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

Skip to comments.

USSC CJ John Roberts' Ruling
June 29, 2012 | BedRock

Posted on 06/29/2012 10:11:02 AM PDT by BedRock

You think USSC Chief Justice Roberts was an idiot? Perhaps he was, because he did set new precedent in his ruling, as far as I know...

What I do not understand is how he can arrive at his definition of a payment withheld out of ones tax return for NOT purchasing or not owning something as a "tax". I thought that a tax was based on something you bought, earned, or owned, or a something that everyone must pay out of wages earned equally distributed among the citizens...

This bill originated in the Senate and was never presented as a tax based bill. President Obama assured the American People over and over that it "was not a tax". But when it was taken to the USSC for argument it was argued that it was a tax... and Roberts, the swing vote, agreed that it was constitutional based on that argument.

The Republicans have already promised that they will repeal this law if given the majority in the 2012 election. But two things really irritate me about this whole issue. The first being that by Chief Justice John Roberts' decision; court precedent has been set for potential future court rulings, and second, the branch of government where this law originated coupled with the argument and decision on which it was upheld.

The reason this is important is because of Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which states the following:

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."

This bill did not originate in the HOUSE. It originated in the Senate, and passed under the guise of not being a tax so it would be more appealing, but was argued in the USSC as a tax when they found out that it wouldn't pass Constitional validity through the Commerce Clause argument.

All bills that levy taxes on the American citizens MUST, as I read the Constitution, originate in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Then be sent to the SENATE for concurance and amendments, or to agree on both.

Define tax please.

Did Chief Justice do the American Public a favor by upholding the Affordable Care Act as constitutional? Or did he do a disservice to the USSC by setting bad court precedent in that a tax can now be levied on certain people simply because they refuse to purchase items as dictated by the government. Perhaps he did both, and perhaps there was a better way to do what he intended to do. But I am afraid this is a pandoras box that has now been opened by the USSC.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: obamacare; ussc
If anyone knows of past USSC rulings where a tax was used in a ruling in this manner, please post.
1 posted on 06/29/2012 10:11:10 AM PDT by BedRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BedRock

Ok, I’m listening to Rush right now & he’s bringing up the fact that Roberts basically re-wrote Obamacare, declaring it a tax but he’s also pointing out that until the tax goes into effect or levied, then how can SCOTUS have ruled on it??

Any thoughts from the legal eagles??


2 posted on 06/29/2012 10:12:40 AM PDT by rainee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rainee

I have been thinking on this as well, until the tax is levied, no one can take it to court...


3 posted on 06/29/2012 10:15:52 AM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

The real test for Obamacare will come once they start setting up death panels — which, I hear will be very soon. How the panelists will be chosen and what they will base their life-or-death decisions on is shrouded in as much mystery as the birthplace of the Glorious Leader. How will people react? Could get UGLY!


4 posted on 06/29/2012 10:18:21 AM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

What about the Contracts Clause in Article 1 Section 10. A Health Insurance Plan is a contract.


5 posted on 06/29/2012 10:19:41 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rainee

Either Roberts as a full-on moron, bribed or blackmailed.

Either way he should not be on the high court and, hopefully during a GOP administration, he steps down.


6 posted on 06/29/2012 10:28:41 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

Taxes are used to raise revenue to fund government operations.

How do insurance premiums raise revenue to fund government operation?


7 posted on 06/29/2012 10:29:35 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

8 posted on 06/29/2012 10:36:34 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

That’s just it, they don’t. And to my knowledge, there has never been a tax levied for something that a citizen didn’t earn, acquire, or already own.


9 posted on 06/29/2012 10:40:32 AM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

Basically, the function of USSC is twofold: 1) Determine the constitutionality of US Laws, and 2) Decide cases between the states.

Nowhere I read says that the USSC is responsible for correcting US Laws to make them constitutional in their eyes. They need only rule yes, or no.

Roberts is a disaffected, disconnected, oblivious jurist that apparently doesn’t want the liberals to think he doesn’t play well. IMHO, he’s a goddam traitor.


10 posted on 06/29/2012 10:42:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Section 10 refers to States right respectively, not to the federal government...


11 posted on 06/29/2012 10:43:39 AM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Impeach him. Impeach him. He is not fit to serve.


12 posted on 06/29/2012 10:57:26 AM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

May as well get back to the economy...the average person doesn’t really care about this ruling any more. It has no immediate effect on them.


13 posted on 06/29/2012 10:59:01 AM PDT by DJlaysitup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DJlaysitup
.the average person doesn’t really care about this ruling any more.

All they know is, "It's Constitutional, Bitches!"

14 posted on 06/29/2012 10:59:44 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DJlaysitup

I am afraid you are right...

But what is sad is the fact that one day, this snowball that is being formed will in the future roll over the top of all of us, including those that aren’t paying attention because it “doesn’t affect me” now.

By then it will be WAY to late...


15 posted on 06/29/2012 11:04:27 AM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lone star annie

I don’t know of this for sure; I’ve never actually took the time to actually verify it, but I remember one time seeing a bunch of IMPEACH EARL WARREN signs here in Georgia, somebody, my dad or mom, laughed at them because you cannot impeach a Supreme Court Justice, there’s no provision for it.....take it for what it’s worth - I don’t actually know for sure.


16 posted on 06/29/2012 11:04:42 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Maybe wishful thinking on my part but the man sucks.


17 posted on 06/29/2012 11:36:13 AM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

You remember correctly. I remember seeing these signs on many highways in the midwest, and asking my parents what they meant.

My parents didn’t give me an answer, and I have wondered what the beef was for about 60 years.


18 posted on 06/29/2012 11:44:36 AM PDT by jacquej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

So a “mandate” would be unconstitutional, but a “Tax” is constitutional?


19 posted on 06/29/2012 11:47:33 AM PDT by mom.mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacquej

I took the time to do some googling. Earl Warren apparently was a prominent factor in desegregation and negating Jim Crow laws....regardless of that...it appears there is a mechanism to impeach a SC justice, but it is as difficult as impeaching and removing a President. House impeaches, Senate judges.....we all know how that turns out.

Never has there been a more corrupt, unreliable and more duplicitous group than the 100 Senators of our country. I am including my own two Senators from Georgia. When either comes up for Primary, I’m going for the primary challenger and give him/her all the money I can. Chamblis/Isakson a couple of real RINOs who value the Washington scene in my book.


20 posted on 06/29/2012 11:57:27 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mom.mom

Yes, doesn’t matter what you call it. Be it mandate, contract, insurance security, etc..

By placing the term “tax” on the condition of non-compliance with said law, that in and of itself makes it unconstitutional.

Trouble is, it can only be tried in court once the “tax” is actually charged to an individual citizen. The other issue is that, like I stated in my article, only the House can introduce law to raise any tax, not the Senate, no matter what name you apply to it. I personally think this should have been thrown out as unconstitutional. Because it was argued amd passed in the Senate as not being a tax, and was passed with votes on the basis that it was to be justified through the Commerce Clause. Because that was misleading to the Senators, and the Public.


21 posted on 06/29/2012 12:47:52 PM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BedRock

It is an unapportioned head (poll) tax.
Poll taxes almost always turn out badly, from Rome to Margaret Thatcher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_per_head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots
(1990 bringing down the Thatcher government)


22 posted on 06/29/2012 12:58:24 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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