Skip to comments.The Supreme Court Shrugged, And We're All Left Eating Broccoli-Yaron Brook
Posted on 06/29/2012 7:18:37 AM PDT by appeal2
www.FinancialSurvivalNetwork.com presents Yaron Brook came on today to discuss the ramifications of the upholding of Obamacare. The decision, while in and of itself a shocker, shows us that we now live under a government that knows no limits. If they want to mandate broccoli consumption, the Congress is free to do so. What other dastardly mandates will arise from this Obamanation? This is yet just another part of the systematic assault on personal liberty and freedom. The very idea of forcing people to engage in market place activities against their own will would have made the Founders fly into an uncontrolled rage. There are certain benefits to the ruling, which we will explore in future reports. The decision may potentially act as a check on the Commerce Clause. Remember that the Chief Judge gets to choose who writes a decision, when he's in the majority. As such, Roberts took the initiative and the message to the Tea Party and other Freedom Lovers.
Listen to the Interview Here
Eat your peas.....
Eat Broccoli or pay a tax.
So government can literally do anything, seize any powers, as long as they call it a tax.
Now the media love John Roberts.
And now the media love 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions. Rather than being divisive and controversial, the media now celebrate certain 5 to 4 decisions, when those decisions are driven by an “enlightened” justice whom we had thought leaned conservative.
Who knew the media would ever fete John Roberts this way??????
According to this standard Congress can pass any law, literally do anything, seize any powers - as long as they call it a tax; but only until someone has to pay the tax and then it can be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
I doubt the tax/penalty of 0bamacare would survive such a challenge (though I hope it never comes to that - as it should be legislated out of existence sometime after the 2012 election) - as it is NOT a tax on income - neither is it a bill that originated in the House - as all tax bills must.
I’m trying to understand Roberts’s twisted logic, but I can’t grasp it. Essentially, what he’s saying is since congress has the power to tax the citizenry for various reasons (true), it can tax you for anything it deems reasonable (not true). But this is a forced tax/penalty on something you may not want to buy. It’s no different than demanding you buy an automobile, or you’re going to pay a tax/penalty. How Roberts can justify that “reasoning” is beyond me.
I like brocolli. I don’t like taxes.
Buy solar panels or pay a tax of the same amount. Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a tax equal to the cost of the car. There are no limits to what the federal government can do following this logic.
The logic of this decision could come in handy - it’s not a $100,000 penalty for having an abortion, it’s a tax for not refusing to get one.
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.