS to tax an individual unless he (implicitly) consents to being treated as a corporation by filing a return and/or not challenging any federal income tax withholding. Consquently, a kid who gets his first job should refuse to file a tax return, send a letter to the IRS saying he explicitly does not consent to being treated as a corporation, and challenge any income-tax withholding of his wages in court on those grounds.

Needless to say, it's never worked. They can say the government lied 'til they're blue in the face, but the fix is in. Complying with the IRS is not voluntary.

[sargon]

Excellent analysis. I understand clearly now. Roberts did us a favor. All the foaming at the mouth is unjustified, unless you believe that the income tax is fine and dandy, and doesn't represent a Tyrannical abomination.

I fall into the category of a free individual who does believe that the income tax is a monumental scam on the American People, and, as enforced using the presumption of corporate personhood, represents virtually unlimited tyranny.

That's why the income tax must be voluntary for any non-corporate person, because if it wasn't then there truly wouldn't be any limited government, either in theory or practice.

The same people who are gnashing their teeth at this decision are the people who think that the income tax legitimately applies to non-corporate persons.

At least, in the future, when my income tax-protesting ass is hauled into court, I can use this decision as a basis for my defense. It's better than not having it available for that.

In the United States, slavery is still (barely and technically) voluntary.

I will no longer volunteer for it. Others can do as they wish...

[sargon]

Needless to say, it's never worked. They can say the government lied 'til they're blue in the face, but the fix is in. Complying with the IRS is not voluntary.

The only reason it's not volutary, as you have said, is because the fix is in.

Well, I have news for you: the fix isn't in. The Constitution still applies and the Constitution is not some kind of scam.

The fact that the Courts, the Congress, and the President ignore the Constitution does not make the document invalid of inoperative. The fact that Tyranny reigns due to ignorance and criminality does not mean that free People thereby have the duty to submit to it.

I, for one, will resist such Tyranny in any way that I see fit, and I will do it with a clear conscience.

But such legitimate resistance to Tyranny will only become broadly effective when many, many others free People join together to collectively resist.

What are we waiting for?

I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment which forbids the federal government from using this ridiculous presumption of corporate status as it relates to free individuals and income taxation, and all the Tyrannical corollaries which flow from it.

So, the "you can't fight city hall (meaning the ferragummit)" crowd can stick it. Flame away...

[SoFloFreeper]

bfl

[GOPJ]

Ping

Interesting read:

************************************************************************

But why would Roberts do such a thing? After all, he actually warned against the creation of “a general federal authority akin to the police power.” And he also said elsewhere in his ruling, “our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed.” Yet after saying these things, he then went and enabled them!

Except he didn’t. Because he pointed out - subtly, but clearly, for those who follow his hints as I have here - that these powers Congress is trying to use against the People do not, in fact, apply to them, but only to corporations.

But the man is a Federal judge - the TOP Federal judge. Do you think, even for a moment, Roberts isn’t fully aware of what the IRS “legally” does to people who try to use Roberts own argument against them?

Of course he does.

That’s why he wrote the argument. Because now HE wrote this argument - not YOU.

And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.

You see, Roberts jammed the machine. And scared the shit out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That’s why no other Justice would join him - he terrified them.

[sickoflibs]

That editorial is way too long and too rambling.

Republicans need to stop trying to hide behind the SCOTUS robes on Obama-care and take on the battle (Democrats) themselves.

While the tax/fine law is written in a way that is different than any federal law written before to be deceptive, the prinple is similar to behavour based tax cuts and credits, to control you with your own money.

Besides that you still got the problem of moochers many are illegals showing up in hospitals getting treatment and not paying for it, per a federal mandate on hospitals. I won’t hold my breath to hear Republicans talk about that issue again. Its definitely on the Republicans ‘avoid discussion list’

[GOPJ]

Republicans need to stop trying to hide behind the SCOTUS robes on Obama-care and take on the battle (Democrats) themselves.

You are so right on this sick. It's our battle, we need to own it.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You are so right on this sick. It's our battle, we need to own it. “

Speaking of ‘owning it’.
What the hell is that weak RINO Romney doing regarding the Bain accusations. Instead of defending his record, which he has to do to win the race, he claims he wasn't in charge of Bain during the period that some SEC forms he signed says he was CEO. He cant run away from Bain.

For better or worse Romney owns Bain for that period, he better defend it.

Is Romney trying to throw this election to obama?

[alrea]

I’m not here to bail you out of the mess you’ve created. Grow up and do the right thing.

Demaocrats and Obamao are using debt to plunder. Liberty is evaporating as the amount owes grows. They don't need soldiers. A few more food stamp parties and bailouts and you'll get free healthcare. Voting against spending is the way out.

[CharacterCounts]

The important thing at this point is that the commerce clause was crucially weakened by a 7-2 vote, and this would not have happened without Roberts.

Simply untrue!

Seven Justices never voted to weaken the commerce clause.

It's pure dicta and has no bearing on any future commerce clause cases.

[CottShop]

I keep hearing how ‘brilliant Robert’s is” in making his decision because suppsoedly, he slammed the door shut on the left in terms of using obamacare on the baqsis of the ‘commerce clause’ and that Roberts ‘forced’ the ocoma administration to ‘admit obummercare is a tax’ but the REALITY is that Roberts opened a gaping hole for the left to drive straight through unimpeeded in the future- Sure, The right can ‘repeal obummercare’ however, when the left regains the office and senate, they will simply just reinstate obummercare because Roberts gave them free reign to simply reinstate an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!

There was NOTHING ‘Brilliant’ About this assault on our constitutional rights- NOTHING! Roberts was nominated to make judgements and uphold the rule of law, and he refused to do so and isntead LEGISLATED from the BENCH- compeltely ignorign the FACT that forcing someoen to pay a penalty for NOT buying something is a compelte VIOLATION to our constitutional rights!!!

Never before in our history has our government forced it’s citizens to purchase a product or service simpyl becasue we are alive- NEVER!- Justice (and I use that term in this case VERY loosly)Roberts legislated fro mthe bench allowing our government to FORCE citizens to purchase somethign OR pay a penalty-

Takign this to the extreme to prove the poin t- There is supposed to be NOTHING that we absolutely have to do- We don’t even have to pay taxes IF we choose not to- We could kill ourselves in order to deny the government their ‘collection powers’, or we could comkpletely go off the grid- leave our homes, live off the land, and never simply keep on the move and never pay taxes again- We DO have thsi CHOICE if we so choose-

Now, admitedly, this is the extreme- but the point is that IF we so CHOOSE to pay taxes, then WE have made that choice- NOT the government- Now however, We no longer have the choice- EVEN IF we choose to go off grid and live in the wild- We will be concidered ‘fugitives from justice’ because we refuse to purchase obummercare because ‘by law’ the government will now be obligated to pursue said ‘offgrid’ individual for ‘non-payment’ of obummercare

And we now have ‘justice’ roberts to ‘thank’ for giving our goverment the very powers that socialist governments have, and the very powers that england had- the very government that we ESCAPED FROM way back when when they became too pwoerful and invasive and intrusive into our private lives- Now, we’re right back where we started- Heck- we’re even seeing states determining whether or not a business can conduct their business i nthe state according to their religious beleifs- IF the business doesn’t subscribbe to the state’s ‘religion’ of homosexuality- then by golly, that business can notr practice i n the state now apparently-

Obummercare ALSO violates the seperation of church and state inthat it will now FORCE emplyers, and organizatiosn to provide abortions and birth control etc via government sanctioned healthcare- Before roberts opened that door- employers were free to choose their own healthcare- and could choose healthcare that refused to cover such abominations- now however, they will no longer have that choice, and will infact have to pay into government mandadted HC which supports such assaults o nthe innocent-

No- Roberts decision was NOT Brilliant- it was judicial malpractice because roberts REFUSED to fully and objectively uphold our constitution, and he gave our governmetn unfettered ability to trample on our constitutional rights

[CottShop]

[[The important thing at this point is that the commerce clause was crucially weakened by a 7-2 vote, and this would not have happened without Roberts.]]

No-
I’m sorry- that wasn’t the most important thing to come fro mthe ruling- Roberts has now given the democrats the ability to keep ‘reinstating’ obummercare when they regain the office and senate- even if a previous republican president repeals the law- they will simply just reinstate it- so we’ll have 4-8 years of our constitutional rights violated, and 4-8 years where the republicans come in and save us from an oppresive government IF they contriol the senate as well and get enough votes to repeal the unlawful law-

[[ Let’s get out there and retake control of our government,]]

We shouldn’t have to hope beyond hope that we can elect enouygh republicans to repeal an UNLAWFUL law- The supreme court should have upheld our constitution, and roberts FAILED to do so- He FAILED America, and forever opened up pandoras box (unless the issue can coem before the supreme court again in a new challenge- Lawyersw NEED to bring htis back before the supreme court to determien IF our government has a right to tax someoen AGAINST THEIR WILL (not yelling, just stressign key points brought out in my previous post) simply for existing- We as a coutnry have never ever doen htis because we for them ost part valued freedoms (to an extent)- roberts however opened up the door for congress and hte presidency to deny us this freedom as explaiend in my previosu post