Skip to comments.Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”
Posted on 06/30/2012 6:10:27 AM PDT by gusopol3
click here to read article
Yes, like did any other opinion use the tax argument?
Obama will ignore the ruling about the commerce clause and coerce the States anyway if he has the instruments to do it. He’ll just cherry pick what laws to enforce and call it what he wants.
Yet the media claims that since Roberts sided with the liberals he therefore must not be an "activist judge". The job of a judge is not to "rewrite" laws.
The election will be decided long before any of these valid points could work their way through the courts only to be swatted away on another distortion. But Roberts just possibly may have been the grandest politician of all. If he changed the decision late, it may have been in response to the developing theme of Obozo to run against the Supreme Court. In the meantime, as has been often pointed out, Romney presents Obama with the dichotomy,”If it’s a mandate, it’s unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, you lied. “ “Taxation with misrepresentation.”
Most impressive — on the face of it, it appears you know what you’re talking about, and if so, then all the conclusions seem to point to one direction: REPEAL IT!
Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?
The ruling on June 28th probably ranks among the four or five worst decisions by the Supreme Court in its history. I don't see any upside. The only hope is that if Obama is defeated, some of the damage can be reversed...but it will probably be impossible to undo all of the damage.
We agree. I'd rank Roberts' ObamaCare decision alongside Dred Scott (no freedom for slaves in free states), Pace v. Alabama (no interracial marriage), Plessy v. Ferguson (yes to separate but equal), and Roe v. Wade (the federal constitutional right to abortion). This will do exceptionally grave long-term damage to our country.
Confirming Kagan for the court revealed how useless the nomination process is without even mentioning Soto. The fact that Kagan was allowed to vote was an incredible obvious conflict yet it happened without challenge. The court now has the credibility of the stuff they called us in basic training i.e., sinks to the ocean floor.
But the administration’s own attorneys stated that it is a tax during the oral arguments. Looks like Roberts simply took them at their word!
And now when Obama and his minions say it is NOT a tax, we can loudly call them liars WITHOUT the risk of the “racist” comeback sticking.
“The taxing power just became the over-arching power in the Constitution. Heck, they could gut just about any other section as long as a tax is involved.
Correctwith one huge BUT. Congressmen need to get re-elected, and hiking taxes of nearly any variety wont get them there.”
With fewer and fewer citizens shouldering the tax burden, enacting new taxes becomes less and less problematic. Any new tax can be easily sold as taxing the evil rich.
Even if we had won the entire Obamacare case 5-4, with Roberts on board, we would still be in the same precarious position we are in now. The Supreme Court libs to not respect any precedent that restricts government power over economic affairs or curtails the Commerce Clause. The first of such precedent in recent times happened almost 2 decades ago, US v. Lopez (1995), and every single lib on today's court - Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagen - would reverse it (and Morrison from 2000) in a New York minute if Obama got another lib on the court to form a majority block. And the majority lib block would do the same thing to a 5-4 decision killing Obamacare. Obamacare would be dead, but a all-encompassing Commerce Clause allowing for a even more coercive ObamaCare II would be on the way.
Right now we have 3 solid conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Alito), with 2 waverers: Kennedy & Roberts (but Kennedy was great on this decision, reportedly angry when reading the dissent from the bench.) We need a couple more conservative justices for when Ginsberg & Breyer exit stage left post-2012. A solid conservative block of 5, with the occasional help of 1 or 2 of the waverers, is the only solution to our present predicament.
Taxation with misrepresentation.Now that is a very, very good line. Maybe the best line I've read on this subject since the infamous decision was handed down. Did you make that up?
Crass, deceptive, plainly offensive to our democratic processes and yet all perfectly legal.
I thought of it at 3 AM Friday, and came down to post it on a thread. When I googled it, it has been used before.
Well, you thought of it independently, kudos to you.
Regardless, I’m lifting it. It’s now in my tagline.
This Roberts is a communist , marxist, lying POS. He struck down Arizona’s state rights and a law that Arizon’s elected representatives passed but within a week twisted to rewrite a law that would enslave us and turn us into a socialist country.
I’m hopeful there are unintended consequences for him and the side he has chosen, then.
Wow, thanks for the link. I guess I lost track of that with all of the other “deem passed” shenanigans.
> “3. By laying a tax that is not an income tax”
OBAMACARE HAS INCOME TAXES (also more see after TITLE IX below):
TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W-2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.
Subtitle B—Other Provisions
Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit.
And the government is going to take taxes out of paychecks and they are going to administer the mandate penalty via IRS form 1040 for individual income taxes.
Don’t anyone tell me this is not related to the 16th Amendment!
Photo of Justice Roberts and his “Central American” adopted children.
INTERNET FRAGMENT>>>> Supreme Court Wusses Out On Sending Kids To Jail For Life, And ...
5 days ago Roberts illegally adopted kids from Ireland by using a central american intermediary to do some “orphan laundering.” Irish law does not allow ...
While investigating Roberts’ life, the New York Times was accused of attempting to unseal records detailing the 2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two infants born in Ireland via a Latin American country. The Times denied any attempts to unseal legal records and stated that “[o]ur reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions” and “[t]hey did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”
The Times was condemned by the National Council for Adoption, “NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.”
The reasons for the adoption happening in the unnamed Latin American country remain unclear, though it was noted that the Irish 1991 Adoption Act only allows adoption of children born in Ireland by people resident in Ireland.