Posted on 06/29/2012 9:17:12 AM PDT by quimby
Thursday was destined to be an historic day for American liberty, and it was, though the new precedent is grim. The remarkable decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is shot through with confusion—the mandate that's really a tax, except when it isn't, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren't. One thing is clear: This was a one-man show, and that man is John Roberts.
Snip
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from "buying gasoline or earning income," and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole. The result is that Washington has unlimited power to impose new purchase mandates and the courts will find them constitutional if Congress calls them taxes, or even if it calls them something else and judges call them taxes.
snip
But this and even the five votes limiting Congress under the Commerce Clause pale against the Chief Justice's infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass ObamaCare to find out what's in it. It turns out we also needed John Roberts to write his appendix.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“WHERE IS THE LIMIT OF THIS POWER?”
The insidious tentacles of Roberts’ Rules can seep into our most basic rights - not just behaviors.
I don’t want to be a Methodist (no offense to Methodists), will I have to pay $10K to be a non-Methodist? Will we all have to pay $10K to be a non-atheist? You haven’t lost your freedom of religion so long as you can pay for it.
You name any God-given right, and this applies.
The government is now the mafia. All taxes have become protectionist monies.
Not only is there no limit to this taxing power, Roberts has made the Supreme Court superfluous if it no longer weighs on the constitutionality of a bill, and its only purpose is to find a way to legitimize anything Congress passes.
The only act Roberts Rules has declared unconstitutional is the Magna Carta.
The power to levy taxes by congress is Constitutional. The limit on that power is the electorate. If we elect enough dumbass politicians then, yea, they can tax pretty much anything.
Which is what Roberts basically said. And what I have always understood.
“The government is now the mafia. All taxes have become protectionist monies.”
You’re right. What you apparently don’t understand is that this is nothing new. Roberts just pointed this out. He didn’t make it so.
Maybe he and his wife got an anonymous letter in the mail with a picture of his children playing on their swing set.
No, Congress doesn’t have the power to just tax “anything”. There’s this differentiation between direct and indirect taxing that effectively gives and takes that power away.
Congress can set up “indirect” tax at will, (e.g., cigarettes, booze, etc.) They can’t just levy a direct tax against the population at will - e.g., you and I are paying DIRECTLY to the IRS and not through a service or good provided. This is why Income Tax required an amendment to the constitution.
Now, SCOTUS seems to be treating this as an indirect tax, which is fatally flawed. Roberts argued that it does not affect “everyone” (only people who don’t participate) so it’s not really a direct tax. But income tax doesn’t affect “everyone” either. There are plenty of people who earn income and don’t pay a dime of income tax. Yet it’s considered a direct tax and could only be enacted through amendment.
This is not the responsibility of the electorate to correct — it’s the responsibility of the Constitutional “experts” on the Supreme Court to call a spade a spade, instead of absolving itself like Pontius Pilate. If it’s a “tax” as Roberts claims, then it’s a direct tax (money trades hands directly from the individual to the government). And Congress is not empowered to levy new direct taxation through legislation.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/nancy-pelosi-health-care-law-supreme-court-obamacare.php
El Dictator Obozo to John the traitor, "Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"
A question for all of us: "When and how did Pelosi know that her side would win?"
I believe he was blackmailed, and I wish someone would investigate. Either that, or he’s just crazier than an outhouse rat.
“I want to start pissing on his grave right away. No reason to wait.”
We could charge people $5 each and retire the national debt. Just have a beer tent nearby, and folks would go through the line multiple times.
If your point is that we no longer have a Constitutionally limited government, I hope you are wrong.
I wish i could give the freeper credit for the following quote, but here it is:
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of a government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
Exactly. The Bush presidents gave us some real gems on the court. So, does everyone think that electing more Republicans is going to make a difference? Time for some conservative states to stand up and tell the feds they won’t comply.
Perhaps, we the people need to address this in a firm and binding way I.E. pass a constitutional admendment limiting the Fed's power of taxation, give aways, etc.
Exactly. See my post at 25
You said it better that I.
Whoops, better than I.
What do you think?
“If your point is that we no longer have a Constitutionally limited government, I hope you are wrong.”
The Constitution says whatever the pinheads that are elected say it says.
As far as protections from the Supreme Court, Levin, i believe said it best just the other day. We don’t have to win just one decision, we have to win them all.
I think that was what Roberts is trying to point out. It is not the Courts job to correct stupid laws that the people we elected pass.
And the so-called Conservatives are as bad as the Libs. That includes many on this website.
The limitation already exists. Congress cannot levy direct taxes through legislation.
No. We now need a Constitutional Amendment that expressly restricts the power of the Government to tax in-activity.
I agree, it's not SCOTUS job to correct legislation, but STRIKE IT DOWN.
But Roberts decided to "correct" legislation anyway. The law says nothing about "taxation". Roberts corrected everyone by fiat - including the authors of the bill - to make it appear out of nowhere.
We'll see about that. Meanwhile, the GOP is STOOPID if they don't call it a tax at every turn.
Correction: Now they can.
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.