Posted on 06/28/2012 11:03:26 AM PDT by pgyanke
Please forgive the vanity but I have to share this... I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
IIRC, the House barely passed a version of Obamacare and the Senate passed a version of their own. The House version hit a roadblock in the Senate. The Dems pulled the Senate version from reconciliation and "deemed" it passed rather than risking another vote in the House.
I bring this up because I've seen a number of threads today regarding states and AGs reviewing the ruling. If I'm correct in my analysis, the SCOTUS just invalidated the whole law by declaring it a tax which did not originate in the House. Please pass this on to your elected representatives.
The five tyrants who upheld this decision wiped their collective a** with the Constitution.
Dear Constituent:
SHUT UP! You have no standing!
Best Regards,
SCOTUS
You were right up until point 4.
The court said that for purposes of determining whether the anti-injunction law applies, we will follow the way Congress called it. Congress called it not a tax, so the anti-injunction law does not apply.
The court then went on to say that for purposes of determining its constitutionality, we will NOT follow the way Congress called it. We will decide for ourselves, and we call it a tax. Therefore it is constitutional.
OK, this may seem like a silly and simple question.
In all the analyses and all the now thousands of posts, I have yet to see:
WHAT IS BEING TAXED?????
Is it a payroll tax? A Property tax? An outhouse tax? What?
The Constitution was declared Null and Void on January 20, 2009 when Roberts swore in a usurper he knew was not qualified.
“What is being taxed”
The condition of being an adult person who exists and breathes without insurance coverage.
Citizenship.
I thought Roberts was against courts legislating from the bench by rewriting the laws Congress wrote. That’s what he’s done here.
Technically, the bill originated in the House. The Senate took an unrelated spending bill which had passed in the House and died in the Senate, and “amended” it to (1) delete the entire text of the original bill and (2) replace it with the ObamaCare bill. It’s a shell game, but one that happens all the time (any time the Senate comes up with a bill that could be classified as a tax or spending bill).
NEVER FORGET ... it was Olympia Snow’s decision that brought it out of committee ... a “REPUBLICAN”.
can it be repealed in Congress now then a Senate vote of 51 vs 60 as it was a tax?
When the bill went to conference, did it have a House Bill Number or a Senate Bill Number?
Maybe this bill needs to go back to the Supreme Court with an argument that it is unconstitutional since it is a tax that originated in the Senate.
House. HR 3590, if I recall correctly.
According to Roberts’ majority opinion, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case.
Here’s an excerpt from the opinion:
It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the socalled tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.
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.