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

Skip to comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah

....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.

snip

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; authorondrugs; businessinsider; chiefjusticeroberts; deathpanels; idiocy; obamacare; obamacaredecision; roberts; scotus; stupidafterthink; zerocare; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-315 next last
To: sam_paine

Sure, we just have to rely on our elected leaders right? Not like they have any real skin in the game. Their own health and retirement plan remains. I am entirely too pessimistic to attempt to see any silver lining to a ruling that could have killed the bill. I think the liberals on the court are laughin their butts off! Rely on the voters and who they elect to make it right? Ha! Have you seen who we have been electing for the last 20+ years?! Mostly traitors and Lilly-livered weasels. Roberts tried to be smart? Maybe, but he fooled himself and will be remembered as the guy who helped kill America.


251 posted on 06/29/2012 7:21:49 AM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: kingu
What I find interesting in the finding is the part that says that the Government cannot withhold established funding to a state in order to force the state to act.

Remember when Carter told the states they had to drop the speed limit on the Interstates to 55 mph to save on gas? The threat was that he would withhold DOT Highway Funds from the states that didn't comply.

Remember when some president decided the drinking age was 21 and was going to withhold highway money if a state didn't comply?

All that kind of manipulation has been tossed in the trash heap by this ruling. Don't think any of the talking heads have figured that out yet.

252 posted on 06/29/2012 7:22:11 AM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

It’s simple, Bush wanted to appoint a liberal so he tried
Harriet Miers but she was a no go so they sent in a stealth
liberal and we got Roberts. Or, Bush was the bozo that
SNL tried to make Ford out to be and he got duped. Either way
Roberts is not the conservative he lead us to believe at his
confirmation hearings so he’s either a lying snake in the grass or he’s been compromised.


253 posted on 06/29/2012 7:23:35 AM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

If he did, he was too cute, by half.
There is nothing positive there. We have been placed on notice that we can and will be taxed for both an action or an inaction, whichever the government deems fit at the time. They just can’t use the Commerce Clause as justification.

The right thing to do was nullify the entire thing, kick it back to the legislature and have them re-vote on the mandate as a tax. But instead, he dispensed with the messy legislative process and wrote and approved it for them..

No Mr Roberts, we don’t need to be save from ourselves, we need to be saved from black robed idiots that forget why the constitution provided the power of making law and levying taxes to the representatives of the people, not yourself.


254 posted on 06/29/2012 7:34:44 AM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I wonder how this same reasoning might apply to Roberts decision in the Arizona case.


255 posted on 06/29/2012 7:35:07 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Insofar as it’s a line item on your income tax form I can grudgingly accept the notion “it’s a tax”, comparable to the reprehensible “you owe $1000 unless you have a kid with a SS#”. The terminology doesn’t line up with the semantics, but the end practical result is the same: you’re taxed $X unless you can demonstrate a qualifying deduction, which is a long-accepted norm.

As you note, as such the free-flowing exemptions to supporters come to a screeching halt today - or it gets ugly for Barry.

Insofar as very few people won’t be able to claim the qualifying deduction, or won’t otherwise have other deductions reducing total tax to $0 (the infamous 47%), the number of people actually subject to the tax will be very small and very little money raised thereby (well, relative to the spending Barry alleges it will offset).


256 posted on 06/29/2012 7:39:00 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flint
"What I find interesting in the finding is the part that says that the Government cannot withhold established funding to a state in order to force the state to act."

It does seem to be the one piece of good news, but could they turn around and pass a targeted tax directed at red states that would tax any state that didn't expand the medicaid rolls. It is hard to rule out any idea in this environment.

257 posted on 06/29/2012 7:44:51 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

Thanks for the link to Mr. Schiff’s commentary. Very timely as usual.

What a shame Connecticut didn’t see fit to send him to DC.


258 posted on 06/29/2012 7:51:14 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone ('We the People' can and will take this country back...starting today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

It was never the intent of the democraps to raise revenue. It has always been their agenda to collpase the insurance industry and establish ‘single payer’. It has always been the agenda of these same treacherous democrats to collapse the US economy so we the people are no longer sovereigns and The UNited States come under UN/global governance. Roberts has handed the treacherous bastards the means by which they can now herd US all via punative taxation ... unless we throw this sh!t out with extreme prejudice.


259 posted on 06/29/2012 7:56:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

If tax law can be changed veery two years, then how do we change the tax law ROBERTS enacted yesterday?

Tell me, how do we vote Roberts out?

When’s he up for re-election, and what is his district?


260 posted on 06/29/2012 8:12:15 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Get your head out of your a**, it smells much better out here in the fresh air.

Not if one thinks their sh!t don't stink...

261 posted on 06/29/2012 8:14:24 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1256 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Pox

“Coward” is very little different from “Traitor”.


262 posted on 06/29/2012 8:18:21 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Kenny
Didn’t Congress just ship our vote-counting to a foreign country? To a company owned by Soros?

Yep. Scytl in Spain. No paper audit trail either.

263 posted on 06/29/2012 8:19:05 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1256 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
"He's concerned about public perception!"

Be angry at Roberts for his ruling - okay. But your comment (and a lot of other comments I've seen) is based on someone's opinion of why Roberts ruled as he did and not based on something that you factually know for sure.

264 posted on 06/29/2012 8:22:01 AM PDT by Heart of Georgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Roberts can’t be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life (or until they retire).


265 posted on 06/29/2012 8:22:37 AM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

I know, I know, and considering that taxation must originate in the house as per the constitution, where does this unelected tryant get off creating taxes on a whim?

Who do I submit my complaint to!?

No taxation with representation, Mr. Roberts, I would have thought you would have known such, you hack.

I will not comply.


266 posted on 06/29/2012 8:25:25 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

I hope to read in your memoirs some day that you issued your atrocious Obamacare ruling in order to revitalize the 2010 groundswell of voter disgust with Obama, Obamacare, and Democrats in general.

If this is why you issued your ruling, then I salute you for putting your own reputation in the toilet in order to save the country from another disastrous Obama term. I hope it works.

On its face, however, your ruling will go down as a modern day equivalent of the Dred Scott ruling.

Sincerely,

rustbucket

267 posted on 06/29/2012 8:28:06 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Roberts revealed himself to be a weak minded liberal who believes in multi-culturism and that to deny Obama his signature legislation would have been an act of racism. As Jonah Goldberg explained it in his book, Liberal Fascism, to be race neutral is to be a racist. Roberts did not want to be seen as a racist.

I guess, it is possible to intelligent and weak at the same time. Without the belief in God given rights, we are caught in the void, where power decides all the questions of the day. Is Roberts an atheist? Was he easily convinced that there is no such thing as God given rights because he was afraid to stand up and say that he believes in God?


268 posted on 06/29/2012 8:28:51 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; Jim Robinson; xzins
The limits on taxation are the votes of our representation!!!... Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

Sam Paine?

Please change your freeper name.

Samuel Paine is turning over in his grave today. John Roberts has declared the constitution to be nothing more than meaningless words on an old piece of parchment. John Roberts has expanded the power of the Federal Government beyond all known limits and has destroyed any semblance of Liberty that we once had in this country.

Don't torment Samuel Paine's soul by taking his name on this forum and then promoting the most massive government expansion against Liberty this country has ever witnessed.

Samuel Paine you are not.

Jim, could you force this guy to relinquish that freeper name and open it up to someone who actually believes in Liberty?

269 posted on 06/29/2012 8:33:07 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Roberts Care is Romney Care on Steroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Congress tried to make SCOTUS shine this turd, and Roberts told Congress and the American people to put their big boy pants on and clean up this mess that THEY MADE.

If The Supreme Court isn't going to clean up any unconstitutional mess, why do we bother taking any law to that court.

Roberts did shine this turd.

270 posted on 06/29/2012 8:34:16 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Being intelligent is nothing without courage and sound principles. CS Lewis, when writing about education, said something along the lines that schools are merely producing “clever demons” or something of that sort.


271 posted on 06/29/2012 8:34:47 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

That is exactly my point. Roberts was too easily swayed because he has no fundamental belief in a higher power. He may attend church, but I don’t think that he believes that are men are created equally and that therefore have equal God given rights.

I think that someone convinced Roberts that some people should be more equal than others because they have been traditionally oppressed.


272 posted on 06/29/2012 8:39:57 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

If it really was revolution time, you would be out there mobilizing. There is a lot of big talk on the message boards in that regard, but no action.

Talk is cheap.


273 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:32 AM PDT by George189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Tell me how ostensibly limiting the Commerce Clause has any meaning at all when the crackpot who supposedly did so voted to twist logic into a tornado pile to uphold the most vile, fraudulent “legislation” in history. Roberts is an anti-Constitutionalist fraud, and I can’t think of a man in America short of Obama who deserves more derision. Bob


274 posted on 06/29/2012 9:34:53 AM 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 223 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Right. Anyone like Roberts who has KNOWINGLY participated in the destruction of millions of American lives has no soul. Stop the charade, you creep Roberts. Join your local coven, where you would be among friends. Bob


275 posted on 06/29/2012 9:38:16 AM 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 272 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Your reasoning is as amateurish and scatterbrained as the Chief Justice's.

First, the argument that the Court does not have the job of "protecting the people from the consequences of their political choices," is amusing nonsense. John Marshall demolished this argument with one phrase in 1803: “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

The concept actually predates that precedent, and is articulated in a weaker form in The Federalist. It is the duty of the Court to protect the people from their political choices when those choices do violence to the Constitution.

If you don't understand something that basic, there really isn't a lot more to say to you.

That's the deal. Tax law can be changed every two years. Commerce Clause expansions can last centuries.

Actually even sillier than your last argument, and that's saying something. A law grounded in a precedent based on the Commerce Clause is no more durable than one based on taxation.

Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

Rubbish.

Liberals no longer need the Commerce Clause, and in fact no longer need to make arguments about any specifically enumerated powers. Congress power to tax is now a justification IN AND OF ITSELF for any legislative undertaking. What part of precedent do you not understand?

This may have an effect on interstate CO2 regs, who knows?

Wow. Those rose-colored glasses of yours not only make you see things that aren't there, they also cause you to see things absolutely backwards: CO2 regs which involve a fine, penalty, or tax (they all do) will now and forever be inviolate and untouchable by the Court.

For those who say this is a novel "tax." What is an earned income credit? It's a NEGATIVE TAX on income you didn't create

Derp a lot?

Amendment XVI has long been recognized as a carte blanche and the EIC is no exception.

Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.

Roberts has already ruled out that appeal, genius.

Roberts' opinion already violates the law by bypassing the Anti-Injunction Act. But never fear! Our intrepid amateur Chief Justice has a ready answer to that: The AIA doesn't apply because Congress didn't realize they were passing a tax when they passed it. So, the fact that this didn't originate in the house can't be challenged either, because Congress didn't realize it was a tax when they passed it.

Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

He's an ass. And so is anyone defending him. Curses to Roberts' for failing so spectacularly to do his duty to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has a lifetime appointment for a reason. Telling voters to do his job after he's failed to discharge it is a steaming pile of condescending "Roberts."

276 posted on 06/29/2012 9:53:01 AM PDT by FredZarguna ("Roberts" is the new sh!t.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; chris37
Roberts can’t be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life (or until they retire).

It only takes 218 Congressmen and 67 Senators to vote him out of office. They can do it anytime they want.

And we get to choose who votes.

277 posted on 06/29/2012 10:06:31 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Roberts Care is Romney Care on Steroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
I think the mandate could be challenged again on the grounds that it's effectively an income tax (for constitutionality purposes), but it didn't originate in the House. I don't believe that particular issue was addressed.

Of course it was. In the "reasoning" which finds the mandate a "tax" he also finds the Court blameless in violating the AIA because Congress didn't believe it to be a tax. That means Congress didn't have to follow the Constitutional process for taxation either.

And by the way, if you've actually read the opinion, you know that the dissent completely destroys the claim that this is a tax, and lists several precedents in nearly identical cases where the court struck down a penalty masquerading as a tax, and finds moreover that "this COURT HAS NEVER BEFORE FOUND A PENALTY TO BE A TAX."

Roberts' opinion is best described in the derisive words of Wolfgang Pauli: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" It is so thoroughly stupid, so wrong on so many levels, so full of logical holes, so internally inconsistent, that "it is not only not correct, IT IS NOT EVEN WRONG." It does not even rise to the level of being wrong.

This opinion is the Dred Scott decision of the 21st Century.

278 posted on 06/29/2012 10:08:38 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Roberts opinion for the majority: nicht einmal falsch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

279 posted on 06/29/2012 11:07:26 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Yours is one of the most informed, apt, and cogent posts I’ve seen on this important subject.


280 posted on 06/29/2012 11:16:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Liberty. What a concept. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Kinduv like the microbes that feed on the bacteria of the slime under the scum beneath the filth of the refuse in the trench going into the sewer?

(That Wolfgang Pauli was such a hoot, chock full of knee-slappers. Not even wrong...hee hee hee)


281 posted on 06/29/2012 11:17:39 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

EXACTLY!


282 posted on 06/29/2012 11:25:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Liberty. What a concept. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Roberts can’t be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life (or until they retire).

That's not at all what the Constitution says.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."

-- Article Three, Section 1


283 posted on 06/29/2012 11:30:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Liberty. What a concept. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Ginsburg did dissent, in part.


284 posted on 06/29/2012 11:54:08 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

“THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE VOTE WITH THE LIBS?”

Maybe because he’s got a summer vacation in Malta?

“U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is joking that he’ll be spending some time in “an impregnable fortress” after casting the decisive vote upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law. Responding to a question about his summer plans, Roberts quipped that he thought his planned trip to Malta to teach a class was a “good idea.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018559716_apushealthcarechiefjustice.html


285 posted on 06/29/2012 11:58:01 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

That would be even worse. Bottom line: Roberts is a coward and NEVER should have been appointed to the SC.


286 posted on 06/29/2012 1:19:04 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are just useless and useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

Not according to Mark Levin. The Roberts remarks about the Commerce Clause were from Roberts alone and were not part of the majority opinion.

Mark Levin, from http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304459/mark-levin-not-so-fast-commerce-clause-kathryn-jean-lopez:

Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.

287 posted on 06/29/2012 5:13:37 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

After a little shaking out, the assessment may be correct. Roberts kept the Constitution out of play. A tax levied by Congress has been settled long ago. Now Obama is in a spot that will be very hard to get away from. This is a very interesting ruling to say the least. It would seem that Roberts could have just as easily denied taking the case based on the same grounds.


288 posted on 06/29/2012 5:22:45 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

BTTT!


289 posted on 06/29/2012 6:23:10 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Are you an attorney and know things better than what the Justices of the Supreme court do?


290 posted on 06/29/2012 6:23:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress; Salvation

I’m too uneducated and without the correct kind of brain to understand legalese/governmentese.

If somehow this can be used to destroy Hellthcare, good. I just don’t see why Roberts didn’t find the whole dang thing unconstitutional. Even I can see that it’s unconstitutional. Problem is there is too much “precedence” that is unconstitutional, the actual Constitution got lost along the way.


291 posted on 06/29/2012 6:45:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

It destroys Obama’s attack on the 10th amendment. It certifies that the house passed a tax based on the 17th amendment. Obama must now clear up a promise that he alone violated repeatedly.


292 posted on 06/29/2012 7:11:06 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; All

Remember when Roberts flubbed the swearing in of Obama? I thought something was weird way back then. It has now been officially confirmed.

“I just read the transcript of what Rush said. Something is very, very weird.”


293 posted on 06/29/2012 9:12:40 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: raulgomez05

The big difference is.....the majority of people in Romney’s state wanted RomneyCare. Romney just gave them what they wanted. Whereas.....the majority of Americans did not or do not want ObamaCare. Big/huge difference!

“Romney: Mr. Obama wants to tax the middle class.

Obama: You taxed the middle class as governor.

Romney: Uh. Oh yeah. Sorry.”


294 posted on 06/29/2012 9:31:23 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee

I think when we find out what’s been going on behind the scenes the last few years we will all be amazed, even us. And sickened, and enraged.


295 posted on 06/29/2012 10:25:04 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Lawyer? Nope..

Know better than Roberts? Apparently so.


296 posted on 06/29/2012 10:50:48 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
I left out the "No Child Left Behind" mandate by President Bush. It was forced on the states with no funding and under the threat that the Dept. of Education would withhold Federal funds from the states if they didn't implement it.

That kind of force has been removed from the Federal ammo bunker. I find it astounding that the main talking heads haven't brought it up yet.

297 posted on 06/30/2012 4:44:08 AM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: chris37
What if congress passes a bill that said if is a man you do not marry another man then you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that says if as a woman you do not marry another woman then you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that states that if you do not abort your second child you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that says if a white person does not abort their first child then they must pay a tax?

If we get a Congress that does any of these things, don't expect SCOTUS to bail us out. That is the whole point of the decision. Besides, I don't think a Congress that passes anything as egregious as your examples will survive another election. I think most people here are missing that point. Weilding taxing power opens up Congress to defend something people understand and instinctively revolt againt. Hiding behind the Commerce Clause or the N&P CLause is opaque, most people don't know what it means, and Congress can slip a backdoor legislation through those clauses. Much harder to pass a new tax.

298 posted on 06/30/2012 7:03:54 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

While I realize my examples are extreme, they are meant to show that the us federal government can now force us to do whatever they want.

The congress that passed Obamatax was booted in two years flat, yet their legacy will destroy this country.

It’s really as if electing congressmen every two years isn’t enough. It needs to now be 6 months or less.

I also do not believe that the GOP or anyone else who goes to congress is going to vote to remove unlimited power from themselves.

We have to remember what kind of people seek this job.

No senate is going to vote to remove such power, and no president will sign any such bill.

We are now a society who voted away its freedom from some trinkets, and now we are scrambling to figure out how to get it back,

And there really is only one way, and even that would fail.


299 posted on 06/30/2012 8:15:49 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: chris37
I understand your points, but here is the key takeaway - Congress can only use the obvious and straightforward means of taxation for imposing something draconian, no longer being able to hide behind something exotic. The procedural restrictions on passing tax legislation make such maneuvers more transparent. There is nothing we can do to limit taxing power, however, short of passing a Constitutional Amendment.

Bottom line - only future Congresses should be counted upon to reverse legislation, especially something as important as this law.

300 posted on 06/30/2012 1:16:54 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-315 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