Posted on 06/28/2012 10:09:41 AM PDT by Jedidah
That is one of the most important statements that I've read all morning.
The points you raise need to be brought up over and over, until everyone understands that just because Roberts called it a tax, does NOT make it so. It is a fine, pure and simple, just as you stated.
So, in addition to failing to uphold the Constitution in this matter, and punting it back to Congress, Roberts has also given the bastards linguistic cover to justify forcing Americans to bend to this destruction of our liberties.
It is NOT a "tax", folks!
Not a voice of reason. Not by a long shot.
Is Roberts a liberal, or do they have something on him?
true... but to be the devils advocate..
the libs are slimy, but do you really think they would pass a 3000 page law without the “whereunto” and “therefore” legal speak to make it pass constitutional muster?
The job of the court is to ensure compliance with the constitution.
The commerce clause has been cut down to size with this ruling. It can no longer be used to pass “under the radar” social programs. The funding must be called what it is, a tax increase.
With the medicare portion struck down, the states now have the ability to “opt out” from this without suffering financial hardship from the fed.
I guess the old saying, You get the government you elect holds true. It is up to us to get this thing gone.
That's exactly right. And who makes the laws. Congress. Or even the USSC... sure why not in this lawless environment.
Rev 13
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Obamacare is image of the beast. Bow down or die. Say, does it have its own logo yet?
Bingo!
BO promised not to raise taxes on the under-250k crowd, and he evidently kept his word.
"Justice" Roberts levied the tax himself.
Without GOP ruling the House, what do you think we would be looking at now? I shudder to think.
Tea-Party politicians are not the majority anyway. And they have to win future elections. Overall they did 200% better than democrats. Compromise is always the reality. But it matters very much how far to compromise.
I believe he is being BLACKMAILED because his two ADOPTED children are from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA!! WHY via LATIN AMERICA??? ILLEGAL ADOPTION???? hmmmmmmm
By implication, Congress can pass a tax on people who earn nothing. At present, you can avoid paying income and Social Security taxes by "inactivity." According to Roberts, there's no Constitutional guarantee that economic inactivity means protection from taxes. So, Congress could pass a head tax and it would be Constiutional.
From that, it's only one small step to "discover" that the Constitution does not guarantee that taxes can only be paid in legal-tender money.
Congrats, Yer Honor. You just opened the door half-way to saying that forced labor is Constitutional if structured as a tax.
Where?
They passed this monstrosity with reconciliation, they can repeal it with reconciliation. 51 votes controls the senate. 51 votes can change the rules of the senate. 51 votes and the courage to exercise that control is all we need.”
That occurred to me, actually.
But I suppose I am expecting the GOP to not use that. As you note, it would require courage.
Even so, perhaps that can become our battle cry in January: reconciliation, repeal, or else (though our cry of “or else” grows weaker as each year passes...and freedom grows dimmer)
However, because it is officially a tax, you only need 51 votes in the Senate.
In 2010, the Senate passed the bill 56 to 43. The opposition included all the Republicans and three Democrats.
Well it did recently in Wisconsin.
Not sure if you are serious or joking. If serious, then perhaps there really is some room to challenge this tax in the U.S. House.
However, because it is officially a tax, you only need 51 votes in the Senate.
In 2010, the Senate passed the bill 56 to 43. The opposition included all the Republicans and three Democrats.”
Thanks.
There is a shred more of hope, I suppose.
[ roberts is simply this century’s Roger B. Taney, offering the most idiotic of notions folded into carefully crafted rhetoric.
What comes next is on his shoulders. ]
Unless he is this century’s Johnathan Swift and he is making a “Modest Proposal” to prove a point...
[ Roberts is NOT some genius smarter than the average American, but a coward who refused to uphold the Constitution. He is a disgraceful man. Bob ]
I totally agree with you.
Why would he feel intimidated by Obama? It doesn’t make sense.
...mandate that every citizen must possess on their person - at all times - an identification, ...
Ironic, our guberment wants to control everthing except the voter rolls.....Hmmmmm!
Just because Roberts called it a "tax" in his remarks, doesn't make it one. It is NOT a tax. It's a fine, pure and simple.
What Roberts essentially said, is that the government can fine you for disobeying any edict it issues, regardless of whether it infringes on your presumed constitutional rights or not.
This is judicial activism at its worst. Roberts didn't just rewrite a law, he rewrote the Constitution itself.
Two people just called Roberts a Genius.....another said the SCOTUS handed 0 a cigar....One that will explode.
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.