Posted on 09/15/2012 5:03:15 PM PDT by WilliamIII
he penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They find a way to wiggle out of this too. The only way to effect this change is at the ballot box. The mealy mouthed “Moderates/Liberals on the SCOTUS won’t ever let it happen.
The only way to effect this change is at the ballot box.
Really? Which politicians, if elected, are going to repeal Obamacare? Please give me their names.
“They find a way to wiggle out of this too.”
No. It is either legally legislated or not. The answer is not. Roberts is neither stupid or liberal. It was a ruling that needed another ruling and he knew it. Just my opinion. There is nothing but a legal opinion required here. Whether it gets kicked down the stairs or not will be up to the legislative branch...they levy taxes. This is a tax. Which is what a conservative would believe.
Paul Ryan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-usa-campaign-ryan-healthcare-idUSBRE88D1N320120914
Yup. I don’t hear anyone talking about repealing Obamacare.
Spineless. Gutless. Dare I say how the German parliament became irrelevant.
That point has been made here at FR at least 1000 times. All bills of revenue MUST originate in the House.
I swear.....I could pick 9 people at random from the phone book and probably get more common sense and wisdom than the Drama Queens in Black Robes.
For all their "legal brilliance" - these clowns cannot (for the life of them) seem to follow a straight forward 6 page document.
Roberst is not ignorant nor is he stupid, I think that he was asked to rule on a very narrow group of questions and for some reason, no one thought to ask if the whole thing was unconstitutionally passed.
Hope Justice John Roberts doesn’t do ua any more favors.
I agree. He basically said they COULD do this if they do it under the taxing power.
But it’s simply not written that way, and the very first person that gets dinged will have standing to challenge it.
See post 5
It won't get fixed there. President Romney will not have the will or the leadership to drive it home. The SCOTUS decision was the most important event of 2012 (not the upcoming election) and we lost. I hope this challenge gains momentum. If the mandate is a tax, and the mandate was added in in The Senate, then it should be illegal because The Senate does not have the power to draft tax bills. It's a long shot. But it's worth a try.
“But it’s simply not written that way, and the very first person that gets dinged will have standing to challenge it.”
Exactly. It COULD be overturned legislatively; to be overturned by a court there has to be injury, as you point out. Either way, that big tax balloon is going down.
At the ballot box primary you pick them.
Like the man said...”NAME THEM”
This has been brought up before. It turns out that they claim it did originate in the house since the Senate took a bill that came from the house and wiped out the text and replaced it with Obamacare. Now obviously this is a form of Fraud in a sense as it is subverting the intention of the constitution, and the founders. But I guess it is not the first time it has been done.
Here is some info on how they used a house bill.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901226/posts?page=6#6
People have already been ‘dinged’ as some of the taxes have already gone into effect haven’t they?
They can’t do it on their own.
>>>Really? Which politicians, if elected, are going to repeal Obamacare? Please give me their names.
Look up the names of the 244 members of the House who last voted to repeal it. July this year I believe. Second vote to repeal in the House IIRC.
It’s also the case that this administration has issued waivers to favored, connected businesses. As this program has been determined to be a tax, I wonder if there has been any questioning about where Obama derives the authority to issue waivers to taxes, which must be uniform and indiscriminately applied.
No.
His logic was that there's a difference between "citizens" and "them."
The Chief Justice laid the keys of freedom before the American People.
He must be appalled that they are too terrified to even pick them up, let alone use them.
The Supreme Court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.
See my post #25 above, genius.
What a ridiculous headline! Poison pill?! If he really wanted to kill obamacare why did he go so far out of his way to make sure it passed?
I did, lame apologist.
I guess you and Roberts are just smarter than everybody else.
I agree. This is all wishful thinking. Roberts was bullied by the left.....and it worked. Period. End of story.
I call him "Judas Roberts."
If Romney gets elected and the case is challenged at the Supreme Court level then Obama won’t have the power of the Presidency to blackmail the Supreme Court with. Whether or not Obama and ilk will still have other powers to hold over their heads is another question. If both things happen, though, it is much more likely to be stopped by the SC.
"They claim" is the key phrase here. They claim all kinds of things that are lies. If the SC has a shred of decency left they won't let them get away with blatant fraud.
you would have pcute cartoon. Little kids love it.referred a bolstering of the unrestricted commerce clause
“It was a ruling that needed another ruling and he knew it.”
You would have preferred a bolstering of the Statist use of the commerce clause, I guess. Tough luck. Roberts killed it. And that was his first thought. They are now forced to go back to the court for a second ruling if they want to go that way. They don’t. Now, to do it legislatively, they will be blocked by the legislative process. Unless the dumbasses that think they are clever do not pull it together to gain some majority status. TKO by Roberts.
Cute cartoon. Kids love it.
It was not an either or, they could have killed it all, he chose to derail that.
“It was not an either or, they could have killed it all, he chose to derail that.”
Didn’t derail it, he killed it. That should come in handy some day. Now for the bill...if it’s a tax, it will have to be legislated as such. It’ll be dead, too, the first time it is applied in a state where they reject it as written. I don’t understand why everyone is whining. And no, they couldn’t kill it all. It was, in fact, an either or, except the morons in the administration didn’t see this checkmate coming. And it is checkmate. They can shuffle a few pawns around, but it’s already over.
What part of it died, my doctor is going full force implementing the monstrosity, so is all the rest of the medical infrastructure.
You are either deluded or you are a shill.
“You are either deluded or you are a shill.
OK. It’s a law. Tell me...how does it work? there are whole sections that haven’t been set up. The infrastructure might be going forward, but it is NOT even written yet. Because your doctor gis going forward makes me neither a sh9ill or deluded. Your saying that makes you a fool, though. You don’t know what you are talking about.
“You are either deluded or you are a shill.”
A SHILL?
What the hell would I be “shilling” for? That’s the single dumbest thing I have ever read on here. What am I a shill for, the anti-Obamacare lobby, or is it some psyops group that is trying to practice mind control? Which of the non-existent exchanges does your doctor belong to? Which does he recommend?
You know, without the exchanges, this won’t work, right? And it’s the exchanges that represent the opportunity for the gubmint to tax us? The exchanges that will be challenged once the first person who is taxed gets standing? The exchanges that will be considered a tax, eliminated and then have to be re-integrtated into a LEGAL form of legislation, not an up or down tax vote, which will then have to be reconciled and voted upon? By BOTH houses of the Congress?
Yeah I’m a shill. You are a doofus.
Well you do like to try and give us shiny things to play with, so we won't see the t@rd Roberts handed us.
My insurance will change the first of this month so I have been Doctor shopping, 8 to 10 weeks to even get in to see one, want to know why?
It is supposed to comfort me that it is a tax that I will be able to appeal to the same court that imposed it. I see real genius in that plan.
I know that it does not take a lawyer to figure what out what a turd is when it is on the sandwich they are serving. If you are willing to think either party is going to take the turd out of that sandwich then you need to suffer through a few more elections.
I predicted before this bill was ever signed into law, and it is a law that enables hundreds of agencies to determine what their agenda will be, that the court would not overturn it. What was your prediction? Oh I know Roberts was going to come up with a super secret, super genius plan to have his cake and eat it too.
“It is supposed to comfort me that it is a tax that I will be able to appeal to the same court that imposed it. I see real genius in that plan.”
You don’t appeal the tax...it’s already been acknowledged as a tax. The BILL gets repealed, because you don’t tax through legislative action and changing the present bill back needs both houses involved...which is why it was a GOOD thing. The idea of sticking it to us using the commerce clause (which would have given the gubmint free reign to make us buy, literally, ANYTHING it wanted us to or else) was struck down. Now the bill can be challenged because it was not passed legally through the regular and lawful process and has been adjudicated. And you don’t need to be a lawyer to figure out that. You don’t even need to be a genius. Hell,. an IQ over 10 should do it for you. Ask someone else to explain it to you, I give up.
You keep saying that the Court had to pick one or the other, do you really believe that? They could have struck down any part of it and invoked the non severability clause that was written into the bill.
Stuff your notion that they had to do one or the other.
There is an internet tax on your phone bill today that was placed there by Al Gore,(who invented the internet) did that originate in the House?
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.