Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah
....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.
Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Bullcrap. That Congress can now tax anything for any purpose invalidates the Commerce Clause.
Right! And Hitler and Togo won World War 2.
Denniston told Yahoo News. "I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court."
He's concerned about public perception! That's a fine way to make a ruling. If he's going to rule based an outside opinion rather than the Constitution, why didn't he look at what the public WANTED, which was NO Obamacare?
The main point is...
Romney +51 Senators and this thing is repealed.
The other main point...
If Obama is reelected, Obamatax would have been the law anyway under “it’s the right thing to do” powers of the executive branch. #SCOTUS be damned.
Hell, in 1934 they put a $200 tax on a $5 shotgun - a 90% tax rate is a bargain compared to that.
And the new funding source would have to be federal money from where? Tax increases. Would congress be able to levy a tax increase to maintain the program? This combined with normal cost increases translates that congress is going to need to raise taxes on this baby sooner rather than later. Check and mate.
That's been the case since 1934 when they slapped a $200 tax on a $5 shotgun.
Since Obama and the rest of his band of thieves had argued it was not a tax, he could have used the same argunent regarding the Commerece Clause in striking it down and accomplished that result. Instead he claimed it was a tax and allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislature to stand based on an argument that wasn't even there.
“Everyone should get to pick and choose which laws of the land they obey and which they ignore. So, why should anyone else think they have to obey laws they don’t like?”
You’re right, of course. The rule of law has been replaced with the rule of men. The dominant rule of men will be established by who draws their weapon the fastest and shoots the straightest.
Time to get to the range, people, and hone your combat shooting skills. The new Mad Max world is coming and will be knocking on your door.
Sorry.. Not buying it..
Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next?
This would be like electing a Republican President, during one of America’s worst economies in its history, who is closer to Obama than Reagan and expecting he will rule right of center and appoint conservative judges.
Another reason it may not qualify as an income tax is that for some people the amount is not based on income. It is calculated as the greater of X amount or X percent. The constitution limited the tax power to income.
McConnell said no appellate judges confirmed until after the election. SC could stand to be understaffed another 10 weeks better than it could stand another Obama pick. Block it and let Mitt’s 2nd action be appointing Levin to the SC, the first being signing the Obamacare repeal the new Congress should have ready for him signature. Third thing he signs should be longer, the list of executive orders he’s repealing.
This "there's a pony in there somewhere" reaction to one of the most dastardly acts against our Constitution in our history is just pure nonsense. Unless we understand the long term impact of this judicial outrage, we will continue to lose our freedom to the statists. Roberts had to come up with some rationale for ruling Obamacare constitutional so he created this monstrosity of a decision--a tax that really isn't a tax.
Lawyerspeak. Shakespeare was right about lawyers.
If Congress had treated it as a tax, the bill would have originated in the House and be subject to the same rules that apply to any other tax. It is not just a matter of words but of process, procedures, and regulations. SCOTUS just called it a tax, but said it was exempt from following the rules governing other taxes. Words have meanings.
“If that’s so, I bet she back-stabs him and retires anyway.”
But the pubbies can stall anyone 0 appoints until after the election.
True enough on public statments, but the Administration's lawyers defended it as a tax in court.
Exactly. The culture of dependency is growing every day. People want their free stuff from the government. They are becoming the majority.
In this case "behavior" is being born. No one is excluded from these laws. Tax credits are meant to alter behavior, but they don't apply to everyone unless they choose to engage in that behavior. I don't have to buy an energy saving furnace.
Actually it doesn’t matter what anyone in Washington says.
The only thing that matters is what they DO.
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.