Posted on 05/18/2014 11:13:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
File Violation of RICO Statutes charges (class action?).
1. It qualifies.
2. Any individual or group can file those charges.
It’s unconstitutional. The supreme justice acted stupidly when he gave his decision.
That is an absurd response.
I'm no more a Constitutional Scholar than Omugabe is, but if memory serves me right not all House Originated bills conclude their journey into law. Nor do they all address taxation revenue.
Why wasn't one of those "dead" numbers used?
In other words, the number of the bill originated in the house; the remainder of the proposed bill, or "law"" did not.
Sending just a number to the senate for approval, a blank check, so to speak, has never happened in history, and is meaningless.
Even historic legal systems and lawyers are not that stupid. In spite of the historic observation that "The Law is A Ass..."
Of course it’s unconstitutional.
Roberts plainly said it’s a tax.
Is it a “tax” on alcohol, tobacco, firearms?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a “tax” on income?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a tax on foreign investments?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a tax on “living and breathing”?
Yes. It is a tax on life itself.
I wonder what the tea party would have been, if instead of a two cent tax on tea, the tax had been on life itself!
This demonstrates absolutely how out-of-touch Washington, DC. is. This, more than anything, shows us how they have LOST the ideas of the founders.
DC is producing laws that are the equivalent of inbred morons princes of the royalty of old sent out to terrorize the serfs
All the houses of power, all the factions, in DC now have an interest in protecting each others progeny because in the long run it supports their mutual "collective" power over you
Like I said all the houses of power in DC are now inbred royalty relatives like 16th century European kingdoms, it's one big family and your not part of it ..you service it
Not at all.
I am not aware of a legal way for We the People to put an end to illegal and unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
If all three are corrupt, who wields the checks and balances?
> When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?
Hopefully scorched earth...
I don’t think so, at least not in this case.
By the time an Article V convention is held, and 38 states ratify any changes to remedy the problem, the evildoers will be long gone, enjoying their ill-gotten riches.
I like the notion, publius, but if, as I maintain, the court system is as corrupt as the other two branches and refuses to hear the argument, then what?
Return the senate back to the states.
I agree!
Repealing the 17th Amendment has always been on my “To Do” list!
Along with the 16th, of course!
> Yep. The Court has already spoken.
I would be very interested to hear the REAL reason Roberts voted to impose this travesty of justice against the will of the people. I bet you our suspicions would be conirmed that he was threatened and blackmailed and that the ACA’s primary purpose was never about proving healthcare. Surely Roberts studied the damn thing. Well didn’t he?
Obama and Holder have given us the answer; both have said that various Attorneys General don’t have to enforce any law they don’t like, haven’t they? C.f., US immigration laws; various executive orders exempting favored businesses and labor unions FRom Obamacare? And others, of course — these are the most egregious.
I mean, if the head shed says states and the federal government can ignore laws they don’t like, surely, We the People can do the same?
<\sarcasm>
I confess that I am putting a whole hope of hope on this one.
SIGH.
My response isn’t absurd. Reid’s actions were. Don’t shoot the messenger for bad news.
Because Scott Brown was elected to Ted Kennedy’s old seat, so the Dems no longer had 60 votes to close debate on new bills in the Senate. So they had to use a bill that had passed in the house, because “reconciliations” don’t need more than 50 votes to close debate.
“When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?”
Parliamentary Law at the local level remains and can be used to cleanup the political and judicial offices from the bottom up.
bkmk
That's the arguement that should be getting the most traction, but isn't.
Whatever Obama had on Roberts, he STILL has on Roberts. So this thing ain’t going to be overturned by the USSC.
The only way it will be overturned is if we elect Ted Cruz as POTUS and we have GOP controlled Congress.
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.