Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Obama Care Decision Tough To Swallow
Forbes ^ | June 29, 2012 | Robert A. Green, CPA

Posted on 06/30/2012 4:02:34 PM PDT by Innovative

It seems to be a stretch for Chief Justice John Roberts to re-label an unconstitutional health insurance mandate as a tax, after the legislative and executive branches of government insisted they were not passing a new tax on the American people. Had it been presented as a tax, it probably would not have been enacted. It seems like the judicial branch of government is doing the job of the legislature. Wouldn't it have been better for the Supreme Court to punt the law back to Congress? Yes, that probably would have caused great disarray, but it seems more appropriate.

President Obama is a constitutional attorney and scholar. I'm guessing he probably knew his mandate was safer cast as a tax. I wonder if he knowingly sold it to Congress and the American people with some deception in this context. Many Americans (including myself) don't accept new tax hikes easily, especially when Congress and the president sell them with marketing deception, making back room deals, and not listening to the American people.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; healthcare; medicaid; obama; obamacare; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Did Obama lie when he said it's not a tax?

Or did Roberts legislate from the bench to call it a tax, so he can give a gift to Obama. And WHY?!

1 posted on 06/30/2012 4:02:44 PM PDT by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Obama and his minions had something on Roberts. His position is preposterous...


2 posted on 06/30/2012 4:05:27 PM PDT by Principled (It's not enthusiasm for Romney, it's grim determination to remove Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled
His position is preposterous...

Oh no...no...no... it's a ploy of Roberts to guarantee a Romney win in November!

Sly move that nobody sees but VERY effective conservative move to rid us of a liberal and get a severely conservative POTUS!

I've seen it all over the Internet today.

Don't worry, it's the right decision just to make it appear to screw personal freedom and smash it into the ground with a twisting foot when in fact it is very very anti-0bama and socialism.

3 posted on 06/30/2012 4:12:20 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Congress does not have the power to tax people not doing something the way Roberts says they did here.

When they tax people for doing nothing more than sitting in their homes (and not getting up and going out and buying an insurance policy) that is a direct tax on people.

Congress is not empowered to lay direct taxes on people for not doing anything, UNLESS those taxes are apportioned among the states.


4 posted on 06/30/2012 4:12:20 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

So, you’re saying that Roberts isn’t beholden to Obama, he’s just unscrupulous?


5 posted on 06/30/2012 4:18:16 PM PDT by Tellurian (Obama's allegiance is to his father's dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Thanks for the post EG. I was beginning that maybe I was losing my mind. Like I’m the only conservative guy who doesn’t see all those “silver linings” out there.


6 posted on 06/30/2012 4:19:27 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Had it been presented as a tax, it probably would not have been enacted.

That is why they didn't label it a tax and the GOP kept calling them on the lie
7 posted on 06/30/2012 4:23:35 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Sly move that nobody sees but VERY effective conservative move to rid us of a liberal and get a severely conservative POTUS!

I've seen it all over the Internet today.

Don't worry, it's the right decision just to make it appear to screw personal freedom and smash it into the ground with a twisting foot when in fact it is very very anti-0bama and socialism.

A straightforward finding that the foundation of the law as written is unconstitutional would have been preferable to the twisted logic that portrays Robert's finding as brilliantly Machiavellian. His decision was not based on law, precedent or principle. It amounts to nothing less than a rewrite of the law to serve the court's interest in avoiding a Constitutional crisis. Tragically it is at the cost of a Constitutional crisis.

8 posted on 06/30/2012 4:29:24 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (The day liberals grow up is the day tyranny ends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

For whatever reason, Roberts did not have the guts to overturn the unconstitutional signature law of our first Marxist-American president. Unfortunately, he was not as smart by half in trying to cover his cowardice, and wrote a decision that will wreak havoc on the judicial system and the American people for a couple generations. I hope his name is tied to this travesty until long after his grandchildren have passed.


9 posted on 06/30/2012 4:33:22 PM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Hello,

There are no silver linings here. None. I have tried so hard to see them, my eyes are tired. However, giving up (not that you are) is not an option, my son is 14, I will not stop fighting nor should any of us. And there are way more of us than we know. Now, all of us must go find them and get them on board, ABO, take the House and Senate, we are in the fight, literally, of our lives...

MOgirl

10 posted on 06/30/2012 4:37:39 PM PDT by MOgirl (STAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Here's something that's hard to swallow:

"President Obama is a constitutional attorney and scholar."

11 posted on 06/30/2012 4:39:39 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Where are all the “silver lining” and “Roberts is a genius” threads today. Well, if you are one of the very few who believe that conservatives had a partial VICTORY, please listen to Mark Levin’s first segment of last night. He obliterated this line of thought, and frankly, there IS no other side now.
All we can hope for is that this unconstitutional treason on the parts of Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Greenjeans and the Lenin Sisters will fire the base into action for November. Bob


12 posted on 06/30/2012 4:43:16 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“Chief Justice John Roberts to re-label an unconstitutional health insurance mandate as a tax”

Chief Justice John Roberts did exactly that in rendering his opinion, however the USSC did NOT rule that the tax was constitutional. That won’t and can’t come until somebody is forced to pay the “tax”, and it is appealed through the courts. It will either be upheld or it won’t based on injury to the plaintiff.

I think were OK here...


13 posted on 06/30/2012 4:45:38 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl

The only silver lining I can find is that I intend to not just vote in November and call that good. I’m going to drag to the polls, by the hair, every conservative that I know and a lot I don’t know. I’m a “get out the vote” guy now. This has got to stop.


14 posted on 06/30/2012 4:46:44 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Innovative; All
There is one possibility in this entire sordid ruling that makes sense to me.

Roberts and much of the court was known to be in the sights of the Chicago mobsters now in office. What to do for scotus? Get on the good side of the regime? But how to do that if Obama is thrown out of office in Nov.? How do you play both sides of the equation?

I say, do exactly what Roberts did,rewrite the law so whomever wins in November will accept the Roberts court as being on their side Roberts in particular. I don't think he gives a dam about the rest of the justices.

This entire move by Roberts of rewriting a law passed by congress up for scotus review wreaks of self preservation,IMHO.

To appease the left and obama if ozero wins in November all Roberts had to do was legitimize the illegal mandate by rewriting it into a tax. Actually, he didn't even have to do that. He could have caved on the mandate as well but that wouldn't cover him if zero lost. If obama wins in November obamcare stays and Roberts can make the case he was always for it just had to make it look good for his supposed side by calling it a tax.

However, if Romney wins in November Roberts can also claim he was on Romney side as well by explaining he made it a tax so that it only takes 51% not 60% to get rid of it with ease.

Either way he is relatively bullet proof.

Either way he looks corrupt to me.

15 posted on 06/30/2012 4:47:19 PM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Like I’m the only conservative guy who doesn’t see all those “silver linings” out there.

I'm not seeing them either. This is going to kill research.

16 posted on 06/30/2012 4:49:24 PM PDT by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Hello,

Yes, that is all we have now. Perhaps it will not be good enough, but when I leave this world I want to be able to say I took a STAND. You as well, my FRiend, we gotta try....

MOgirl

17 posted on 06/30/2012 4:50:59 PM PDT by MOgirl (STAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

“Congress does not have the power to tax people not doing something the way Roberts says they did here.”

Your right, but see my post #13. It’s premature to say the tax is unconstitutional until THAT goes before the supreme court. That can’t and won’t happen until there is an injured party and it is appealed and goes through the courts...


18 posted on 06/30/2012 4:51:38 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

The Democrats brought up issues about his two adopted kids from Central America looking too “white” during his confirmation hearings. Something could have been dredged up or threatened.


19 posted on 06/30/2012 5:02:06 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl

Oh there is definitely a silver lining in all this. In fact I believe it to be a solid win for our side. The ruling itself is of course horrible. But we also got a tacit admission that the game is completely rigged. We’re playing the political equivalent of 3 card monte. And now its plain for all to see.

The truth might be horrible but it does set you free.


20 posted on 06/30/2012 5:03:10 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Thank you Chief Justice Arnold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I’m curious about your position. We just saw in very stark terms that this political game is completely rigged. So how does continuing to play it by the rules that our opposition sets help us one iota?


21 posted on 06/30/2012 5:06:21 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Thank you Chief Justice Arnold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: babygene

If nothing else, this has proven beyond all doubt that it no longer matters what the Constitution says.

What matters is what 5 members of the Supreme Court SAYS the Constitution says.


22 posted on 06/30/2012 5:07:01 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Did Obama lie when he said it's not a tax?

He called it a mandate. A mandate that will be enforced by the IRS. Sounds like a tax to me.

Or did Roberts legislate from the bench to call it a tax, so he can give a gift to Obama. And WHY?!

Roberts exercised judicial restraint. Why? Because Obama campaigned on "reforming" health care and Obama won. In short, he did what he said he was going to do when a majority of voters elected him to office; "reform" health care. Roberts basically said to America, "This is what you asked for. This is what you'll get. Have fun!"

Elections have consequences.

Now we can wail and gnash our teeth all day long over what Roberts did but all he really did was uphold the law that a majority of voters sent Obama to the White House to do. If you ask me, we ought to be blaming our fellow Americans for voting this absolute disaster in to office.

23 posted on 06/30/2012 5:16:21 PM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I DO blame my fellow Americans. And I said in 2008 to an Indian friend, Americans will have experience full-blown socialism to learn how evil it is. The rest of the world is turning away from socialism and to the free-market, but here in the US, we’ve had it good and never had to deal with an such an oppressive government. Experience is the only way some (not all) of these idiots will ever learn.


24 posted on 06/30/2012 5:45:06 PM PDT by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Have you read the decision? Roberts has just handed Congress the power to impose any regulatory penalty on each and every American by simply calling it a “tax”? They could make you buy an electric car, or tofu, or small-sized sodas and it would be constitutional. Roberts just invented out of thin air an unprecedented expansion of federal power. It’s the worst decision we could have gotten.


25 posted on 06/30/2012 5:50:17 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
"Did Obama lie when he said it's not a tax?

Or did Roberts legislate from the bench to call it a tax, so he can give a gift to Obama. And WHY?!

Well according to the Supreme Court, including Sotomayer and Kagan, Obama lied, and lied 1,000 times.

The Silver lining is that it will now be easier to overturn, since SCOTUS has already determined the "mandate" to be a "tax" (only 51 votes necessary in the Senate vs a very difficult to get 60).

Also Republicans can do full throated attacks on Dbama as serial liar, since that is what SCOTUS says he is.

26 posted on 06/30/2012 6:03:18 PM PDT by cookcounty (Kagan and Sotomayor side with Joe Wilson: -------Obama DID lie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

So why don’t they appeal? It certainly seems like they’d have grounds including the fact that the government is screaming it’s not a tax.


27 posted on 06/30/2012 6:10:55 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tellurian

I’d say they both are.


28 posted on 06/30/2012 6:36:28 PM PDT by mcshot (God bless the USA! OMG PLEASE vote ABO or OWW and our Country dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“This is what you asked for. This is what you’ll get. Have fun!” I guess he’s not aware of the 2010 elections.


29 posted on 06/30/2012 6:46:56 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All

This ruling means the government can subsidize liberal talk radio by charging a tax on conservative talk radio. There’s no bottom to this well.


30 posted on 06/30/2012 6:49:06 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I guess he’s not aware of the 2010 elections.

You mean the election that sent a small handful of tea partiers to the House and retained Democrat control of the Senate? Yeah, that was an earth-shaker!

Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Obama and Romney polling about even.

31 posted on 06/30/2012 7:15:25 PM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

“All we can hope for is that this unconstitutional treason ... will fire the base into action for November.”

Is that what Levin said?


32 posted on 06/30/2012 7:17:31 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ngat

I can’t quote him on that, but he definitely said something to that effect. Hannity, Rush and Beck did as well. But that is my thinking. We can’t allow this Communist puke to prevail. Even if it means that we must vote for a guy whom we’re not excited about! Bob


33 posted on 06/30/2012 9:02:46 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

If that’s all Levin, Hannity, Rush and Beck think we can do (get the base into action in November and that we must vote for a guy whom we’re not excited about), then I am very disappointed in those four guys.

In the first place, there is no guarantee Obama loses. In the second place, there is no guarantee McConnell, Boehner, and Mittens The Inventor of Obamneycare, will repleal it.

I can think of actions we the people can take that are far better than sitting around for four months wringing our hands, waiting to see if more Oprah-watchers than FoxNews- watchers show up to vote November 4, for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum, like Levin wants us to do.


34 posted on 06/30/2012 9:22:33 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

According to Hannity it was earth shaking. ha! I agree that it wasn’t the big deal people made it out to be. But if Roberts was saying “You got what you asked for” the take over of the house showed the people changed their minds.


35 posted on 06/30/2012 9:30:22 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ngat

I don’t get your criticism of these hosts. What do YOU suggest?


36 posted on 06/30/2012 11:48:07 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
Roberts just invented out of thin air an unprecedented expansion of federal power.

No, he did not.

Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax and that power is virtually unlimited:

Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1 Section 9:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Show us a limitation on their power to tax there beyond what is in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution and you'll have an argument.

Here is a hint: Congress has no limits on its taxing power. NONE! They can set a tax to 1000%. They can tax your wages at 1000% or even higher. They can tax your gasoline at $1000 a gallon. A million a gallon excise tax on gasoline? Sure thing! No limits means NO LIMITS!

Here is the solution: Make sure fiscal conservatives get into office, not loopy socialists.

37 posted on 07/01/2012 1:33:50 AM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: superloser
Nonsense. The Constitution never gave Congress unlimited power to tax. If that were true Congress wouldn't have needed the 16th Amendment to levy taxes on income.

First, the mandate isn't a tax at all. The primary function of a tax is to raise revenue. The mandate's prime function is to punish behavior. It's a regulatory penalty, not a tax. Justice Roberts admitted that it's not a tax in his analysis of the anti-injunction law - he found that the mandate was NOT a tax for purposes of getting jurisdiction, then he turned around and in the same opinion found that it's a tax for constitutional purposes.

Second, the mandate is clearly a direct tax; i.e. it places the taxpayer in a direct relationship with the IRS. The Constitution requires that such taxes be subject to apportionment among the States. Since apportionment - as required by the Constitution - would have rendered the mandate impracticable in application, Justice Roberts perfunctorily declared it not a direct tax, even though it places each and every American into a direct relationship with the IRS!

This is the worst decision I've ever read. It is the biggest federal power grab in nearly a century. To my mind the decisions this week - including the AZ decision - are clear grounds for secession, as Justice Scalia alluded to.

I want out. I don't want to have to call Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Obama et al. and the millions of fools who elected them my countrymen any longer. I'm done with this sick place.

38 posted on 07/01/2012 2:37:48 AM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

“..serving the court’s interest in avoiding a constitutional crisis...”

The constitutional crisis would have been created by a Democrat party and a “mainstream” press whose objective is to question any decision that doesn’t coincide with the Progressive agenda.

A 5 to 4 decision against Obamacare would have been considered an indication of a Conservative-activist court.

And now, a 5 to 4 decision affirming Obamacare if perfectly fine.

A glaring double standard that has been repeated time and time again.

IMHO


39 posted on 07/01/2012 4:39:07 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

I suggest these talkshow hosts all promote the conservative people participating in the political system just one step beyond voting in the general election every two years.

If even a small fraction of the voters against Obamacare (polls show the majority of the people are against it and understand yet another line has been crossed against individual liberty as well as stae sovreignty this past week) showed up for party meetings and conventions, this aggression would not stand.

But, I never hear these talkshow hosts truly explaining the convention and party system and how easy it would be for the grassroot majority to peacefully take back over under this system.

So, because these talkshow hosts all personnally understand this, but refuse to explain and educate the mass of conservatives to these facts over the air, I can only conclude the talkshow hosts are deliberately omitting this information to keep the people thinking that going to the circus called the general elections on November 4 is all they can do.

There are even stronger steps they could advocate, still peaceful, but they have no intention of publicizing those steps either.


40 posted on 07/01/2012 5:02:55 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: superloser

I guess you realize you summarize in the first six paragraphs of your post exactly what the anti-federalists were trying to tell us.

As far as your seventh paragraph goes: “Here is the solution: Make sure fiscal conservatives get into office, not loopy socialists.”

- that is no longer possible in our current system for several reasons.


41 posted on 07/01/2012 5:46:38 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

“Nonsense. The Constitution never gave Congress unlimited power to tax.....”

You are still making the Federalist case for adoption of the Constitution where the federalists urged the state legislatures to ratify, saying in effect:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The states ratified, but the blandishments of the Federalists proved to be a siren’s song.

A Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said:

“We are under a Constitution, BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT THE JUDGES SAY IT IS, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.”

The same founder who vainly hoped Leviathan could be bound by the chains of the Constitution seems to have been rather prescient when he said over a hundred years earlier:

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”


42 posted on 07/01/2012 6:26:45 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
The Constitution never gave Congress unlimited power to tax. If that were true Congress wouldn't have needed the 16th Amendment to levy taxes on income.

Sure, and that's why an "excise tax on wages" was put in place during the Civil War some 50 years before the 16th Amendment.

The 16th simply removed the income tax from apportionment. The Supreme Court ruled shortly after the 16th went into being that the amendment gave them no new taxing power.

You may want to read up on this. Its not as cut and dried as anyone thinks.

Keep in mind, the Congress can levy any "direct tax" they want. They just have to send it out for apportionment as opposed to collecting from the individual directly. The tax still stands.

A lot of what the anti-Federalists were saying is now coming true.

43 posted on 07/01/2012 9:41:41 AM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: superloser

I have read up on it. I have an LLM in tax. You’re right that a “direct tax” can be imposed so long as there is apportionment. But apportionment is lethal for the tax in practice, so Congress’s authority to levy direct taxes was rendered too cumbersome to actually implement, and this by express design of the Founders. Roberts knew he had to deal with the issue, so he simply said that a “tax” that places every American into a direct relationship with the IRS is not a “direct” tax in clear contradiction to the simple and accepted definition of “direct” tax. The man is a liar.


44 posted on 07/01/2012 9:47:05 AM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
But apportionment is lethal for the tax in practice, so Congress’s authority to levy direct taxes was rendered too cumbersome to actually implement, and this by express design of the Founders.

Yes, but nonetheless, the power is still there to do that. But the Supremes have actually done a number on that as well. Basically they have allowed Congress to end-run that and define anything they want as an excise tax. Thus, the first Income Taxes were born decades before the 16th Amendment came into being.

A little known fact is that the Feds got most of their revenue from excise taxes on alcohol and beer prior to the 16th. The IRS was needed for Prohibition. There is an interesting quirk of history there.

Roberts knew he had to deal with the issue, so he simply said that a “tax” that places every American into a direct relationship with the IRS is not a “direct” tax in clear contradiction to the simple and accepted definition of “direct” tax.

Sort of. Look into the Supreme Court decisions on what is a "direct tax" and what is not as they have ruled in the past.

Prior to the 16th, they had an excise tax on wages - that is fine, but the pre-16th Income Tax also taxed rental income and interest income. Those two, the Supremes held were a direct tax because it was a tax on personal property and the personal property aspect made it a direct tax and thus required to be apportioned.

Congress could have placed an excise tax on rents (as opposed to rental income) and that would not have been a "direct tax".

Suffice it to say, there is a long history of Congress levying every kind of tax they can think of. Some survive, some get ruled Unconstitutional on the apportionment technicality. Some come back after being ruled out of bounds by being sneaky about it.

I don't like the ruling, but I can understand Roberts' logic a bit. Technically, the individual mandate is an income tax levied when a trigger condition is met. Technically, that falls under the 16th then, and technically, it is Constitutional.

That's a lot of "technically". Way too much "technically" and more than the average person would be able to understand so IMO "technically" the decision should be Unconstitutional under the doctrine that it is too weird for the average person to comprehend.

But we have to live with it. What matters more now is less about how we complain about it and more about what we DO about it.

45 posted on 07/01/2012 10:09:07 AM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ngat

It’s NOT easy to take over the GOP, since the establishment contribute millions in the primaries to defeat Constitutionalists. Romney and his Superpacs simply bludgeoned the competition with ads that fooled enough people. Not everyone is savvy.
Right now, the only way to begin to slay the monster is by purging the Communist dictator. Romney and the Punk are NOT the same. We MUST vote for him, b/c if the Punk remains in office, 2016 will matter very little. Romney is a first step, but he is an essential one. All these hosts are concentrating on Step 1, sensibly. Bob


46 posted on 07/01/2012 3:31:00 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: superloser

That is NOT what the regime argued. Roberts made up a phony rationale that wasn’t argued, and he should be held in contempt by every good American. Captain Kangaroo joining the Lenin Sisters to eviscerate our freedom is unconscionable. Stop making excuses for this traitor. Bob


47 posted on 07/01/2012 3:34:48 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

“Romney is a first step, but he is an essential one.”

I can see that logic, but all I can say is, you are barking up the wrong tree supporting the author of Obamneycare. That is a step to nowhere.

I am still surprised you and the talk show hosts have nothing to say beyond “We MUST vote for him” and this is the only way. That way will not slay the monster and there are other ways; legal peacful ways. The talk show hosts just don’t have the guts to talk about them.


48 posted on 07/01/2012 3:42:55 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ngat

All I can say, Ngat, is that if we don’t oust this monster, there will be nothing left to save in 2016. Standing on pure principle now will lead to total destruction of America. I wish that I didn’t believe that, but the Soros forces are extemely powerful, and they are on the precipice of total entrenchment. Bob


49 posted on 07/01/2012 3:47:33 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Yes, yes, yes...it is a ploy. A ploy orchestrated by Roberts and Rush Limbuagh.

Recall Limbuagh knew something last week, before the ruling came down. Said he did and wouldn’t spill the beans...

Could we have just been “used” to sway votes to Romney? Were and are we the ones being deceived by our own elites?

For everyone accusing the left of a plot...perhaps it is the GOP that laid the trap?


50 posted on 07/01/2012 3:57:19 PM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson