House will vote today to repeal Obamacare but will not summon Roberts to testify. WHY?

7-11-12 | johnwk

[US Navy Vet]

When they asked for money.

[Excellence]

I just don't see Romney making that kind of a speech. I see him as more of a 'sitzen-pisser.' But if he really did, I'd love a link to it.

[Graewoulf]

GREAT QUESTION!

[chris37]

Because they are cowards, and their vote is meaningless, it has no effect on anything whatsoever.

[Vaduz]

Indeed it looks like some democrats are in the woods.

[Talisker]

In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:

The penalty provided by this section ... shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes."

Let's see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes" after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) - which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes."

Wow, that's a radical ruling.

And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say "use that."

So why weren't Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?

People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench" when he simply repeats back pre-existing tax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple - no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been "destroyed." Yet they're ready to fight a "revolution" over it!

A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won't read?

If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn't point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that's what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn't that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?

How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

[JOHN W K]

Roberts never identified what tax __ an impost, duty, excise or direct tax __ he suggested the Obama mandate tax is, nor did he point to the constitutionally authorized function beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 for which Congress may lay and collect taxes, or the tax Roberts never identified. At least he concluded, and rightfully so, that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not allow laying the tax he never identified.

JWK

[JOHN W K]

What Roberts did in his opinion was tell the American People the Obama mandate tax is to be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes” never mentioning the specific tax Congress is laying and collecting.

Since the tax does not meet the definition of an excise, duty, or impost as our founding fathers understood these specific taxes and applied them, and the Obama mandate tax appears to be laid directly upon the person as would be done under a capitation or other direct tax, it would have to be apportioned which it is not.

The formula for apportionment, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution is:

States’ pop.
-----------------X amount to be raised = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Pop.

And if Congress decides to not send a bill to each state for each state’s share of the tax, and decides to tax each citizen directly, the tax must then be laid as an equal per capita tax! For example, if Congress laid the Obama tax directly on the people of New York and each resident of New York had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. But the Obama tax is not proposed to be laid in this manner and is an un-equal tax not shared equally by the people which defies the rule of apportionment!

Unfortunately we have a spineless RINO controlled House which enjoys expanding Congress’ powers beyond the defined and limitations of our Constitution, and it now avoids calling upon Roberts to formally provide the missing information contained in his opinion.

JWK

Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?