Skip to comments.You can't mandate that we eat broccoli, but you can tax us if we don't (vanity)
Posted on 06/30/2012 9:53:23 AM PDT by teg_76
There was nothing positive in this for our side, regardless of some of the articles trying to spin it that way.
Thanks John Roberts. We wouldn't want you to tarnish your "legacy" with the liberal media.
Thank GW Bush for nominating Roberts.
Why do the liberal appointees never disappoint their side? Why aren't all of our nominees reliable, like the liberals?
title: very well said.
Democrats make no pretense of believing in the Constitution - they believe in getting their way and consolidating power. We're trying to keep the country and freedoms we love - we're playing on different fields/
Roberts is out of the closet.....
playing pocket pool with the democrats...
Because the natural order of things is that government always grows bigger and more socialist until it fails. It happened to Rome, it happened to Britain, and now it’s happening to America. No judge, President, or voter can do anything to stop it. imho...
The Obamacare tax is a healthcare jizya - instead of a tax for not accepting the subjugation of islam, it’s a tax for not accepting government mandated healthcare.
the issue in play is that it is not in the enumerated powers so it should have been overturned as unconstitutional , PERIOD ! simple as that !
It’s because the left-wing idealogues come in declaring that they’re left-wing idealogues and intend to vote as such. Whereas conservatives tend to be objective, and how can you be objective if you never side with the opposition?
Just wait until they start taxing people for not earning money. It’s coming, citizen!
You’re almost right. It’s because the judges appointed by Republicans always have to be blank slates who are devoid of any controversial opinions that might indicate that they would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So, we don’t know who they really are going in, and we should never be surprised, if we allow the left to force us to pick judges that way, when the judges we pick turn out not to be what we thought they “might” be.
Despite the Chief Justice’s rather cursory and shallow analysis, it seems to me that if a tax, it is a direct tax. It certainly isn’t an income tax (which is permitted only because the 16th amendment includes an explicit waiver of the proportionment requirement), despite the fact that the IRS administers it.
It isn’t an excise tax (or luxury or sin tax) as these apply to the seller, not the buyer.
And, in all of the above examples, what is taxed is something that actual happens (sale of a good or service, earning income or dividends, etc. This is a “tax” on nothing other than existing.
So, I’m left with the conclusion that it is a direct tax (for not doing something) which does not pass Constitutional muster.
What do you know I just found the clip I was looking for of Obama saying it is wrong to be forced to pay a fine to have insurance but still not be able to buy inurance. This is what I see happening to myself
Save for one exception...."When in the course of human events...."
If the government is worried about obesity just slap on a fat surtax with income tax filers having to provide certified scale readings along with their 1040 form.
That’s NOT what will happen.
Oh, they’ll tax you alright, and probably give away free broccoli to the poor, elderly, minorities, transgendered or whatever other fictional “group-rights” recipients they can concoct and parade around.
They will hire their buddies to run the broccoli collection and distribution pipeline.
And they will spend the extra tax money elsewhere.
Next is Negative Tax increases.
Mathematically a deduction for one group is no different than an increase on everyone else that can't take the deduction. Everyone of us that doesn't get some special deduction from the government is penalized for not doing that thing required to receive the deduction.