Posted on 06/29/2012 4:39:31 AM PDT by SJackson
Justice Roberts simply did not read the bill or just pretends that the text of the bill is irrelevant. This is how the Bill will actually be administered in practice. It is so large, sweeping and convoluted, that any public official will cite it at the reason for doing X,Y& Z whether the bill says it or not.
The Bill (Section 1501 individual responsibility,) makes a specific and detailed appeal to the commerce clause for its legitimacy. Will these findings be struck from the bill? It is IMPOSSIBLE to find that these findings are illegitimate, and yet that the bill is constitutional:
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement
provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to
as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature,
and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of
the effects described in paragraph (2).
(2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—øReplaced by section 10106(a)¿ The effects described
in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial
and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions
about how and when health care is paid for, and
when health insurance is purchased. In the absence of the
requirement, some individuals would make an economic
and financial decision to forego health insurance coverage
and attempt to self-insure, which increases financial risks
to households and medical providers.
Justice Roberts simply did not read the bill or just pretends that the text of the bill is irrelevant. This is how the Bill will actually be administered in practice. It is so large, sweeping and convoluted, that any public official will cite it at the reason for doing X,Y& Z whether the bill says it or not.
The Bill (Section 1501 individual responsibility,) makes a specific and detailed appeal to the commerce clause for its legitimacy. Will these findings be struck from the bill? It is IMPOSSIBLE to find that these findings are illegitimate, and yet that the bill is constitutional:
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement
provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to
as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature,
and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of
the effects described in paragraph (2).
(2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—øReplaced by section 10106(a)¿ The effects described
in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial
and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions
about how and when health care is paid for, and
when health insurance is purchased. In the absence of the
requirement, some individuals would make an economic
and financial decision to forego health insurance coverage
and attempt to self-insure, which increases financial risks
to households and medical providers.
“After this ruling congress can pass any law it wants, add a “tax” for non-compliance and then rely on Federal taxing authority for jurisdiction”
Interesting point. Maybe such laws will read “Citizen has the option of doing xxx or paying the government yyy”. You’re correct. It’s scary. But legislators contemplate all sorts of legislation that’s constitutional, and the legislators are restrained by lack of public support.
Obamacare is bad legislation with slim public support. Should we have faith that voters will cause it to be killed or reconstituted? If we can’t have that faith then America is in real big trouble.
The constitution is now dead. The government, not restrained in power by any limits, is tyrannical and illegitimate.
But... the Court today, well, yesterday, EXPRESSLY AND VERY EXPLICITLY DENIED THAT POWER TO CONGRESS.
No matter what, this POS gotta go back to Congress before it can be enforced in any way.
That’s why I keep saying this is being spun as a win, but he basically lost his donkey...
I agree...there is no constitutional law ..why not dump the supremes..instead of paying them to fill themselves with self importance. I think they had dirt on roberts or made him a deal he could not refuse.
Here is my take (keep in mind I have only read the first few pages of the decision, more goodies are probably located within)
The libs have been using the commerce clause since roosevelt to push their agenda through... the courts have backed them up.
They have also used the words “General Welfare” in the preamble to push through their agenda... the courts have backed them up.
They have also slowly eroded states rights... the courts have backed them up.
All 3 of these items were the “sledgehammer” that the commies and socialists used to force their agenda through.
No more. Roberts took that sledgehammer away and gave them back a one ounce tack hammer.
The states were not allowed to opt out of fubocare without incurring a large financial penalty. Roberts tood that penalty away, allowing the individual states the opportunity to opt out. Victory for states rights.
The commerce clause cannot be used to create commerce in order to regulate it. Victory for conservatives and reaffirms the power of the court to rule out legislation that uses this clause ( most if not all the libs premier social programs were passed this way, no more ).
The general welfare in the preamble can no longer be interpreted to include any damn social program the libs see fit to pass. Victory once again for conservatives and constitution loving people everywhere.
As for the tax thing, the congress has ALWAYS had this power. They got nothing extra or added because of this ruling.
All this means is that anything they pass from this point forward has to be called a tax. The genie is out of the bottle, and clarity in government will be the result.
Roberts hoodwinked the shit out of the libs, and has restored more constitutional limits on government than any other justice before him.
My guess ( and this is only a guess ) is that the libs wanted this thing so badly that they were willing to do ANYTHING to have it upheld. Roberts saw the opportunity and took it. The disgust of the old bag ginsberg regarding his majority opinion is enough to satisfy me that this was the case.
I firmly believe that you get the government you elect. With a lousy 50% turnout getting called heavy, it turns my stomach. Roberts took the opportunity to slap down the voting public, rightfully telling US that it is our responsibility to elect people that represent our views. He is 100% correct on this count.
In order to change the way this government functions will take at least 80 to 90% turnout at the polls.
Roberts struck a major blow for constitutionalism yesterday. Now, it is our turn.
If congress can repeal a tax can a tax repeal be veto?
“Elect a Republican House, President, and Senate (even a tied one), and repeal is possible.”
IOW, Roberts essentially vested more power back in Congress by taking it away from the Executive and judicial branches.
This, IMHO, is what he was trying to do. When Obama castigated the SC during his SOTU address Roberts probably then realized that the balance of power needed to shift back to our elected representatives and away from the Executive branch.
Yes, he did this in a circuitous fashion, but with today’s toxic political climate it may have been the least bad of the other choices. Time will tell.
Going forward, it puts more responsibility on us to elect better people to Congress. We have to elect people who will scale back the size of gov’t and hopefully we can do that.
I trust Scalia’s judgement on this matter a Hell of a lot more than Roberts’
Depends on how you look at it.
Yes, he said the Congress can tax you for damn near anything. He also made it exclusively a tax issue, limiting Congress’ power to that (only).
Now, that also means that whenever Congress wishes to force the people to do as it wishes it does so with one (enumerated) power. No more “nuance”. No more “commerce clause”.
It’s only “tax and spend” liberal power versus “fiscal restraint” conservative.
“The Constitution states clearly that direct taxes shall be apportioned. An ObamaCare tax falls on the individual as a direct tax.It is NOT apportioned.It is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
The Sixteenth Amendment made the apportionment rule inapplicable to income taxes, including taxes on income derived from property, by providing that Congress has the power to tax incomes from any source without having to apportion the tax by population.
Because people through their employers and corporations and self-employed individuals receive an income tax deduction for their health insurance premiums and buy health insurance with additional tax benefits and this is all administered through the IRS which collects income taxes, the ObamaCare Tax is not a direct tax and does not need to be apportioned, therefore; it is clearly not unconstitutional.
ngat,
The courts have ruled (read the Brushaber decision) that the Income Tax is an “excise” tax. It is NOT a “direct” tax.
An excise tax is one that you can avoid by changing your behavior. For example, if you do not want to pay Federal gasoline excise taxes, stop buying gasoline.
A “direct” tax, on the other hand, cannot be avoided by changing your behavior. The Roberts ruling makes ObamaCare a direct (unavoidable) tax on an individual merely because he exists.
According the Constitution, direct taxes must be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment did NOT remove that provision from the Constitution.
So I repeat...
The Constitution states clearly that direct taxes shall be apportioned.
An ObamaCare tax falls on the individual as a direct tax.
Direct taxes must be apportioned.
The ObamaCare tax is NOT apportioned.
The ObamaCare tax is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The most significant thing about this ruling is that it makes it official....We the People, and our States, exist to pleasure the Feds.
The existence of a Federal Government, to the ends of prosperity for the United States is history.
I agree joe....
Yes, the ability of Congress to levy a tax on anything they want is *very* recent: When the last state required ratified the Constitution in 1792. In geologic terms, that’s yesterday.
The ability of the government to dictate any aspect of your personal life and behavior by imposing a massive fine for non-compliance and calling it a "tax" is even more recent - literally "yesterday" - 6-28-2012
I’ll go with the text of the constitution, rather than your interpretation of the decision, if that’s OK.
I have a larger point, but I’ve yet to hear anybody give a crap, so there you are.
Your tagline gave me my first and only laugh of this dismal day after. Thanks.
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.