The way I see it is that Robert's avoided making a subjective decision; to wit: that the Supreme court could revoke, repeal, or cancel a legally (Constitutionally) passed law, a law that included a "tax."
Might I suggest you look up the word "mandate." You'll find there that the Supreme court's decision is a mandate order (aka: "You fix it") to the American people.
[[You’ll find there that the Supreme court’s decision is a mandate order (aka: “You fix it”) to the American people.]]
It’s NOT up to the amerrican people to fix soemthign that should have decided by our supreme courts- it’s the supreme courts job to protect american citizens from an aggressive government- we are suppsoed to have three branches that are suppsoed to regulate each other/equalize or balance out- but when that fails, then it goes to hte highest court i nthe land as the final say- but isntead robertsw is throwing it back at hte people? The peopel have NO power to make obummercare illegal due to it beign a violation of the constitution- only the supreme court had that power- and roberts decided not to do what he’s paid to do- and worse yet, now he’s blaming US for this?
When someone goes o ntrial for a crime (and yes, violating hte constitution is suppsed to be a crime) it is never right for a judge to simply throw the case out and tell the people to fix the problem- it’s the judge’s sworn duty to judge the case accordign to hte law
[[The way I see it is that Robert’s avoided making a subjective decision]]
How so? Never before has our government been able ot tax siomeoen simply for existing- never before has our govenrment been able to force peopel to buy somethign agaisnt hteir will or facve a penalty if they don’t- but it was roberts subjective opinion that our government has the right to determine what’s best for the citizens and to fine/tax them if said citizens don’t comply- As i mentioned, the mafia walked up and down a street- banging on doors and forcing peopel to buy insurance fro mthem- this was illegal- and for good reason- it’s NEVER right to force anyoen to do anything agaisnt their will- but now our governemnt has been given the green light to do just that by roberts, who throws the bomb and then runs away to avoid the consequences by throwing the issue back on the people who are powerless to make a ruling making it illegal for our government to coerce citzens agaisnt hteir will-
Mandate: “An authoritative command or instruction” The supreme court hasn’t given us hte peopel a ‘mandate to undo’ obummercare- we do not have the power to legally undo it unless we can read the minds and hearts of politicians that we elect- but hte problem is that since the SC refused to make the ruling that coerced ‘taxes’/fines are unconstitutional, the left will simply reinstate the unconstitutional obummercare if and when they regain office and power- meanign that we may be free from an unconstitutional healthcare mandate IF we get lucky and elect just the right people who won’t later turn- but if we’re not lucky, we’re stuck with an unconstitutional healthcare- so what it boils down to is luck? Especially when it was the courts DUTY to determien IF it was legal for our government to coerce citizens via a FINE if we don’t buy governemnt insurance?
Our government- both national government and state governments have the right to require things like insurance IF we so choose to drive, or operate machinery etc etc etc- governments do NOT however have the right to mandate that we participate weven if we so choose not to- IF I choose NOT to drive a car- my government can NOT force me to buy car insurance- or at least it never could before roberts gave them the power to force me to shoudl htey choose to- the governtment now has the ‘right’— given to it by the supreme court— to force me to buy somethign against my will
[[You’ll find there that the Supreme court’s decision is a mandate order (aka: “You fix it”) to the American people.]]
so in otherwords, the supreme court, knowing that we can’t determien somethign illegal and unconstitutional, has shirked their duty and thrown this bacvk in our faces? Swell- they apparently are now being paid big bucks to shirk their duties and dump the problems on the backs of the people who are powerless to legally rule somethign unconstitutional as it should have been-
Yes government has the right to tax us- BUT, governem,nt does NOT have the right to coerce us through penalty for not buying something if we so choose not to- and fuirthermore- we once had a supreme court that we coudl go to when we saw government usurping hteir power and wielding hteir power agaisnt the citizens- now we don’t- we no logner have that last bastion of refuge agaisnt a tyranical government thanks to roberts who refused to uphold the constitution !
As levien is correctly pointing out- sure, we can ‘fix obummercare’ by voting out htose who voted it in (provided there are neouygh peopel who still value our constitution in this country to vote to do so- but how are we goign to fix the constitution that was broken by roberts when he allowed our governemnt to conduct a direct assajult o nthe american peopel for simply existing- the same way our pres is goign after the rich to penalize them simpy,l for beign rich?
Roberts told the country that while congress or a president can’t regulate incativity- they could tax it- but what levine didn’t mention is that the governmet is not simply taxing inactivity, they are fininf and penalizing peopel for inactivity- Last I looked, it was illegal to blackmail someone- yet that is exactly what our govenrment is now allowed to do “You will either buy insurance from us, or we will penalize you until you do”- and last I checked, it was illegal to threaten someone- and that is exactly what our government is doing- they are threatening us with arrest aNd or fien if we choose not to buy insurance and refusign to pay hte fine for not buying it
The governmet tried desperately to get obummercare through by calling it a penalty isntead of a tax- roberts knew that the government could not impose a penalty on someoen for inactivity- so he ‘fixed’ it so that obummercare could now be called ‘legal’ by calling it a tax and declarign that governemnt has the right to tax- which we all knew it does have the right to do (for activity- but NOT for inactivity)- but the plain truth of the matter is that this is STILL a penalty and NOT a tax- it’s a coercive penalty- meant to bully people into purchasing somethign agaisnt hteir will
Our governemnt has the right to impose activity taxes and penalties if those those taxes are not paid- however, our government does NOT have the right constitutionally, to impose inactivty taxes or rather penalties on us- in other words, If I so choose NOT to purchase sunblock for htose tiems when I’m out doors, that up until the roberts decision, was my right to do- howerver, now that roberts has butchered the constitution, our governet does have the right to penalize us and try to coerce us to purchase somethign we don’t want- under the guise of it beign finacially ‘good for everyoen i nthe logn run because soemthign ‘might happen’ unless everyone is forced to purchase’ said products
with a last minute- subjective wave of the magic wand, roberts singlehandedly changed the ‘penalty provision’ to a ‘tax provision’ label so that obummercare could ‘be legal’- i nthe many days of arguments o nthe case, the tax issue was never brought up- roberts, at the last minute, decided on his own, that obummercare could stand because he subjectively thought he could could change the wording to now include tax isntead of penalty- That is akin to me or csomeone else declaring that sky diving is no logner to be called sky diving, but rather it is now to be called underwater scuba diving- simply because we say so- or that prostitution is to no longer be called prostitution (because prostitution is illegal in most states), but is to now be called counselling in order that the prostitutes may avoid goign to jail for practicing hteir illegal profession- but, just because we change the word, doesn’t mean that the true meaning and results of an action is also changed- however, that is preciselty what roberts did- he changed the word- willy nilly- at whim- just so that the pres and the left can avoid being held accoutnable for mandating somethign that is both illegal and unconstitutional
Roberts dfeclared that obummercare is not a tax in order to prevent a challenge to obummercare under the anti injunction act, but then turns aroudn and declares that it is a tax in order that obummercare can be deemed legal- He actually said that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the anti injunction act because congress didn’t call it a tax, but that it really is a tax for the purposes of the individual mandate
And this is our supreme court judge? Wow- Just wow!
I knowe UI’ve written a lot- but this is an important legal issue-
Our only hope is that because there is no enforecement mechanism (in otherwords, because the government is suppsoed to be powerless to actually collect the fines if we choose NOT to pay either the insurance or the fines- although you watch them collect the fiens just the same irregardless of what they law actually stipulates)) then if enough people actually refuse to pay the fines or buy the insurance, that the whole thing collapses because it can’t be financially sustained
however, not many people are goign to realize that the government has no legal authority to collect the fines, andm ost peopel will just simply pay the fines- thus sustainign hte unconstitutional healthcare statute
The supreme court did somethign very sneaky, they declared that it wasn’t a tax in order to prevent peopel from challenging the ‘tax’ in the supreme court, then they turned aroudn and declared it is a consituional tax ‘because the penalty for not buying insurance is so ‘low’ (I don’t concider $4800 per individual per year low) that it can be called a tax and congress can mandate the tax but the peopel can’tr challenge the mandate ‘tax’ because it really isn’t a tax but a penalty- which hte supreme court has deemed ‘so low that it makes it constitutional’ (even though it’s still unconsitutional because it forces people to either buy something or pay a penalty for not buying it simply for existing- or for paying a fien for inaction
The supreme court is preventign chjallenges to it’s decision by declaring it constitutional based on it beign a ‘tax aND the fact that the resultign penalty is too low (i ntheir biased opinion), to make it unconstitutional’, and htey are also preventing challenges to thweir decision by declarign that it really is a penalty and not a tax so that peopel can’t challenge it under the anti injunction act- so in effect, they’ve pretty much just thrown an illegal and unconstitutional bombshell at america, tand then goen and hid behind all the safeguards they put in place to protect THEMSELVES fro m any future legal challenges by setting up an arbitrary and subjective ‘a penalty so low as to be deemed consitutional’ firewall
They are suppsoed to uphold the constitution- NOT make up a new constitution as we go along, and NOT to simply thwart our constitution and hten hide behind pretective measures they put in place to protect their own hides from legal challenges!