Did 26 State AGs play the America People when suing over Obamacare?

7-5-12 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

I’m beginning to believe the 26 State Attorney Generals who challenged Obamacare may have acted more for political purposes or to pacify the people`s outrage over such an extraordinary assumption of power by the federal government, then actually having Obamacare overturned by the Court. When Obamacare was passed, instead of going directly to the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction in such cases and which I then constantly pointed out, these AGs diddled and dallied for almost two years in lower courts which helped to diminish the people`s outrage by giving the people hope the law would eventually be rightfully struck down.

And now that Justice Roberts has upheld Obamacare as being within Congress` taxing power, but has failed to identify which specific kind of tax is used __ an impost, duty or excise __, the State Attorney Generals, including Pat Bondi, have not yet filed for a rehearing under the Court`s Rule No. 44, and asserted that neither an impost, duty or excise tax, as our founding fathers understood and applied these taxes, would allow the federal government to tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for failure to have health insurance ___ a subject matter beyond the delegated powers of Congress, and one in fact retained by the States via the Tenth Amendment! And since the tax is not apportioned, it cannot be claimed to be a ``direct tax``, which in fact it appears to be! Unless there is a subject matter over which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes for, such as in Flint vs. Stone Tracy which taxed the privilege of a government granted corporate charter and measured of the amount of tax to be paid by the profits and gains realized under the corporate granted charter, the Obama mandate tax would in fact have to be direct and requiring an apportionment.

Additionally, although Justice Roberts rightfully concluded that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under Congress` power to regulate commerce, he failed to identify the enumerated power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1, for which Congress has power to lay and collect taxes, and then tax a citizen of Florida, or any State, for the sole reason of not having health insurance.

And so, the question is, why are the 26 State AGs not filing under Rule No.44, Rehearing and putting the Court on Judicial Notice with regard to Congress` defined and limited taxing powers?

The clock is ticking under rule No. 44 which allows a 25 day period in which to file.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence

[BCR #226]

If they can tax anything, then the poll tax Amendment was nullified by this decision and we need to institute Poll Taxes immediately.

We also need to institute an NFA style tax for any published articles... $200 for each one published by a journalist.

Failure to pay these taxes must be in line with the NFA violations. 10 years and $20,000 fine.

[IncPen]

We are now living in an age of tyranny.

[Nifster]

you do not get to the SCOTUS without going through the lower courts. An attempt was made to speed up consideration and it was denied. You just want to be angry. Then be angry at Roberts who is a coward and a traitor

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...instead of going directly to the Supreme Court...

Where did you say you got your law degree and courtroom experience?

[DManA]

Who could have predicted that Roberts was the Manchurian Candidate?

[RBW in PA]

Rule 44. Rehearing ■1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. ■2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument. ■3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. ■4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. ■5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. ■6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk's letter will be deemed timely.

[RBW in PA]

Rule 44. Rehearing ■1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. ■2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument. ■3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. ■4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. ■5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. ■6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk's letter will be deemed timely.

[JOHN W K]

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction

JWK

The big winners under the Obama/Roberts’ mandate are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

[DManA]

Ok that is totally meaningless to me. What’s your point?

[JOHN W K]

See: Healthcare reform: Obama Administration obstructing justice in healthcare suit!

JWK

The only ones who win under Obama/Roberts’care are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!

[PghBaldy]

Me, and I am generally naive about such things. I never trusted him. There were many who did not- including Ann Coulter at the time.

[dinoparty]

Way to go. These guys did everything in their power to help our cause and you do nothing but tear them down.

[JOHN W K]

Are you sure These guys did everything in their power to help our cause?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence

[JOHN W K]

Are you sure These guys did everything in their power to help our cause?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (including those formed under Obamacare) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance”___Declaration of Independence

[montag813]

Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union ... conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: ... if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact ... an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence ... That the several states ... being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge ... and That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy ...

Thomas Jefferson, 1799 "Kentucky Resolutions"

THIS is the response the states should consider.

[JOHN W K]

Additionally, Justice Roberts ought to be punished for his judicial tyranny!

JWK

Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [pinko progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy….. ___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

[txrangerette]

Are YOU sure the 26 AGs DIDN’T?

It sounds like you think either you know more than they do, or that they deliberately played a game.

Would have to be a conspiracy among them. Not a single AG or Governor would have the knowledge you claim, or not a single AG or Governor would truly want to win their lawsuit and stop this. Because if any of them knew the way, or truly wanted to, they would not have joined with the game players (as you accuse them).

We are to believe ignorance by all, or a conspiracy by all to play a game.

I think you’re the one who needs to prove something, not them.

[txrangerette]

Right on!

Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903330/posts

[txrangerette]

Roberts deserves punishment, but there’s no way that can happen.

If you mean impeachment...

House votes to impeach, Senate tries and convicts.

SENATE??

No way.

Therefore the House should not waste time.

Now, even if they could, it would be STUPID to remove Roberts while Obama can name his replacement. Don’t bother giving me the old saw that it doesn’t matter, we couldn’t do worse than Roberts. Oh yes we could do worse. Small comfort, yes, but a worse person could occupy his seat, and a worse person WOULD.

Don’t bother reminding us that the Senate GOP could filibuster a Roberts replacement if all of them held together.

They COULD, but would they all hold?

Finally, let’s suppose they did hold and keep the seat from being filled.

That would leave 8 votes, setting up the possibility of many tie votes.

When the Supremes tie, what happens is whatever lower court rulings were in place, even the 9th circus , remain in effect.

We don’t want the world that would exist if we COULD remove Roberts.

Moot point; we can’t, anyhow.