Low income and no income poor will get their Obamacare card regardless as an entitlement.
Those living off of previously taxed income are few and far between. They may get away with not paying but in reality they are statistically dust.
The point is that once again Conservatives are internalizing a false belief, that somehow contracts need be voluntary blah blah blah. When in fact the Obamacare lawyers are in court arguing 16th Amendment tax and to hell with contract law, it doesn’t matter.
I have seen Freepers get their hopes up so many times only to be whacked by something they hadn’t thought of, sending them into a dizzy state where it seems they are not living in Kansas anymore.
Too bad that as a force we can’t focus on the real enemy which is the 16th Amendment and too bad we don’t take the time to understand the solution:
“Too bad that as a force we cant focus on the real enemy which is the 16th Amendment and too bad we dont take the time to understand the solution:”
Actually, the real enemies are the corrupt members of the judiciary.
“Coach is Right” will run an article exposing the corruption of the Georgia Superior Court of Fulton County which, on Thursday, refused to even consider an appeal of Judge Malihi’s legally incorrect ruling on Obama’s eligibility last month. The actions of the Court, the clerks office and the Chief Judge are incredible!! Don’t look for any of it to be covered by CNN.
It’s this sort of bias and thoroughly improper, even ILLEGAL behavior on the part of COURTS yet which will make the involvement of citizens inevitable at some point in the future.
It is the one part of their case that they have lost in EVERY case as pointed out by the 11th Circuit:
It is not surprising to us that all of the federal courts, which have otherwise reached sharply divergent conclusions on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, have spoken on this issue with clarion uniformity. Beginning with the district court in this case, all have found, without exception, that the individual mandate operates as a regulatory penalty, not a tax.Florida v. HHS , 716 F. Supp. 2d at 114344 (I conclude that the individual mandate penalty is not a tax. It is (as the Act itself says) a penalty.);U.S. Citizens Ass'n v. Sebelius , 754 F. Supp. 2d 903, 909 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (concluding that the individual mandate is a penalty, agree[ing] with the thoughtful and careful analysis of Judge Vinson); Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611, 629 [106 AFTR 2d 2010-7174] (W.D. Va. 2010) (After considering the prevailing case law, I conclude that the better characterization of the exactions imposed under the Act for violations of the employer and individual coverage provisions is that of regulatory penalties, not taxes.);Virginia v. Sebelius , 728 F. Supp. 2d 768, 78288 [106 AFTR 2d 2010-7333] (E.D. Va. 2010) (concluding that the individual mandate is, in form and substance, a penalty as opposed to a tax); Goudy-Bachman v. HHS, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 695 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (The court finds that the individual mandate itself is not a tax ....); Mead v. Holder, 766 F. Supp. 2d 16, 41 [107 AFTR 2d 2011-1006] (D.D.C. 2011) ([T]he Court concludes that Congress did not intend [the individual mandate] to operate as a tax, and therefore Defendants cannot rely on the General Welfare Clause as authority for its enactment.).
For good reason. The breadth of the taxing power, well noted by the government and its amici, fails to resolve the question we face: whether the individual mandate is a tax in the first place. The plain language of the statute and well-settled principles of statutory construction overwhelmingly establish that the individual mandate is not a tax, but rather a penalty. The legislative history of the Act further supports this conclusion. And as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, there is a firm distinction between a tax and a penalty.See, e.g., United States. v. La Franca , 282 U.S. 568, 572 [9 AFTR 985], 51 S. Ct. 278, 280 (1931) (The two words are not interchangeable one for the other.).
The government would have us ignore all of this and instead hold that any provision found in the Internal Revenue Code that will produce revenue may be characterized as a tax. This we are unwilling to do.
A. Repeated Use of the Term Penalty in the Individual Mandate
As in any case involving statutory construction, we begin with the plain language of the statute. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs., 553 F.3d 1351, 1362 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S. Ct. 2051, 2056 (1980)). The plain language of the individual mandate is clear that the individual mandate is not a tax, but rather, as the statute itself repeatedly states, a penalty imposed on an individual for failing to maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage in any month beginning in 2014. Title 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a) requires [a]n applicable individual to ensure that the individual ... is covered under minimum essential coverage. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a). In order to enforce this requirement, Congress stated that [i]f a taxpayer who is an applicable individual ... fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then ... there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures. Id. § 5000A(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Nor could we construe Congress's choice of language as a careless one-time invocation of the word penalty, because the remainder of the relevant provisions in § 5000A uses the same term over and over again, without exception and without ever describing the penalty as a tax. See, e.g., id. § 5000A(b)(3)(B) (individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section who files joint tax return shall [along with individual's spouse] be jointly liable for such penalty (emphasis added)); id. § 5000A(c)(1) (describing [t]he amount of thepenalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year (emphasis added)); id. § 5000A(c)(2) (describing the monthly penaltyamount with respect to any taxpayer (emphasis added));id. § 5000A(g)(1) (Thepenalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary .... (emphasis added)); id. § 5000A(g)(2)(A) (providing that taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section (emphasis added)); id. § 5000A(g)(2)(B) (providing that the Secretary shall not file notice of lien or levy on any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penaltyimposed by this section (emphasis added)).
Thus, the text of the individual mandate unambiguously provides that it imposes a penalty. The penalty encourages compliance with the Act's requirement to obtain minimum essential coverage by imposing a monetary sanction on conduct that violates that requirement. The text is not unclear and was carefully selected to denote a specific meaning. As the Supreme Court most recently recognized inUnited States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc. , 518 U.S. 213, 116 [77 AFTR 2d 96-2562] S. Ct. 2106 (1996), [a] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty ... is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.Id. at 224, 116 S. Ct. at 2113 (quoting La Franca, 282 U.S. at 572, 51 S. Ct. at 280). The Court further expounded upon La Franca: We take La Franca's statement of the distinction [between a tax and penalty] to be sufficient for the decision of this case; if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.... Id.; see also Dep't of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 77980, 114 S. Ct. 1937, 1946 (1994) (Whereas fines, penalties, and forfeitures are readily characterized as sanctions, taxes are typically different because they are usually motivated by revenue-raising, rather than punitive, purposes.). It is clear that the terms tax and penalty are not interchangeable one for the other .... and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such. La Franca, 282 U.S. at 572, 51 S. Ct. at 280.