How Obama Might Use the Constitution to Arrest the Tea Party

PolitiJim.com ^ | 6-29-2012 | PolitiJim (@politiJim)

[rightjb]

 

It is one thing to overturn ObamaCare should we be fortunate enough to A) Have an election (yeah, you heard me), B) Get a GOP President, C) Get a CONSERVATIVE House that will hold Boehner accountable as Speaker to not cave as he did on the budget ceiling debate, and D) get at least 51 votes in the Senate.

But how do we rectify the insane “precedent” set out by Roberts that the judiciary has the right to reclassify – even create – a “tax” that was never written in the original law?   Or that you can now be “taxed” for a behavior instead of an economic activity.  A current or future liberal congress would tax you going to church or NOT going to a “diversity” class.

We continue to expose just how disconnected the conservative elite are from the rest of us.  Supposed “conservatives,” George Will and Charles Krauthammer, try to explain how this makes political sense - either for the future Court or for the GOP.  Krauthammer goes as far to call it “the great constitutional finesses of all time.”  Sure, if by giving government the right to tax behavior instead of economic transactions “constitutional” I suppose it is ‘great.’  So would “finessing” the lack of ANY documentation for a member of the Marxist New Party to stay unchallenged as being Constitutionally eligible to be President would be.  And don’t get me started on the ability of a “conservative” judge to see the word “tax” where it isn’t even written, debated or passed into law by the representatives of the American people when ....

The Solutions to a Judiciary Out of Control

[Foolsgold]

16,000

[Maceman]

The tax is also not dependent on income. If a Republican tried it, the Left would have screamed about "Regressive Taxation!"

The original Constitution did not allow the federal government to tax individuals. The 16th Amendment removed that prohibition, but only to the extent of authorizing a tax on income

Thus, the "Mandate Tax," being a tax on individuals but not on income, is unconstitutional on its face. Or it would be, if the government was still following the Constitution.

[KeyLargo]

[CharacterCounts]

You don’t really think that’s going to happen, do you?

You need to read a little of the history of the country

The income tax was going to be 1% and only on the richest.

Aft Roe v. Wade, abortions were going to be safe and rare.

Social Security was supposed to take about 1% of your income.

The EPA was supposed to merely stop pollution.

Affirmative action was only supposed to last a few years. The reality is every single time one of these programs are initiated, they grow and grow. And every time the Courts cave and allow big government, the ruling is immediately expanded by the government with plenty of help from the courts.

Mandatory solar panels for your house is just around the corner.

[Tea Party Terrorist]

That was my point...we’re headed for more and more Gov’t, not less.

Politicians do not give up power easily nor voluntarily.

ObamaCare will not be repealed, in fact, it will be expanded as the years go on.