Posted on 06/28/2012 7:39:10 AM PDT by Stayfree
We now have to demand of any elected Representative and Senator that they will not get our vote unless they promise to repeal this monstrosity...or our freedom is lost forever.
Maranatha,,,,,,NOW!
“Who takes the biggest hit in this mandate tax?
The young liberal, head full of mush, dumb-asses that voted the Commie bastard into office!”
We raised our children to think right and they did not vote “The One” into office, but they will now suffer for their generation doing so.
As for me, I’m in the generation that is on the way out anyway since I grew up in the 50s which make me a candidate for the Obama death panel, so I won’t live to see the total downfall of our Country.
Too bad the guy we nominated has no credibility on the issue.
The repeal passed in 2011, it'll pass in 2012 and die in Harry Reid's Senate.
“It’s also time to solidly get behind Arpaio and others whom are attempting to turn the light on in the dark room in which Barry Soetero and his past has been hidden. I have never considered myself a “birther,” but there are too many inconsistencies in that cat’s background and stories. It is absolutely imperative that Baraka Hussein 0BowMao be declared to have NEVER been eligible to be p-Resident, and to thus invalidate EVERY Bill and Act he has signed!”
And how can that be accomplished? What mechanism is available in the Constitution to do that?
No matter how much you dislike BHO and today’s ruling by the USSC, He was sworn in, and his term in office is limited to:
1. Expiration of his current term in January 2013.
2. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
3. Resignation
Regarding Bills signed by him during his tenure, it stands until repealed by the Congress.
There is no magic resent button.
“Since it is a tax, the Anti-Injuction Act prohibits the courst from providing an opinion on the Constitutionality of the tax until the tax is actually enacted.
IOW - they kicked the can down the road. The issue of a mandated purchase will have to be addressed in 2014, after someone actually has to pay the tax to opt out of insurance.”
That’s an interesting take on this. I hope you’re right. I got the impression that they were disregarding the Anti-Injunction Act and already deciding it IS a Constitutional tax. But I haven’t read the decision, so I’m relying on others’ interpretations. Have you read it?
ModelBreaker has read it and has better legal credentials than I.
see his assessment: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2900493/posts?page=141#141
It seems Roberts has taken an activist approach by noting that this tax is not a tax when considering the AIA. But it is still a tax.
Seems highly challengable.
Thanks for the link. I’ll be reading it after I post this to you.
“It seems Roberts has taken an activist approach by noting that this tax is not a tax when considering the AIA. But it is still a tax.”
That’s what I was afraid of.
“Seems highly challengable.”
Perhaps. But not much point in challenging it with the current composition of the Court.
that states:
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.
It seems that the mandate is challengable.
“Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.”
Kidd, I’ve read the decision. Roberts expressly ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. That doesn’t matter. Because he ruled it was constitutional under the taxing power. It only takes one enumerated power for an act to be constitutional.
As to congress compelling people to purchase things, under Roberts ruling, a $20,000 tax on citizens who do NOT purchase Chevy Volts is almost certainly constitutional under the taxing authority.
“Did the SC just rule that Congress need not vote on any tax increase in the future, the SC will fix it?”
Pretty much. For example, Congress can assess a penalty of 50% of the income of people who have the temerity to make between, say, $150,000 and $200,000 per year. The court will just fix it.
Tax laws must originate in the House.
The Obamacare tax originated in the Senate.
As per Article 2 Section 7.
Could Roberts have been that clever?
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.