Skip to comments.USSC CJ John Roberts' Ruling
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:
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.
Ok, Im listening to Rush right now & hes bringing up the fact that Roberts basically re-wrote Obamacare, declaring it a tax but hes 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??
I have been thinking on this as well, until the tax is levied, no one can take it to court...
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!
What about the Contracts Clause in Article 1 Section 10. A Health Insurance Plan is a contract.
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.
Taxes are used to raise revenue to fund government operations.
How do insurance premiums raise revenue to fund government operation?
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.
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.
Section 10 refers to States right respectively, not to the federal government...
Impeach him. Impeach him. He is not fit to serve.
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.
All they know is, "It's Constitutional, Bitches!"
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...
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.
Maybe wishful thinking on my part but the man sucks.
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.
So a “mandate” would be unconstitutional, but a “Tax” is constitutional?
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.
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.
It is an unapportioned head (poll) tax.
Poll taxes almost always turn out badly, from Rome to Margaret Thatcher.
(1990 bringing down the Thatcher government)