Posted on 06/28/2012 11:57:51 AM PDT by mojito
...Today’s holding is problematic for many reasons. First, it is a novel holding that threatens to expand the taxing power extensively. It removes the taxing power from the representative branches and places it in the only non-accountable branch, the judiciary. Defenders of the law — from President Obama to Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid — all insisted that the law they voted for was not a tax. Now, when it is off their desk, the court has retroactively declared it a tax, circumventing the public accountability intended by the Founders and recognized by constitutional law as the major check on the taxing power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Well, now we've got it in spades. The Constitution's separation of powers has been completely undone in order to uphold this monstrosity.
Mark Levin says this has happened before and I think he was talking about social security. He was worried about just this thing months ago.
And we all know what happened to s/s - nothing - except that the rats had more of our money to steal.
Gingrich had it right when he stated ANY judge that rules outside of the constitution needs to be immediately recalled / removed. I say that should apply to elected officials as well.
I will never forgive Ben Nelson (D - NE) for casting the final vote to pass 0bamacare.
If congress now passed a law requiring broccoli be purchased and levied a tax on you if you didn’t,
that would be “constitutional” according to this precedent.
As a matter of fact, I think the HR should start introducing and passing bill after bill of “purchase required or a tax will be imposed” on various things from Bibles to rifles to condoms to rubber dolls.
Yep. We all need to start saving up for our Chevy Volts.
Meh. I see this thing as noticing that your almost out of gas just after you have driven your car off a cliff.
It just means there will not be as big a fireball when you hit the rocks.
My thoughts on today....The media won the war. First they call it the Affordable care Act....Who doesn’t love that name? Secondly, people have ZERO clue what Obamacare is....This is what they think it means: I am hearing people say that Obamacare is letting your children stay on your insurance until 27, letting you continuing having insurance if you get a pre-exsisting condition and let’s you stay on the insurance even if you get sick and cannot drop you. People SERIOUSLY believe this is what Obamacare is all about. This is why many people don’t mind Obamacare and the Conservatives are losing the battle pretty much in the eye of the public. We need to change the message and unfortunately we have an extremely liberal candidate in Romney who feels today is the best day in the history of the Republic...He won’t admit it but he is the reason Obamacare is even in existance...He started it with Romneycare. He is playing politics today but deep down he is proud as can be.
I will never forgive Ben Nelson (D - NE) for casting the final vote to pass 0bamacare.
You must be from Nebraska...I completely forgot about him and his last vote. I still think the blame should be in Romney’s hand...He began the idea and Obama took it from him so if anyone deserves blame it is Romney. If not for Romney, we would not have Obamacare. Sorry but that is the 100 percent truth.
If congress now passed a law requiring broccoli be purchased and levied a tax on you if you didn’t,
that would be “constitutional” according to this precedent.
_____________________________________________________________
Or having home builders instal solar panels on all new homes, to be purchased from American companies (gov’t subsidized)
otherwise tax penalties which ultimately will be passed on to buyers. Solyndra reincarnated.
From now on, let’s call it what it really is: The Obama Health Care Tax on the Middle Class.
A more likely and scary situation would be a requirement to buy a GM Obamamobile or pay a punitive tax. This is an absolute power to compel obedience or be fined (taxed) into oblivion and when you can't or won't pay, the new Obama domestic security service, the IRS will kick down your door and haul you away.
Wouldn’t be too long after the first couple of doors got kicked down that people start shooting back.
Sounds like another case for the states to bring up to the SCOTUS again. The Supreme Court cannot create a tax where there was no tax before. It was a fine, a penalty. They argued it was not a tax. The SCOTUS does not have the power to change a fine/penalty into a tax.
This ruling also forces a legal conclusion and affirmation/admission by SCOTUS that all taxes are punitive by their very nature. Which we all know is true anyway.
I’m not sure I get how this works. It’s a tax but not for everyone, just for those who don’t have health insurance? Has there ever been another tax like this? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.
Roberts said it’s not his job to decide if it’s a “fair” tax so whose job is it?
And I will clarify SCOTUS doesn’t have the power to change a fine/penalty into a tax, because they are not the originators of legislation, they don’t write, they interpret, not completely redefine. This is legislation from the bench against original intent of those that created the legislation - who argued vehemently this was NOT A TAX. By doing so SCOTUS deliberately rewrites the law against what the originators of the legislation declared it to be. Therefore proof they have legislated from the bench, a power SCOTUS does not possess as the Judicial Branch, not the Legislative Branch.
From the dissent:
“Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually exclusive.
[....]
In a few cases, this Court has held that a ‘tax’ imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held – never – that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax.”
Except in the SS situation, the government argued in court that it was a tax. Here, they denied it, and you have to take a litigant at their word, you don’t rearrange their argument for them. Unless you are result-driven.
There, FIXED!
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.