Posted on 07/02/2012 5:06:03 PM PDT by lyby
“If Roberts really has hamstrung the governments power under the Commerce Clause, why did he have to uphold Obamacare under taxation?
Why could he not have sided with the Kennedy and the conservatives, struck down Obamacare, and STILL issued his opinion on the Commerce Clause?”
You have phrased my questions well...
I am wondering (please pardon my lack of knowledge - I am on FB in an attempt to learn and understand): if, because Justice Roberts has “interpreted” Obamacare as a TAX, does it not need to go back to the House of Representatives? WE, THE PEOPLE, have NOT had our opinion voiced regarding a TAX!
That’s me all right: Mr. Silas `umble dice!
We got some rain here, but need more.
So I’ve had enough of the attempts to make us think it’s raining, and not too long after watching five of the justices zipping-up their pants:
“Sure, your trouser legs are wet, even sticky! But that’s no big thing. In fact, its a good thing!” say the American versions of the Iraqi foreign minister.
I still can’t believe he voted with them.
I’ve always stood by the Court, even when I disagreed with them, e.g. Kelo. `Going Gault’ seems like a hi-falutin’ way to put it, but I believe you’re going to see more of us hopping on the wagon if the ones in the harness are going to be asked, like Boxer the workhorse in `Animal Farm’, to work even harder in order not to fall too far behind. It’s always been, you work hard, work smart—you get ahead.
This isn’t the America I know.
I agree—we’re talking Pollyanna on steroids.
BUT, would Obamacare have passed either house if it had been deemed a tax? No. And that’s not even counting that as a tax, it somehow didn’t originate in the people’s House! Roberts neglects the logical conclusions of HIS conclusions. If the Affordable Care Act passes Constitutional muster if and only if the mandate abetting it is a tax, then the whole thing should have been returned to the Congress for re-labeling and proper passage as a tax.
This obviously didn’t happen.
I’m so tired of our side’s Stockholm Syndrome freaking idiots!
Give the da*n country away instead of fighting.
I hope Roberts defects to Malta to some Muslim camp there where he belongs.
It looks like John “The Taxman” Roberts’ mental illness has spread to Dov Fischer.
Reparations would breeze thru the Roberts Court if it was written up as a fundamental necessity of the US Tax Code.
Oh yes, the possibilities are quite wonderful if we only imagine. . .
/s
Obama is so amart.
And Roberts is so smart.
And we are all just too stoo-pid to know how smart they are and how stoo-pid we are.
Please, won’t someone help us understand?
/sarcasm
“United States of America” ??
Huh? Dude ! Where you been? It’s gone! That was last week!
I don’t know what this is now but all I can suggest is that it’s some bed wetting liberal wet dream. We need to rename this place.
The Federal Government already has limitless taxation policy, so aside from the abysmal decision from Roberts, he has thrown this tar baby back were it belongs — into the hands of the people who decide and vote and ultimately can hold the legislature accountable.
Now if we can only rid ourselves of the 17 amendment.
“The Federal Government already has limitless taxation policy,”
Don’t think so. Taxation is enumerated and nowhere in the constitution is the taxation of inactivity or taxation for not buying something considered. This is an entirely new dimension of the taxing powers..
No, it does not have to go back to Congress for this “tax” to be implemented. It is standing law because Roberts deemed it to be standing law.
The positive about it being a tax is that the entire law can be repealed more easily by Congress. I don’t want to pretend this is a silver lining. Benedict Roberts has done severe damage to the US Constitution and our nation with this ruling.
Even if it turns out that he lessened abuse of the Commerce Clause, he gave the liberals a complete end-run around the Commerce clause. Now they can regulated anything in our lives, even what we DON’T buy and do, as long as they associate it with a penalty “tax”.
You are a witness to history. You are seeing a nation destroyed before your very eyes.
“Huh? Dude ! Where you been? It’s gone! That was last week!”
Just so ya know, I am a “dudette”. And I have either been here at home in Alabama with my husband and three children, or I have been at home in Virginia, taking care of my mom, who has dementia, and my dad, who has Parkinson’s. BTW, I was there during the “derecho”, which is a phenomena like I have never before seen!
We agree on point #2, It was a very flimsy decision.
We disagree on point #1, the federal government has a limitless power to tax only hindered by the tolerance of the voters.
Gut the Federal Government and repeal the 17th amendment and have Senators appointed by the state legislature.
As to point one.. They certainly do now there is no arguing that..
How about you post a decent excerpt instead of me going to the wash compost site?
“How about you post a decent excerpt instead of me going to the wash compost site?”
Well, hello, subterfuge!
Please elaborate as to what exactly, by your account, constitutes “a decent excerpt”. (I certainly do not want to violate any FR rules pertaining to copyright.)
Also, I did not submit a link to “the wash compost”.
The link goes to AMERICAN THINKER.
My apologies on the compost thing. I must have gotten this thread mixed up with some other. But Since you asked, which I do appreciate, at the least when posting an article, one should post part of the article that alludes to the title in some way. Does anyone in that article actually sayRoberts “done good”? I don’t know because the lack of info annoyed me enough to not bother reading the article.
The best excerpts pull out little slices of the important or eye catching points. I know this is time consuming (you should try
it on this darn phone) but if the original poster really wants a lot of participation in the thread this the way to get it. This is not to say there is any rule here at FRee Republic, but there are a lot of us that won’t go beyond the excerpt if it seems like it might be pointless. Judging from some of the comments it seems this may be the case for this article.
Anywho, Happy FReeping!
Merely the concluding sentence:
“This is going to be OK, even fun. Just wait and see. The Chief Justice done us good.”
I just thought the commentary expressed a different twist, and no one else had posted the article. So, I put it up to see what FR folks had to say about it... and I found out!
I will consider your advice if/when I encounter another article not previously posted that I find interesting.
Thank you...
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.