Skip to comments.Byron York: 0bama administration denies it argued the ACA mandiate was tax
Posted on 07/05/2012 7:57:16 AM PDT by Perdogg
Question for legal tweeps: Obama campaign is now denying that administration SG ever argued that Obamacare mandate is a tax.
Looking at oral arguments, SG Verrilli said mandate is 'justifiable under its tax power.' Can't find him saying 'It is a tax'
So therefore: Is Obama hiding behind legal hairsplitting, arguing mandate is constitutional under tax power but is not actually a tax?
Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
I distinctly remember one of the judges finally saying to Obama’s attorney, “why do you keep calling it a tax?”
Just think back to the last lawyer who sat (or stood as the case may be) in the Oval Office.
Dang! Beat me to it.
It’s very important that we hit Obama hard on this. We have to show that he has lied about whether on not the mandate is a tax. This should be our number 1 talking point going into the general election for 2 reasons.
First, it will cause voters to question Obama’s honesty and his attitude toward tax increases.
Second, it will deflect attention away from Romney’s so-called “inconsistency” on the issue. Already, the leftists are seizing upon Romney’s statement this morning that the mandate is a tax. The leftists are using two arguments against Mitt. They are already calling him a “flip-flopper” for contradicting his campaign’s statement last week that the mandate is not a tax. (Mitt never said this, but one of his spokesmen did). The libs are also saying that if the mandate is a tax, then that means that Mitt raised taxes in Mass by instituting a similar mandate when he was governor.
So we need to hit Obama hard on two themes: that he is a liar, and a tax raising liberal. We need to keep his campaign on the defensive about this. This is the best way to turn undecided voters against him, and get Romney in the White House.
Same story here: if it's not a tax then it's not constitutional. They get to choose one or the other, not both. Their feet need to be held to the fire here.
It's a fine measure of how far we've come from reality that these clowns can argue logically contradictory propositions and the MSM just smile and nod sagely.
I love that line! I’m going to put it on FB.
Its very important that we hit Obama hard on this. We have to show that he has lied about whether on not the mandate is a tax.....
NO. NO, NO.
we need to hit him with how many times in Obamacare it is written “As the Secretary may determine”. Don’t you get it? We are arguing an irrelevent point here. Obama and the MSM have taken us down a rabbit hole with the “Tax” argument.
“As the Secretary may determine” means that Obama can just make up the rules as he goes along. One of the things that the “secretary may determine” is whether any health plan is “ACCEPTABLE”. Of course, very quickly, all current health plans (the ones that are supposed to keep if you like them) will be deemed “unacceptable” for any specious reason and run out-of-business by Mr. Obomba.
Pure dictatorship in my book. Even my brother-in-law was stuck like a skipping 33 1/3 LP record on the “tax” argument last night. I had to blow up a paper bag and explode it in his face to snap him out of it.
Official - Subject to Final Review
I’m making now about justiciability, or whether the
Court can properly consider it at all. And the second
is, we think only a few provisions are inseverable from
the minimum coverage provision.
I just would like to -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Before you go,
Mr. Kneedler, I’d like your answer to Justice Breyer’s
I think you were interrupted before you had
a chance -
MR. KNEEDLER: Yes. No, we believe that in
that case, the tax — the tax provision should not be
struck down. In the first place, the Anti-Injunction
Act would bar a direct suit to challenge it. It would
be very strange to allow a tax to be struck down on the
basis of a severability analysis.”
And Kagan is right there in the thick of the fight.
WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT IT IS CALLED?????????????I JUST CALL IT WRONG!!!
BTW, Judge Roberts, did you know the Maltese Falcon was a fake, just like your so-called "tax"?
BTW, Judge Roberts, did you know the Maltese Falcon was a fake, just like your so-called "tax"?Obamacare, "The stuff that dreams* are made of."
*dreams = nightmares
why do you keep calling it a tax?
Here is, to me, the most important quote in the whole thing...
It doesn't matter what the President "said", what matters is how the bill is written! He lied and everybody knew it!
And speaking of Congress and what they knew...
So much more...
The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.
It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.
Remember who the majority part was and how the votes went down! A Democrat majority shoved a tax down the throat of America and tried to hide what they were doing with stupid ass word games!
Read people and think about the decision handed down.
A much better transcript at #17. The link you’ve given is not complete. (I know, I’ve looked)
Reminds me of the "Black Kettle" defense.
A man borrowed a friend's black kettle. When he brought it back, it was broken. When the owner asked the borrower to pay to fix it, the borrower says, "The kettle was broken when I borrowed it, and it's not broken anyway."
He was lying. How can you tell? His lips were moving.
Apart from that, saying it was permissable under the taxing authority is an argument that it is a tax.
I saw that! What a piece of sh** that guy was. In the end he just pushes by the “tax” line and says how great it will be. And Meygan slammed him and went right back to the sleaziness of the Obama administration.
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.