Posted on 07/07/2012 7:39:49 AM PDT by Talisker
So let’s see if I have this right. Congress gives the SOTUS a multiple choice question, although no one knew, much less the public back when this bill was being discussed, that it was to be presented as a tax? Do you really think this bill would have ever passed a cautious Congress had it been described as such? It appears to be that there is quite a bit of deception here. Laws are not to be announced as one thing and then, secretly, voila, we have a winner tucked in there that no one was even aware of, much less a Congress that had to go to all kinds of shenanigans to get it passed as “not a tax.” Roberts didn’t save anything. He showed a way for Congress to even be more deceptive in the future.
Is this a joke?
Yes.
If he did that, it would come back.
Then throw it out again.
I just took a good Roberts, but I didn’t paint it over, and call it a play pretty. I flushed it.
No. I think the point of both this article and Roberts ruling is that obamacare is a joke, and We the People have voted for enough representatives to give us such a joke.
Unfortunately, voting for idiotic representatives who in term create foolish laws IS constitutional...
While all these pundits have been rationalizing Roberts decision, nobody has made any mention of the dissenting opinion.
Between this case and Kelo vs New London we have taken a couple of massive strides into an abyss where justice, and respect for the constitution don't exist anymore.
I don’t know that what I don’t know is all I actually do know and, damn it, I’m not going to allow you to confuse me with this tripe. /sarcasm
Bookmarked for later reading.
And you expect anyone to read any of that crap?
Post should be removed for taking up space on the server. Sarc.
“If it’s a tax under the tax code, then the HHS can’t issue waivers. Taxes-even penalties must be equally applied unless there is an exemption in the tax law.”
VERY Good Point, I hope someone who can utilize that knowledge utilizes it!
bump
First of all, I thank you for the work that went into this.
So, I’m trying to summarize what you say to see if I “get it”.
You say that the decision points out:
...that the mandate is a tax...
...that congress has the power to impose taxes...
...that those taxes do not apply to individuals...
...and...
...that Roberts is challenging “someone” to challenge the constitutionality of the tax...
...and...
...that he is offering them clues as to how to go about it.
Has no challenge to this ever made it to the Supreme Court?
Is there no stare decisis, precedent, or case law at the Supreme Court level
regarding the income tax as it may or may not apply to individuals?
Whether Robert’s decision is legally right or wrong I know one thing for sure. Obamacare must go. For that to happen we must politically destroy the socialist democrats in November and repeal ANOTHER FRAUD ON AMERIC by the obama regime.
I think I’d rather just stick my fingers in my ears and go “naah,naah,naah,I can’t hear you.”
And then roll over and just give up....
Sure, no problem, where in the Constitution is the authority to tax someone for not engaging in a commercial transaction? To Wit, buying health insurance? This is a tax on inactivity. The Constitution authorizes 4 types of taxes. Income, Tariff, Excise and one other. It does not authorize a tax on people not buying stuff. This is a huge blow to the Constitution and the Republic, Robert should be very ashamed of himself.
No, Roberts doesn't think it's a joke. He single-handely saved Obamacare, a 100% unconditional law.
"We the People have voted for enough representatives to give us such a joke."
The whole point of having a Supreme Court in a Constitutional Republic - not a Democracy - a Republic - is so that a temporary majority of idiot voters can't destroy the Constitution. Only Constitutional Amendments can alter the Constitution.
"voting for idiotic representatives who in term create foolish laws IS constitutional..."
This is retarded. Congress could pass a law right now that slavery was being re-instated. That would be unconstitutional. Roberts would be REQUIRED to rule it as unconstitutional.
Let's disband the SCOTUS. They are part of the checks and balance system only they don't seem to know it.
Roberts is scum.
“So DO NOT THINK you can use the information in this analysis - even by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court - to stop paying income taxes.
It. Won’t. Work.
The IRS will simply STOMP you into oblivion...”
Yes, and this is why your analysis of how subtly great Roberts’ decision was is completely meaningless. It doesn’t matter if you can connect all the dots from the various statutes and show that the government can’t impose or collect the penalties lawfully, they will just do it anyway, and 99.999999999% of judges in the country would not do a thing to stop them. Therefore, none of your clever points will have one whit of effect on the reality that we have to live in. So, theoretically, you might think it was a great ruling, but in reality, it’s a pile of crap.
This could be a harbinger of a two-trip wonder. (Two trips before the USSC, like campaign finance reform had to make.)
The first trip called it a tax but did not treat the question of whether it was a constitutional tax.
The second trip will treat said question.
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.