Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did 26 State AGs play the America People when suing over Obamacare?
7-5-12 | johnwk

Posted on 07/05/2012 5:17:30 PM PDT by JOHN W K

I’m beginning to believe the 26 State Attorney Generals who challenged Obamacare may have acted more for political purposes or to pacify the people`s outrage over such an extraordinary assumption of power by the federal government, then actually having Obamacare overturned by the Court. When Obamacare was passed, instead of going directly to the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction in such cases and which I then constantly pointed out, these AGs diddled and dallied for almost two years in lower courts which helped to diminish the people`s outrage by giving the people hope the law would eventually be rightfully struck down.

And now that Justice Roberts has upheld Obamacare as being within Congress` taxing power, but has failed to identify which specific kind of tax is used __ an impost, duty or excise __, the State Attorney Generals, including Pat Bondi, have not yet filed for a rehearing under the Court`s Rule No. 44, and asserted that neither an impost, duty or excise tax, as our founding fathers understood and applied these taxes, would allow the federal government to tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for failure to have health insurance ___ a subject matter beyond the delegated powers of Congress, and one in fact retained by the States via the Tenth Amendment! And since the tax is not apportioned, it cannot be claimed to be a ``direct tax``, which in fact it appears to be! Unless there is a subject matter over which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes for, such as in Flint vs. Stone Tracy which taxed the privilege of a government granted corporate charter and measured of the amount of tax to be paid by the profits and gains realized under the corporate granted charter, the Obama mandate tax would in fact have to be direct and requiring an apportionment.

Additionally, although Justice Roberts rightfully concluded that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under Congress` power to regulate commerce, he failed to identify the enumerated power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, for which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes, and then tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for the sole reason of not having health insurance.

And so, the question is, why are the 26 State AGs not filing under Rule No.44, Rehearing and putting the Court on Judicial Notice with regard to Congress` defined and limited taxing powers?

The clock is ticking under rule No. 44 which allows a 25 day period in which to file.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Health/Medicine; Politics
KEYWORDS: bondi; obamacare; roberts; sue

1 posted on 07/05/2012 5:17:44 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

If they can tax anything, then the poll tax Amendment was nullified by this decision and we need to institute Poll Taxes immediately.

We also need to institute an NFA style tax for any published articles... $200 for each one published by a journalist.

Failure to pay these taxes must be in line with the NFA violations. 10 years and $20,000 fine.


2 posted on 07/05/2012 5:27:24 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

We are now living in an age of tyranny.


3 posted on 07/05/2012 5:34:44 PM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

you do not get to the SCOTUS without going through the lower courts. An attempt was made to speed up consideration and it was denied. You just want to be angry. Then be angry at Roberts who is a coward and a traitor


4 posted on 07/05/2012 6:04:06 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
...instead of going directly to the Supreme Court...

Where did you say you got your law degree and courtroom experience?

5 posted on 07/05/2012 6:13:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Who could have predicted that Roberts was the Manchurian Candidate?


6 posted on 07/05/2012 6:18:04 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Rule 44. Rehearing ■1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. ■2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument. ■3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. ■4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. ■5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. ■6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk's letter will be deemed timely.
7 posted on 07/05/2012 6:24:34 PM PDT by RBW in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Rule 44. Rehearing ■1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. ■2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument. ■3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. ■4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. ■5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. ■6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk's letter will be deemed timely.
8 posted on 07/05/2012 6:25:02 PM PDT by RBW in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction

JWK

The big winners under the Obama/Roberts’ mandate are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

9 posted on 07/05/2012 6:51:42 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RBW in PA

Ok that is totally meaningless to me. What’s your point?


10 posted on 07/05/2012 6:52:02 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
See: Healthcare reform: Obama Administration obstructing justice in healthcare suit!

JWK

The only ones who win under Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

11 posted on 07/05/2012 7:12:14 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Me, and I am generally naive about such things. I never trusted him. There were many who did not- including Ann Coulter at the time.


12 posted on 07/05/2012 7:13:02 PM PDT by PghBaldy (I eagerly await the next news about the struggles of Elizabeth Sacheen Littlefeather Warren.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Way to go. These guys did everything in their power to help our cause and you do nothing but tear them down.


13 posted on 07/05/2012 7:16:23 PM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
Are you sure These guys did everything in their power to help our cause?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence

14 posted on 07/05/2012 7:41:38 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
Are you sure These guys did everything in their power to help our cause?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence

15 posted on 07/05/2012 7:47:35 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union ... conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: ... if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact ... an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence ... That the several states ... being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge ... and That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy ...

Thomas Jefferson, 1799 "Kentucky Resolutions"

THIS is the response the states should consider.

16 posted on 07/05/2012 8:04:44 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Additionally, Justice Roberts ought to be punished for his judicial tyranny!

JWK

Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [pinko progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy….. ___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

17 posted on 07/06/2012 4:11:51 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Are YOU sure the 26 AGs DIDN’T?

It sounds like you think either you know more than they do, or that they deliberately played a game.

Would have to be a conspiracy among them. Not a single AG or Governor would have the knowledge you claim, or not a single AG or Governor would truly want to win their lawsuit and stop this. Because if any of them knew the way, or truly wanted to, they would not have joined with the game players (as you accuse them).

We are to believe ignorance by all, or a conspiracy by all to play a game.

I think you’re the one who needs to prove something, not them.


18 posted on 07/06/2012 7:43:33 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Right on!

Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903330/posts


19 posted on 07/06/2012 7:48:14 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Roberts deserves punishment, but there’s no way that can happen.

If you mean impeachment...

House votes to impeach, Senate tries and convicts.

SENATE??

No way.

Therefore the House should not waste time.

Now, even if they could, it would be STUPID to remove Roberts while Obama can name his replacement. Don’t bother giving me the old saw that it doesn’t matter, we couldn’t do worse than Roberts. Oh yes we could do worse. Small comfort, yes, but a worse person could occupy his seat, and a worse person WOULD.

Don’t bother reminding us that the Senate GOP could filibuster a Roberts replacement if all of them held together.

They COULD, but would they all hold?

Finally, let’s suppose they did hold and keep the seat from being filled.

That would leave 8 votes, setting up the possibility of many tie votes.

When the Supremes tie, what happens is whatever lower court rulings were in place, even the 9th circus , remain in effect.

We don’t want the world that would exist if we COULD remove Roberts.

Moot point; we can’t, anyhow.


20 posted on 07/06/2012 8:00:01 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
I have always been a fan of Walter Williams!

The irrefutable fact is, the Roberts' opinion is incomplete without him identifying the specific tax allowing the federal government to impose a penalty upon a citizen of Florida, or any state for that matter, for not having health insurance.

I see many Democrat voters are just fine with the federal government and Obama exercising an unlimited taxing power unrestrained by the limits of imposts, duties, excises and the requirement that direct taxes require an apportionment. How sad and unpatriotic.

Pam Bondi needs to file for a rehearing under Rule No.44, Rehearing and have Roberts identify the specific tax allowing the federal government and Obama to impose a penalty upon a citizen of Florida, or any state for that matter, for not having health insurance.

What upsets me is our media personalities and talk show hosts may not realize the importance of having Roberts identify the specific tax he alleges is connected with the Obamacare mandate. Has anyone heard any discussion by our Sunday talking heads concerning the specific kinds of taxes allowed to be laid by Congress and the limitations upon each? How about the 26 State AGs, have any of them questioned which tax Roberts is referring to?

There is a 25 day period to for Pam Bondi to file under Rule No. 44 and the clock is running out!

JWK

The big winners under the Obama/Roberts’ mandate are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

21 posted on 07/06/2012 10:40:25 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: montag813
I think another important question to be answered is, Should Justice Roberts be summoned before a Congressional oversight committee?

Aside from patriotic Americans rising up this coming election and taking control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, Justice Roberts ought to be promptly summoned before a Congressional oversight committee to have him identify the specific kind of tax ___ a duty, impost, excise or direct tax ___ he has asserted may be used in connection with the individual mandate, and also identify which enumerated power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 authorizes Congress to penalize and tax a citizen of Florida, or any State in the Union, for the sole reason of not having health insurance. Without these questions being answered, how is Congress or a regulatory agency created by Congress, to enforce Obamacare legislation within the four walls of our Constitution?

And what about the people in each of the various states? What happens when the federal government enters a state and taxes a citizen for not having health insurance, or the kind of health insurance Obama and his pinkos pals have dictated, and the person refuses to pay? Are we to expect federal officers to seize the property of that person without knowing which provisions of the Constitution authorizes the tax or the requirement to have health insurance? How can a federal officer act in good conscious under these conditions when each has taken an oath to enforce the Constitution as their priority, and Justice Roberts has not identified the provisions of our Constitution which federal revenue officers will be asked to act under?

And what about the various State Governors who have been elected to protect the citizens of their State and have likewise taken an oath to support two constitutions as their priority? Are our State Governors to sit idle when federal agents come knocking on their citizen’s doors for payment of a tax which penalizes a citizen for not having health insurance concocted by the federal government which their State has not itself approved?

Is it not beyond question that the powers reserved by the several States extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State? Was the Tenth Amendment not specifically adopted to enforce the reserved powers of the States? Are our Governors and State Attorney Generals to close their eyes to the assumption of power which Justice Roberts has been delinquent in explaining?

The bottom line is, the Roberts’ opinion leads to uncertainty and various constitutional crises because he has not preformed his job in identifying the specific kind of tax which may be used in connection with the individual mandate, nor has Roberts identify which enumerated power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 authorizes Congress to penalize and tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for failure to have the kind of health insurance which Obama and his socialist crowd has cooked up. Are these not legitimate reasons for a Congressional oversight committee to summon Roberts before and have him identify the constitutional provisions which are in play under Obama’s individual mandate?

JWK

Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote!

22 posted on 07/07/2012 9:10:50 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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