Skip to comments.House will vote today to repeal Obamacare but will not summon Roberts to testify. WHY?
Posted on 07/11/2012 5:51:29 AM PDT by JOHN W K
The House is getting ready to vote today on repealing Obamacare. See House debate on health care repeal: Boss Hogg or Groundhog Day
``That's why we've voted over 30 times to repeal it, defund it, replace it. And we are resolved to have this law go away and we're gonna do everything we can to stop it," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Tuesday.``
I am absolutely astonished that the House leadership would take up a bill to repeal Obamacare, knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate, while it has yet to exercise its authority to call upon Justice Roberts to give testimony that will disclose the specific tax __ a duty, impost, excise, or direct tax __, which Roberts suggests may be levied upon a citizen of Florida, or any State in the Union, for not purchasing health insurance approved by Obama.
Keep in mind that it is well within Congress’ powers to summon witnesses, and to compel them to attend and to testify in order to assist committees in preparing legislation see Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927)
It should also be noted this power has been used in the past when the House Un-American Activities Committee issued a subpoena for the appearance of United States Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. Additionally, Judge Louis Goodman was likewise subpoenaed.
How is Congress to impose the Obama mandate tax without knowing which tax may be resorted to? How is Congress, or a regulatory agency to enforce the Obama mandate tax if Justice Roberts has not identified which constitutionally authorized tax is to be used?
It is also quite astonishing that the Republican House leadership has not called upon Justice Roberts to give testimony to disclose the power beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 which must exist and be resorted to in conjunction with laying and collecting the Obama mandate tax. Justice Roberts has been kind enough to confirm the individual mandate cannot be sustained under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce“, one of Congress‘ enumerated functions subjoined to Art. I, § 8, cl.1, (see clause 3). But he seems to have kept a big secret to himself and has not revealed which power may be resorted to beneath Art. I, § 8, cl.1 for which Congress may lay and collect Obama’s mandate taxe, and this information is likewise vital to Congress in preparing Obamacare legislation.
Why is the Republican House leadership derelict in obtaining this information from Justice Roberts who perhaps is the best qualified witness which can be summoned to testify before Congress, and more interested in a useless bill to repeal Obamacare which has a definite death sentence in the Senate? Why does the Republican Party leadership allow Obamacare to move forward without knowing the constitutional provisions Justice Roberts has been delinquent in pointing to?
The big winners under the Obama/Roberts’ mandate tax are thieves and parasites ___ all others pay cash!
Did everyone hear Mr. Romney’s vibrant speech on this
last night and this morning?
This is the MOST IMPORTANT vote this month, and
Mr. Romney was all over it — pitching for conservatism,
and against statism, and against socialized medicine.
Mr. Romney’s speech will go down into eternity on this
as he made the case against ObamaCARE for Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Romney for speaking up loudly and now.
Got a link? Idle chatter otherwise.
Surely you mean all this rhetorically, don't you?
When is the last time a Justice testifie before Congress.
If the House of Representatives were restrained from considering only that legislation which was predicted to meet with the approval of the Senate, there would be no reason to have a House of Representatives and/or a Senate. The House of Representatives and its members have a duty and obligation to represent the interests of the voters they represent. The Senate fails to represent the voters at the present time because the rotating six year terms of office retard a more timely representation of the voters interests.
The House of REpresentatives and members of the Senate favoring repeal of Obamacare (ACA) could possibly secure repeal of Obamacare (ACA) using the same backdoor deeming used to supposedly pass Obamacare in the first place, because Chief Justice Roberts deemed it to be a tax subject to such rules.
Faint hearts and faint minds do not win struggles.
The House of Representatives and members of the Senate favoring repeal of Obamacare (ACA) could possibly secure repeal of Obamacare (ACA) using the same backdoor deeming used to supposedly pass Obamacare in the first place, because Chief Justice Roberts deemed it to be a tax subject to such rules.
Faint hearts and faint minds do not win struggles.
I am not sure there is a Consititutional bases for requiring the CJOSCOTUS to be summed in the US House other than for an Impeachment. Remember, the Senate votes to confirm judges not the House.
Doing this would no doubt trigger a very convoluted Separation of Powers battle. Frankly we don’t need the
They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create .
That was a /s post wasn’t it?
Keep your hands off my health care!!!
Keep your hands off my health care!!!
Federal Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote!
As I suspected... you threw me there for a minute. I even ran outside to check for flying swine! :-)
They won't even get going until noon?
When they asked for money.
Because they are cowards, and their vote is meaningless, it has no effect on anything whatsoever.
Indeed it looks like some democrats are in the woods.
The penalty provided by this section ... shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes."
Let's see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes" after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) - which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes."
Wow, that's a radical ruling.
And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say "use that."
So why weren't Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?
People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench" when he simply repeats back pre-existing tax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple - no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been "destroyed." Yet they're ready to fight a "revolution" over it!
A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won't read?
If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn't point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that's what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn't that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?
Since the tax does not meet the definition of an excise, duty, or impost as our founding fathers understood these specific taxes and applied them, and the Obama mandate tax appears to be laid directly upon the person as would be done under a capitation or other direct tax, it would have to be apportioned which it is not.
The formula for apportionment, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution is:
-----------------X amount to be raised = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Pop.
And if Congress decides to not send a bill to each state for each state’s share of the tax, and decides to tax each citizen directly, the tax must then be laid as an equal per capita tax! For example, if Congress laid the Obama tax directly on the people of New York and each resident of New York had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. But the Obama tax is not proposed to be laid in this manner and is an un-equal tax not shared equally by the people which defies the rule of apportionment!
Unfortunately we have a spineless RINO controlled House which enjoys expanding Congress’ powers beyond the defined and limitations of our Constitution, and it now avoids calling upon Roberts to formally provide the missing information contained in his opinion.
Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s population has contributed into our federal treasury when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
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.