Posted on 06/28/2012 8:39:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
To hell with the Supreme Court.
I’m a free American.
I will NOT be a ward of the State.
Throw all the bums out, before it’s too late.
Romney’s on now...sounds weak to me. He should be angry!
So, the federal government can now mandate commerce; they simply need to represent it is a negative tax: Buy this or else get taxed. So much for the US Constitution.
The US Supreme Court also ruled recently that all property is subject to confiscation to be sold for profit of the government with the owner getting what the government decides to give them. Combined with this ruling the property owner can now be taxed the entire amount of the proceeds and receive nothing.
We are now literal slaves to the government.
Since the federal government refuses to obey the constitution we should too! REVOLT!!!
The Constitution was gutted long ago, it just finished dying this morning.
You wake up.
“Another Presidential candidate declaring he’ll ignore the SCOTUS. So much for your big talk about the Constitution.”
The Constitution is what WE say it is by what we will demand it be, not what 9 unelected people say it is. We KNOW what the foudning father meant for us to have and we know what we want. For 9 people to say otherwise leads only to revolt. Your view that we should do it no matter what they say is being a slave. I am not a slave!
Right as long as you can troll here for Obama’s reelection, right. It is transparent what you are up to.
Don’t any of you have a thought about leaving this Banana Republic? This place stinks & watch out what is in store.
Thanks for proving once again that all Romney Republicans have to work with is abject, cowering fear and slander.
I’m reading Roberts’ opinion. It’s contradictory. Schizophrenic even.
Troll, troll, troll away for you guy Obama.
Troll, troll, troll away for your guy Obama.
The Constitution is too vague on what is a tax bill and what is not a tax bill. It clearly says that tax bills must originate in the House. The 16th Amendment is meant to give the Congress the power to tax incomes.
Over the years, Congressional rules and laws have become such a huge pile of complex, ambigous and contradictory mess that we now have this behemoth nobamacare bill (written by the nightmarish combination of the statists/new left and healthcare “industry” lobbyists) being declared a tax bill by the ever-illogical, half-partisan, mostly-confused SCOTUS.
This is the Court that upholds the right to fornication by ensuring that unwed mothers can kill their babies as long as they do it early on (it’s not about murder, it’s the fornication that is “wanted”; the murder is simply getting rid of the “unwanted” child).
The idea of a “tax bill” or “revenue bill” could quite simply be made clear in the Constitution. A tax bill should have NOTHING else in it.
If the taxes and the mandates for nobamacare were in two separate bills, and the tax bill had to originate in the house, it would have been even harder to get them passed politically. And the mandate bill would have had to undergo scrutiny as to whether the mandate was Constitutional on it’s own, without regard to it’s even being considered a tax.
Politicians don’t want that though, because they “get things done” by what is called horse trading, e.g., well, I’ll vote for your tax if you vote for my highway project, etc.
We are so far from the original intent of the founding of America that it would unrecognizable to people of that day. In fact, they undoubtedly would consider it even worse than the empire they broke away from, Great Britain, where at least perversion was still legally considered perversion.
So we are left with enormous ambiguity as to what the rules by which the framework of government operates are and this enables the power-hungry to shackle those who work, produce and pay taxes.
When Christians get out of public office, government, law, media and business ownership, unregenerate sinners jump into those positions. Those who do not assume a role of dominion become the dominated, as someone else will assume the role of dominion over them.
There’s nowhere to run to.
If liberty is allowed to die here, it dies everywhere.
“Folks like you should be standing right beside me on this.”
###
What POSSIBLY makes you think I’m not?
I’m just pointing out where the REAL progress needs to be made against Communism. Words, tea parties and elections are not working.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
NFIB v. Sebelius
Quote:
The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.
Quote:
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Quote:
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.
I'll point to my final sentence:
Throw all the bums out, before it’s too late.
Well, this is why I’ve said over and over and over again, we each have a duty to arrange our lives so as to minimize the damage that liberals like Obama and Romney can and will try to visit upon us. It is instructive to notice the reaction today here at FreeRepublic where many of Romney’s fans are even more enthusiastic about voting for him. They just can’t get enough of this socialist hogwash. They must know that Romney’s “repeal and replace” means Romneycare.
I’m voting for you, Tom!
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
-- James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Income taxes are Constitutional, per the 16th Amendment. Congress can tax whatever the hell they please, for whatever reason they please. That’s settled law and has been a hundred years.
I don’t like it, but it’s the Law. No you’re either for the Rule of Law or the rule of men.
Pick one.
Thanks,
MCB
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.