Posted on 06/30/2012 2:50:44 PM PDT by JOHN W K
Bump
IMHO, this is a far better analysis of the tax issue than we saw in the SC decision.
It certainly isn’t an income tax even though it will be administered by the IRS; hence the 16th amendment waiver of apportionment cannot apply) It isn’t an excise tax (and, by the way, the early Congressional rejection of a tax on luxury carriages cited by Roberts would today be implemented as an excise tax and paid by the seller thus making it an indirect tax).
If it is a tax, and I don’t believe it is, it is an unconstitutional direct tax.
Wow.
GO 4 IT!
By the way, I think you should send your write-up to Ms Bondi.
If another suit is filed we won’t see a result until after the election, I’m afraid. So, the closest even that can have an impact will be the election. However, it pays to have a “Plan B” with this crowd.
By the way, I think you should send your write-up to Ms Bondi.
If another suit is filed we won’t see a result until after the election, I’m afraid. So, the closest event that can have an impact will be the election. However, it pays to have a “Plan B” with this crowd.
bump
That is why I never thought it would be upheld, you can’t punish someone with a tax.
The dread pirate, John Roberts, disagrees with you....
It is not permissible for the government to use its power to tax and it taxing agencies to harasses, coercive, punish and destroy a citizens for any reason they see fit...we need to get this firmly established
...This is now not about Health Care anymore
The left, when in power, uses the power to tax as a weapon
Consider Obama's statement about coal power plans.."We will not stop you from building them...but we will tax them out of existence"
Consider the harassment of the Tea Party groups by the IRS
The original American revolution was keyed by Parliament using taxes as a coercive force and punishment on the American colonies (look up "Coercive Acts")
If we have to we need a new Constitution Amendment stated that the power granted to tax may NOT BE USE AS A coercive force or punishment on the people
...sometimes you have to spell out the obvious for the stupid like a Roberts
It is not permissible for the government to use its power to tax and it taxing agencies to coerce, harass, punish or destroy a citizen, state or business for any reason they see fit via that taxing power...we need to get this firmly established
...This is now not about Health Care anymore
The left, when in power, uses the power to tax as a weapon
Consider Obama's statement about coal power plans.."We will not stop you from building them...but we will tax them out of existence"
Consider the harassment of the Tea Party groups by the IRS
The original American revolution was keyed by Parliament using taxes as a coercive force and punishment on the American colonies (look up "Coercive Acts")
If we have to we need a new Constitution Amendment stated that the power granted to tax may NOT BE USE AS A coercive force or punishment on the people
...sometimes you have to spell out the obvious for the stupid like a Roberts
Bump
Yes, I read that we(they) have 45 days to appeal directly to the Court and maybe it was a way for roberts to get past the election because something about this doesn’t smell right.Roberts does not seem to want the blood of obamacare on his hands(court).
Not as I read it. Chief Justice Roberts' decision not only held that the mandate is a tax, it held it is a valid tax; the opinion discussed, and rejected, the argument that it is a direct tax which has to be apportioned and the argument that it is an unconstitutional penalty.
And what were our founders reasons for requiring direct taxes to be apportioned? Let our founding fathers once again speak for themselves:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
JWK
The only ones who win under Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!
?ping?
Yes, but it wasn’t appealed to as a tax and so the issue of the 5th amendment was never raised.
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.