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

Skip to comments.

I Am Literally Sick Over This Obamacare Travesty
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 06/29/2012 12:04:52 PM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, folks. I now know what happened yesterday. I've had time to dig into this. Time that I did not have prior to yesterday's program and did not have during the program. And I can't tell you how sick I am. I am literally sick over what happened yesterday. I don't know how else to describe it. Literally sick.

And now, from sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday!

Open line Friday. That's the day of the week where you get to choose what it is we talk about when we go to the phones. Monday through Thursday, you have to talk about things I care about, but that's not the case on Friday. So if there's something you think hasn't been said, a question or comment that you'd like to have me answer to, this is your day. Telephone number 1-800-282-2822. Rushnet@LIB.com.

A giant total fraud was perpetrated on this country yesterday. The Supreme Court as an institution is forever tarnished. There are now no limits anywhere on the size, scope, the growth, of government. We were the victims of a purposeful, intentional fraud yesterday. There is no way, were anybody in Washington concerned about the Constitution, there is no way Obamacare gets anywhere close to being law in this country. There is no way it even approaches constitutionality. And the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court knew that. He felt it was his duty, however, to save the legislation.

I don't even care about motivation. I don't care if it's because he wants the New York Times and Washington Post in love with him. I don't care if he wants to be the next John Marshall. I don't care. All I know is that we were defrauded in front of our eyes, wide open. We were taunted, defrauded, mocked, laughed at. I guess 5-4 court decisions are perfectly fine now. Oh yeah, hey, we'll take whatever we can get, we'll take it however we can get it. Even if they have to invent law, even if they have to rewrite a statute that was so poorly written, it wouldn't have gotten past a first grader who understood the Constitution.

Folks, having now learned what happened, and by the way, I can't take much more reading the faint praise for Justice Roberts. There are a lot of conservatives who are trying to find some comfort in all of this by pointing out that justice Roberts ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't a catchall that justifies anything Congress wants to do. "Hey, Rush, we got to look at what we won here." I understand that theory. You do want to try to take the best of things that you can. But this is theft! Theft of liberty and freedom right in front of our eyes. Okay. So the Commerce Clause has been limited, so? Now we get to pay a tax for something we don't do. But it's worse than that. It really is akin to going into a 7-Eleven, and saying to the clerk, "No, I really don't want to buy any gum."

"Well, okay, tax on that is $2.35."

That's what's happened here. I see all these people running around now thinking they've got free health care, and for the next year-and-a-half that's what it's gonna look like. Michelle Obama, "Guess what, contraception is now free." She's got a list of all the things that are free. AP has a list of all the things that are free for everybody. What happened here basically is that Justice Roberts stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism. He wanted to avoid being accused of activism. Activism, in this case, would have been finding the law as it is unconstitutional. So he succumbed to fear that doing that, upholding the Constitution, would have resulted in him being accused of activism. So what he did, he stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism, and in the process, he became more activist than any justice in recent memory.

He actually wrote this. It makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. That's all it is here. He's got this law, Congress wants this law, the president wants this law, it's entirely unconstitutional. And they all knew this. Other than the four liberals, they all knew the whole thing was unconstitutional and Justice Roberts decided to rewrite it. He rewrote the legislation in a way that Congress never intended it. It would be like a judge making up for an incompetent lawyer in court and finding somebody who's guilty totally innocent just because the judge wanted to appear magnanimous. Or vice versa. It makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.

Well, there's a big difference. You don't have to buy gasoline. And for 48% of the country, you don't have to earn an income. But we are all going to have to pay a tax for not doing something. And that starts a limitless universe of activity or lack of activity that can be taxed. There's a doctrine of law that says you don't reach constitutional issues if there is an alternative basis to decide the case. Do you recall we talked yesterday toward the end of the program, and I was admittedly confused because I hadn't had time to read the decision, nor read any analysis of it. Things were happening lickity split here, rat-tat-tat. But something yesterday that had me constantly confused was Justice Ginsburg's dissent. She's in the majority, what was she dissenting against?

Then after the program, I go home and I'm starting to do show prep for today's show, and I find out that a bunch of liberals are ticked off at Roberts, because of what he did with the Commerce Clause. So now I'm really confused. They won and they're complaining about Roberts and Ginsburg wrote a dissent. What was she dissenting from? So I looked into it. They're ticked off at Roberts, essentially she criticizes Roberts for violating the principle that you don't reach constitutional issues if there's an alternative way to decide the case. So Roberts contended that the mandate was unconstitutional, but it could be upheld as a tax. And Ginsburg said, well, if you're going to do that, there's no need to even talk about the mandate and the ruling. If you're going to say that the mandate could be upheld as a tax, then you don't have to even get to the mandate, constitutionally, you don't have to talk about it. You don't have to rule it unconstitutional.

The four libs wanted this case on the mandate, not the tax increase. They wanted the Commerce Clause to be stretched to include unlimited government power. And they were ticked off at Roberts for limiting that. They say if you're going to find this as a tax case, leave it at that. So when I found that out, that really aroused my curiosity, because they thought Roberts then started answering an unnecessary question. And that, according to Ginsburg and the left, makes Roberts an activist judge. You know, my head is swimming, because all of this is gobbledy gook. All of this is total BS, folks. And yes, I'm going to explain this as the program unfolds, I'm just setting the table here.

Roberts did not say this in his opinion, but he knows it. Congress and the president insisted up and down this was not a tax. That the only power that they were relying on here was the Commerce Clause power. That's how the law was presented. That's how it was enacted. That's how it was intended. Obama ran around telling everybody there were no taxes in this, it was not a tax increase. In fact, people's taxes are gonna get cut. The legal controversy was the Commerce Clause. And Justice Roberts thus had to address it, but is an utter travesty. It is an utter travesty that a member of the court, I don't care if it's a chief or whoever decides, that it's up to him to save an unconstitutional piece of legislation under the guise of not being an activist judge.

The Supreme Court wrote legislation, they rewrote this legislation to save it. In the real world, Realville, what used to be, what everybody thought they could count on, what everybody thought and hoped one more time they could depend on, even though we know we really can't, we learned it in Kelo, we learned it in McCain Feingold, we've learned it a lot. We can't count on the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, and that's why I'm sick. If we can't count on the Constitution being upheld in the Supreme Court, and furthermore, if the Supreme Court is going to take over the duties of the legislative branch and write legislation in order to save incompetent, unconstitutional, faulty work, then we've got pure fraud right before our very eyes.

Byron York went and looked at the first day of oral argument. When you hear this, you are going to be angrier than you even are right now. You're going to relive the first day of oral arguments where they talked about this as a tax. And the court allowed the government to argue both ways, that it was a tax one day, and they allowed the government to argue the next day that it wasn't a tax. First two days of oral arguments are where you find the answer to all the inexplicable questions here.

RUSH: Byron York wrote his piece at the DC Examiner yesterday: "No one knew it at the time, but the key moment in the Supreme Court Obamacare case came on March 26, the first day of oral arguments, when few people were paying close attention. Before getting to the heart of the case, the justices first wanted to deal with what seemed to be a side issue: Was the penalty imposed by the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax?"

The first question the justices had for the lawyers: Is this a tax?

"If it was, the case would run afoul of a 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it." Well, the Obamacare taxes don't implement until 2014. So on the first day of oral arguments, if Obamacare is a tax, the court would have to throw it out because nobody had paid the tax yet. So the first day of oral arguments, the justices want to know, they asked the government, is this a tax? The government said no. Because everybody wanted the case tried, everybody wanted it adjudicated and they wanted it adjudicated now.

"Since the Obamacare mandate wouldn't go into effect until 2014, that would mean there could be no court case until then." So on the first day of oral arguments, the government said no, it's not a tax. Well, we could stop right there if we wanted to. We could stop after the first 30 minutes of oral argument, back on March 26th, skip everything that happened between then and yesterday, and then go to Justice Roberts' ruling, where he found it to be a tax.

That, of course, is not what happened. They kept arguing. "No one had challenged Obamacare on that basis; the challengers wanted the case to go forward now. The White House, having argued strenuously during the Obamacare debate that the penalty wasn't a tax, wanted to go ahead as well. So the court, on its own, tapped a Washington attorney to make the argument that the penalty was a tax," just to cover their bases. The government wouldn't say it was a tax. The anti-Obama lawyers would not say it was a tax. So the Supreme Court went out and they brought in, they hired their own lawyer to argue that it was a tax. The court on its own tapped a Washington attorney to make the argument the penalty was a tax, and, therefore, the case should not go ahead.

"'The Anti-Injunction Act imposes a "pay first, litigate later" rule that is central to federal tax assessment and collection,' said the lawyer, Robert A. Long, on that first day of oral arguments. 'The Act applies to essentially every tax penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. There is no reason to think that Congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by [Obamacare].'" So the lawyer hired by the court affirmed it's not a tax. Nobody in the regime thought it was a tax. Nobody in Congress thought it was a tax. And nobody in Congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by Obamacare as a tax. It was all in the Commerce Clause.

"After Long made his case, it fell to the administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, to argue that no, the mandate was not a tax, and therefore the case was not subject to the Anti-Injunction Act." And that's what happened on the first day. The government hired a lawyer to make the case it was a tax; and Verrilli, the Obama lawyer, made the case that it wasn't. This is just so the justices could have arguments on the table that they could then decide.

"At the same time, everyone knew that the next day, when Verrilli planned to argue that the mandate was justified under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, he had as a backup the argument that it was also justified by Congress' power to levy taxes -- in other words, that it was a tax. Justice Samuel Alito saw the conflict right away. 'General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,' Alito said. 'Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for the purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?' 'No,' answered Verrilli. At the time, some observers found the whole thing a little boring; the real action would come the next day, when the court got to the question of whether the Commerce Clause could be stretched to include the individual mandate."

But the first day is where the fraud happened. The first day the government says it isn't a tax. The second day, the government, as a backup, said, "If you don't like the Commerce Clause, we also think it's a tax." The government was allowed to argue this both ways. The first way they were allowed to argue that it wasn't a tax so that the case would go on. The next day they were allowed to argue as a back stop, if the commerce part of it fell apart, that it was a tax. But a lot of these observers who were bored on the first and second days of oral arguments were then shocked yesterday when the chief justice rejected the Commerce Clause argument and ended up "agreeing with Verrilli that the mandate simultaneously was and was not a tax, and that therefore Obamacare would stand. Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, who seemed prepared to uphold Obamacare under any circumstances.

"Roberts' sleight of hand drove his conservative colleagues nuts. 'The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes,' wrote dissenters Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 'That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.'"

So from the get-go, this case was allowed to be sloppy, bent, shaped, flaked, and formed, however ultimately the left wanted it to be in order for it to be found constitutional or good. And, by the way, on this Commerce Clause business, folks, they didn't limit anything. They said Obamacare is not permissible under the Commerce Clause. But they didn't limit the Commerce Clause per se here. The anti-injunction act says that you cannot do a court case over a tax until it's been collected, levied and collected. Well, the tax hasn't been levied and collected. And by gosh, if the chief justice himself didn't find that the whole thing is kosher as a tax increase, a tax increase on what we don't buy, and a point that I made yesterday that I want to make again, when you pay taxes, where do you pay the money? Government gets the money. These taxes are gonna be paid to insurance companies. Is that even a tax?

You have to buy health insurance. If you don't, there's a fine. So the money that you're spending that you otherwise wouldn't, the tax, being spent with insurance companies. The tax anti-injunction act was codified title 26 US code. It was enacted in 1867. It is the law. It's never been found to be unconstitutional. The Obama administration was allowed to argue it both ways. So that however it ended up being most beneficial to them was the way the court was going to decide.

So we, who cannot be protected from the political choices we make, spend all this time debating and arguing against a piece of legislation based on the Commerce Clause. The court admits they can't find it constitutional, so guess what? We're gonna make this thing legal by calling it a tax increase. Government can do that. There's a reason nobody predicted this outcome. And the reason is nobody was thinking outside the boundaries of the law.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My friend, Andy McCarthy, has a piece on this at PJMedia.com. His headline is: "Obamacare Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due Process." Here's how he opens: "Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public -- it became a willing participant." That's exactly right! This whole law has been presented fraudulently. The whole thing was a fraud.

Obamacare passed in Congress through trickery.

They used reconciliation.

They tried all kinds of tricks.

They were even thinking of "deeming" it to pass.

There was the Cornhusker Kickback.

They tried all kinds of things that ultimately didn't work because the people weren't gonna put up with it. It was upheld by the Supreme Court through trickery. "Had Obamacare..." This is Andy writing. "Had Obamacare been honestly presented as a tax, or had the court acted properly by striking it down as an illegitimate use of the commerce power and telling Congress that if it wanted to pass the bill as a tax it would have to pass the bill as a tax, our dire financial straits might have forced this much-needed debate about the limits of congressional welfare power.

"We have now lost that opportunity through fraud: Fraud in the legislative action, and fraud in the judicial review. Due process would not allow this to be done to a criminal, but the Supreme Court has decided that Americans will have to live with it." The administration presents a case to the Supreme Court that is based entirely on an individual mandate that is said to be legal because of the Commerce Cause. If Congress had wanted to pass a bill that got the same thing done with taxes, it would have done that.

It didn't do that on purpose!

They didn't want to go anywhere near tax increases on this.

Obama was out promising tax cuts to everybody. He promised lower premiums, greater health care coverage and treatment. There was no way that they wanted to talk about this as a tax, a tax increase, or anything of the sort. So the court should have adjudicated this on the basis of what was in the bill -- period -- and they didn't. Again, the chief justice wrote what I'm gonna read to you here: "Under my theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income."

"Under my theory, the mandate's not a legal command to buy insurance."

That's the stretch that he had to make in order to get to where he ended up. "Under my theory, the mandate's not a legal command to buy insurance." It most certainly the hell was! And that's all it was. And that's not constitutional. It was a "command" by the federal government that we buy something. They don't have that power! The chief said, "Eh, it's not a legal command. It just makes going without insurance another thing the government taxes, which the government can do, like buying gasoline or earning income."

(sigh)

It makes you sick.

It just makes me sick.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Roberts says that he thougt it was his duty to save the Act no matter what. It was his duty to save the Act no matter how bad it was. He had to write it to make it legal. Sorry. I feel like the police chief in my town just had a press conference and has announced that the police force will now be assisting criminals in breaking into my property. That is how I feel.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; democrats; obama; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: scram2

Sure...but where is the evidence that Republicans have the guts to do this?

I don’t see it.


51 posted on 06/29/2012 1:11:04 PM PDT by roses of sharon ("Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Aria

“I don’t see how we can get our country back without a war.”

There will be no war, just a slow tense dissolve where a state stops cooperating with the Feds here, the Feds stop interacting with a state there. Reps from one state just stop going to D.C., eventually you wake up one day and a state is basically de-facto independent.

Eventually enough states will do it whereas they reconstitute the country in a loose federation down the road. Like an EU/U.S c.1787.


52 posted on 06/29/2012 1:11:35 PM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jaxter; Kaslin; All

A good read @ link by Charles Payne (His web site).

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/448400-charles-payne/799031-obamacare-decision-win-for-market-by-charles-payne


53 posted on 06/29/2012 1:14:38 PM PDT by GOYAKLA (Recall/ Impeachment Day, November 6, 2012. FUBO, same for RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
Communism looks like it is now well entrenched in our society, and can not be fixed in our lifetime. I wish I could be more positive than that, but I can't. Any other thoughts out there?

We are following the typical path of all Republics. The only thing that will stop the statist freight-train is bankruptcy. When there is no more money, real or printed, it will stop. I now actually hoping the Federal Gov't goes bankrupt. Its really the only chance for States, local Gov'ts and individuals to get more freedom (and responsibility). It will be ugly, but its the unavoidable course we are on.

54 posted on 06/29/2012 1:15:28 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Maybe Rush should have a chat with Krauthammer ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html

Roberts might just end up looking like the smartest one of the bunch by the time all of this is over. And now it’s in our hands. If we want Obamacare to disappear, we need to get him out of the White House and get control of the Senate. That done, Obamacare is as good as dead and the Dems can’t do anything about the things they gave away to Roberts for his vote.


55 posted on 06/29/2012 1:20:39 PM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Seeing that photo of Roberts with that crap eating grin on his face made my rear end want to take a drink of water,as Momma used to say. (mods may remove this; but,dang,it’s either vent or bust!)

It at least seemed to be a taunting crap eating grin to me. He has unleashed a tentacled monster of tyranny on us. He at least looks to be pretty priggishly satisfied with himself. Now, at least, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama luv, luv,luv,him - and he’ll never have to worry about Hussein chiding him in a speech again. . or will he? Obama’s pretty fickle.


56 posted on 06/29/2012 1:21:41 PM PDT by Twinkie (Isaiah 53)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
Roberts slammed the door shut on coercive use of the Commerce Clause (whicn could be defended with a Senate filibuster) and forced that ObamaCare and all similar tactics rely on tax law.

Nope, completely wrong. I made an exception and listened to most of Rush today.

A retired lawyer was on and made a good point. I can't remember the term he used (dicta??) The lawyer stated that Roberts comments about the Commerce Clause will have ZERO effect on future rulings concerning the CC. He said his comments are not part of the precedent.

I am not a lawyer but what I gathered is that there is absolutely no silver-lining.

Roberts willingly and knowingly vastly increased State Power. Roberts is an absolutely evil man for the conscious decisions he made.

57 posted on 06/29/2012 1:24:48 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Is it possible for a President to elevate a sitting associate justice like Scalia to CJ, and demote Roberts to an associate justice position, or can that only be done in connection with a vacancy. If Romney had any stones, that is what he would do day 1 (after signing the repeal bill).


58 posted on 06/29/2012 1:26:37 PM PDT by crusader71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria; Kaslin

I don’t see how we can get our country back without a war.


I agree and I am sick over this, too! There is now NO more separation of powers in our country. The Executive and Judicial branches are now fused together, and possibly the Legislative also, since as most on here have stated - even the so called conservatives NEVER roll back any of the communistic advances, at least they haven’t in the last 30-40 years except just a little bit under Reagan. It seems we have no recourse any more. If the elections get rigged and Obama is re-elected, I can’t even think what is going to happen.

We have become godless and corrupt, and God is going to allow our nation to be destroyed from within because of it. It is heartbreaking!!!!!


59 posted on 06/29/2012 1:27:09 PM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vetnet

That’s what I thought until I remembered that George W. Bush was the one who chose Roberts in the first place.....

Some FREEPERS questioned Roberts (like myself) about his lack of full conservative beliefs, but we were called traitors, RINOS, Liberals, Trolls from know it all FREEPERS. This is not a surprise to me one bit. I just hate to see that I was right.....Yuk!!!!


60 posted on 06/29/2012 1:29:20 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thank goodness. I was worried El Rushbo was going to come down on the side of those pretending Roberts had some sort of sneaky beaky “conservative” motive for this utter disgrace.


61 posted on 06/29/2012 1:29:30 PM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c
Roberts might just end up looking like the smartest one of the bunch by the time all of this is over. And now it’s in our hands. If we want Obamacare to disappear, we need to get him out of the White House and get control of the Senate. That done, Obamacare is as good as dead and the Dems can’t do anything about the things they gave away to Roberts for his vote.

Pardon my French but CK is FOS. I listened to Mark Levin yesterday. He carefully went through the ruling and its implications.

Mark is a brilliant Constitution scholar. Mark said that the damage done by Roberts will take decades to reverse. Mark stated there is no silver-lining.

Roberts was not trying to do good and be crafty. No. Roberts was willingly and knowingly helping increase State Power. Roberts is an evil man. May he live the rest of his disgusting life regretting his decision.

I wish him a miserable life for the misery he will help unleash across our Republic.

62 posted on 06/29/2012 1:31:34 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

I don’t know if they have the guts or not, time will tell.

All I know is this site is filled with the biggest bunch of hand wringing crybabies I have yet to see on a political forum. It’s all gloom and doom as if the medias report of an Obama victory is anything but bullshit hype for the moonbat base.

Someone care to explain to me how this is a “win” for Ostupid? If I do something which is not wanted by 60% of those responsible for me keeping my job and it is instead approved and allowed to stand by those who have nothing to do with me keeping my job how do I win anything? In the sense his (unpopular) law was upheld it is a victory for him in the short term, I guess but it is also a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war.

It’s up to Romney and Rep to get out the message far and wide as to the cost to the average citizen over the next 2-3 years and if they can do that they can win and if they win I see no reason why Romney cannot give out waivers as easily as Obama did. In this case Romney said he would issue waivers to everyone in America. If we take the Senate and WH my understanding is it will only take a simple majority in each House to unwind the funding mechanism. No money no law.

But as you said, if we haven’t the guts then we deserve what we get.


63 posted on 06/29/2012 1:32:04 PM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

It’s not ObamaCare, it’s how the taxing power has been expanded.

Don’t maintain your weight or exercise? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to take certain courses in college? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to have just one child and help “save the planet”? Pay a tax.

Don’t want to (fill-in-the-blank). Pay a tax.

Don’t want to live your life the way the government wants you to? Pay a tax.

The federal government now has the authority to use its taxing power to coerce its citizens to live their lives according to the government’s vision.

I would have rather had it justified under the commerce clause than this expansion of the taxing power. This is dangerous—not many people have realized just how dangerous.


Their goal is to make us slaves and tax us for any godless, crazy, evil thing they want to push on us if we don’t agree with it. The ultimate Dhimmi tax except it’s for liberal evil causes.

We just watched The Patriot last night. July 4th and the Declaration will have special meaning for us this year. If they cancel or rig the election...


64 posted on 06/29/2012 1:37:27 PM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
On the mandate I'm having a hard time drawing the line between the mandate and other tax incentives. It feels like it's crossed a line. But exactly what line?

What's the difference between this and say a tax credit for energy efficient home improvement?

Isn't a tax for failing to engage in commerce, exactly the same as a tax credit for engaging in commerce? The only difference being terminology and the alleged nominal tax rate?

Example: Lets say I make $10,000 and my tax rate is 20% so I pay $2,000. But there is a tax credit if I buy energy efficient windows of $400. So if I buy the windows I pay $1600 in taxes, and if I don't I pay $2000 in taxes.

Now reverse that and say there is a penalty for failing to buy energy efficient windows of $400. Let's also lower the nominal tax rate to 16% to more easily see they are the same. If I don't buy the windows I pay $1600+$400 penalty = $2000. And if I do buy the windows I only pay $1600.

So effectively a penalty for not engaging in commerce is exactly the same as a tax credit for engaging in commerce.

There are minor differences.

I think the real issues are:

Roberts kicked this back to the voters and said "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Which brings up another point. Laws like the one that says the court can't consider the constitutionality of a tax until its paid, ought themselves to be unconsitutional.


65 posted on 06/29/2012 1:38:38 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
"Roberts slammed the door shut on coercive use of the Commerce Clause (whicn could be defended with a Senate filibuster) and forced that ObamaCare and all similar tactics rely on tax law. This is significant because repeal of taxes can *never* be filibustered. When repeal passes the House on the 11th, there *will* be an up-or-down vote in the Senate—it *cannot* be filibustered. So in that sense, Roberts was right—every time the Dems try something underhanded like this, we’ll now always have a fair chance to take it out on their hides—they won’t be able to rely on Senators from a few blue states. They wanted to be able to have NY, NJ, CA, et. al. be able to thwart the will of everyone else, but now that avenue is closed to them."

The U.S. House of representatives will introduce a bill to repeal ObamaCare on July 11th, which will likely pass.

Then the ObamaCare Repeal Bill be be brought over to the U.S. Senate, where it must be voted up or down in public for all to see.

If U.S. Senators vote for it's passage, they will be handing their opponents an election year gift issue and a sledge hammer for their opponents to beat themselves over the head with.

66 posted on 06/29/2012 1:46:02 PM PDT by TennTuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary
Listening to Romney’s tedid, hesitant response to this travesty yesterday reaffirms what I have always believed. he is not the man to lead the charge.

Are you kidding? there is no one else, this guy has the nomination locked up and is our ONLY choice. If it doesn't work out then it isn't the will of God. There is a greater purpose, isn't there? Aren't Christians supposed to let God work things out? If we can't put our faith in God, then what is left? If it's bad news then we have to suck it up, right? Be still.

67 posted on 06/29/2012 1:47:17 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: al_c
To be honest, I am not mad at Chief Justice Roberts. I am disappointed that he let himself get intimidated.

I have said for month that we need to get the Senate back, besides keeping the House, and give that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave eviction notice on November 6 for January 20, 20, 2013

68 posted on 06/29/2012 1:51:51 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda
That about says it all and I think it’s high time people read the Decleration of independence again this July 4th, especially the second paragraph “whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it” which just may take a civil war to do. This government is no longer on the road to tyranny, tyranny is HERE!

I'm so surprised that others never saw this on election night. I knew it was over then. Not that I'm happy but nothing has or will shock me of what this banana republic will do. The only avenue left is a second civil war & the lazy, give me, sheeple won't fight. We are totally screwed.

69 posted on 06/29/2012 1:52:56 PM PDT by Digger (If RINO is your selection then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: al_c
To be honest, I am not mad at Chief Justice Roberts. I am disappointed that he let himself get intimidated.

I have said for month that we need to get the Senate back, besides keeping the House, and give that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave eviction notice on November 6 for January 20, 20, 2013

70 posted on 06/29/2012 1:53:24 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

What is the dirt on Roberts? Clearly he is amoral and an idiot. That means there’s dirt. Maybe we can dig it up and impeach him.


71 posted on 06/29/2012 1:53:24 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher

I disagree. There is nothing preventing them from still using the Commerce Clause in the future. Now, they have two weapons, stealth taxes and the Commerce Clause. Roberts just opened up a new can of worms.


72 posted on 06/29/2012 1:58:46 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Aside from the lack of choice and government coersion involved, your math only works if you lower the nominal rate as you did in your 2nd example. The govenment is not going to lower the nominal rate when they assess the tax. In your second example, if you don’t buy the windows, you will still pay 20% or $2000 on your income + $400 penalty on top of it. If you do buy the windows, you pay $2000.

The really dangerous part of this is the precedent it sets. We can now be taxed for doing nothing. The communists will find all sorts of nefarious applications for that.


73 posted on 06/29/2012 2:01:52 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

My guess is that Roberts and other judicial traitors become more and more concerned about their reputations in the eyes of the liberal law school, intellectual elite. Like G. Bush, they want to be liked. That is the only explanation I can think of to make a judge go against his/her own principles. Either that or someone/something is threatening them.


74 posted on 06/29/2012 2:05:48 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch
We have become godless and corrupt, and God is going to allow our nation to be destroyed from within because of it. It is heartbreaking!!!!!

Indeed it is. I have feared this ever since the abortion holocost was unleashed by Roe v Wade. I don't see how God can ignore that.

75 posted on 06/29/2012 2:06:34 PM PDT by Marathoner (Amnesty on Monday, socialized medicine on Thursday, we are sooo screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You know what makes me sick? This hate the sin, hate the sinner even more attitude around here WRT Roberts. I swear I’ve seen some of these same kind of comments coming from the lowlifes at DU.


76 posted on 06/29/2012 2:09:19 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jess79
"your math only works if you lower the nominal rate as you did in your 2nd example."

True it's a tax increase. But had congress raised rates and then offered a tax credit, would we still have claimed the mandate was unconstitutional?

The really dangerous part of this is the precedent it sets. We can now be taxed for doing nothing. The communists will find all sorts of nefarious applications for that.

But it's strictly a precedent of perception. We already were being taxed for doing nothing, every time there is a tax credit that we didn't take advantage of.

This one is more severe since in a few years the tax is supposed to be more than the cost of the insurance. In that regard it's different.

I guess I was looking for a legal reason why the mandate should be unconstitutional. So far, all I've got is that congress labeled it a penalty and that healthcare isn't an enumerated power.

Roberts limited the commerce clause, but Romneycare which is identical would have sailed past that concern, because Romney labeled his as tax credits from the start. Thus, the supposed limit on the commerce clause is not really a limit. Since all they have to do is structure an tax credit and adjust rates to accomplish exactly the same thing.

77 posted on 06/29/2012 2:12:44 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

If the Obamacare mandate is a tax, then doesn’t that invalidate the HHS mandate against churches, since they are tax exempt?


78 posted on 06/29/2012 2:14:46 PM PDT by mkmensinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
He knows the Republicans will not repeal it, he knows.

I would suggest he "fears" the Republicans will not repeal it. That's my fear, too, but I also know that we will be putting tremendous pressure on them to do it, after we give them the Senate and the White Hut. Right?

79 posted on 06/29/2012 2:16:39 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The states won their Supreme Court case. They do not have to abide by the law and add 50 million new people into their healthcare system, which would easily bankrupt a fair amount of them; nor can they be punished and lose their current gov Medicare funds, which Obamacare tried to steal from them via blackball extortion. So the 28 states that sued won, are already announcing no thanks, we can’t afford your bill and are not participating. Real soon, tens of millions of Obama voters in those states (half the country) will find out their “victory” is they have not obtained free healthcare, nor free insurance. All that has happened is they have been taxed by Obama...and if they don’t pay up their IRS refunds will be seized.

The individual mandate was tossed. If upheld and the bill allowed to stand, it would have been impossible to rescind. Obamacare passed using reconciliation. Now declared a tax, it only takes 51 votes using reconciliation to abolish the whole bill. Seeing as this single issue is what catapulted rep voters to the 2010 voting booth, (giving the dems the largest mid-term landslide in 78 years), this decision, combined with a lousy economy guarantees a blowout rep victory. Upon winning a rep majority senate, the bill will be repealed with 51+ votes early next year. All attempts to write a new one will be filibustered by dems. In the end, nothing changed other than a huge power shift in Washington, and the states will not go bankrupt via ballooning healthcare costs.

The losers? Tens of millions of working families will now lose their company healthcare. Avg healthcare cost is $12,800 per employee to companies. The Obamacare fine is $2,000 if you do not provide healthcare to employees. Countless companies in bad financial situations will use this opportunity to drop healthcare...for tens of millions of employees and their families. And for those families it will cost them far more the replace, without the company group rate. To these unfortunate Obamacare victims, they just had their take home pay cut by 25-35%, putting many in dire financial straits. In a short six months, people will realize the net result of this decision is fewer people now have healthcare, and Obama voters got taxed for nothing.


80 posted on 06/29/2012 2:17:21 PM PDT by Stealth Ninja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkmensinger
"If the Obamacare mandate is a tax, then doesn’t that invalidate the HHS mandate against churches, since they are tax exempt?"

Two different mandates, but your point might hold. The one that was just challenged that SCOTUS ruled on was the mandate that individuals must buy insurance. The HHS mandate against churches is a regulatory rule stating that all health insurances must include abortions.

The problem occurs if you have a penalty (tax?) for not offering insurance. But also if churches desire to offer insurance.

So it is really two issues. Can congress apply a penalty (tax) to a church for failure to offer insurance. And can Congress limit insurance offerings in such a way that there is no insurance alternative available to churches that don't violate their conscience.

81 posted on 06/29/2012 2:23:26 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Let me state it another way.

People are given an income tax exemption of $3,800 for each qualifying child.

If I have no children, is that the same thing as being taxed $3,800 for having no children?

-PJ

82 posted on 06/29/2012 2:26:02 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Let me state it another way.

People are given an income tax exemption $3,800 for each qualifying child.

If I have no children, is that the same thing as being taxed $3,800 for having no children?

Am I being coerced by the government into having children?

-PJ

83 posted on 06/29/2012 2:27:17 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Stealth Ninja
"Real soon, tens of millions of Obama voters in those states (half the country) will find out their “victory” is they have not obtained free healthcare, nor free insurance. All that has happened is they have been taxed by Obama...a"

But they won't find that out, because I think you are right, it will be repealed before they ever see that tax. Which is kind of a shame, because I suspect that a lot of the people who supported this are exactly the same people that would have gotten taxed.

"Avg healthcare cost is $12,800 per employee to companies. The Obamacare fine is $2,000 if you do not provide healthcare to employees. Countless companies in bad financial situations will use this opportunity to drop healthcare...for tens of millions of employees and their families."

I don't follow that. If it costs $12,800 and the fine is $0 today, they have a greater incentive to drop now than before Obamacare.

The only difference is that after Obamacare, companies will know their employees can get group insurance through the government pool. THAT could be the catalyst to causes companies to drop insurance. But the fine actually increases over the next few years, to where it doesn't make sense for companies to drop the insurance at all, because in 4 years the fines will be more than the insurance.

84 posted on 06/29/2012 2:32:31 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"Am I being coerced by the government into having children? Am I being coerced by the government into having children?"

Yes, It is exactly the same as being taxed $3800 for not having kids.

The difference is that children cost a lot more than $3800. And they aren't nearly as convenient as buying health insurance. They're a little bit messy. Thus the incentive doesn't reach the level of coerced.

The difference between an incentive and coerced is just a matter of degree. If children cost only $2400 a year and were convenient, you'd be able to say the government was coercing you to have children.

85 posted on 06/29/2012 2:44:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cherry

If I remember correctly, they passed a shell bill in the senate that originated in the house. Trickery.


86 posted on 06/29/2012 2:45:43 PM PDT by Heart of Georgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Actually people with kids should pay MORE taxes not get a tax break (reduction). After all, they should pay for, first, for the schools they use (privatize education - and have parents, singles & seniors wanting life-long-learning classes, etc all pay for the courses in which they enroll). They (families with kids) also use the roads more (soccer practice, trips to dentist for kids braces), the local parks more, and have more economic value (life & private property) protected by police, fire and national defense.

By cutting taxes for large families, you are subsidizing their greater public goods’ use with the tax receipts of smaller families or of singles.

What we need are user fees for local public services (schools, parks, fire stations) and uniform flat or head taxes for truly “public” nationally provided goods (national defense).


87 posted on 06/29/2012 2:53:17 PM PDT by 4Liberty (88% of Americans are NON-UNION. We value honest, peaceful Free trade-NOT protectionist CARTELS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jess79
Jess, You have exactly the same point as I have.... Roberts in the inauguration of 2009 had the right/duty to examine the constitutional qualifications of the president elect. If these were lacking, it would be appropriate to not swear him in. But he was a coward. And again he shows his colors in backing down from the challenge — refusing to call the abomination of Obamacare unconstitutional.

Dang... he needs to call up the Supreme’s dressmaker and get a new robe in his favorite color —yellow!

88 posted on 06/29/2012 3:01:04 PM PDT by mason-dixon (As Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw the line somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I see your point. But wasn’t the HHS mandate issued as part of Obamacare?


89 posted on 06/29/2012 3:03:56 PM PDT by mkmensinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Country is broke

This monstrosity will collapse for lack of funds


90 posted on 06/29/2012 3:37:34 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Administration’s lawyer said in oral argument that they never considered the Constitution when writing 0bama Deathcare.

In effect, neither has the Supreme Court’s majority.

I am done with them. All of them.

As for the DOinJ, may I suggest, “get him, guys?” All of his minions and protectors. ALL OF THEM.


91 posted on 06/29/2012 3:44:52 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Communism is going to bankrupt us pretty darn quick. Look at Greece. Look at Europe.

The collapse of the US has already begun. Been going on for a few decades.

Watched the collapse of Detroit, while I was living there.

Watched the collapse of California, while I was living there.

There are areas in this country where the police no longer even patrol.

It is collapsing. A slow motion collapse that is accelerating. Best to prepare yourself.

No country last forever. We will have a chance to rebuild some new countries from the ashes of the old.

92 posted on 06/29/2012 3:46:31 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

“It is collapsing. A slow motion collapse that is accelerating. Best to prepare yourself.
No country last forever. We will have a chance to rebuild some new countries from the ashes of the old.”
Maybe too true.
Quote from movie “War Games”!

Stephen Falken: “Now, children, come on over here. I’m going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren’t even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David. “


93 posted on 06/29/2012 3:55:50 PM PDT by GOYAKLA (Recall/ Impeachment Day, November 6, 2012. FUBO, same for RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GOYAKLA

The Mayans actually celebrate that renewal period. Would not go that far myself. But what significantly changed the US was WWII and the Cold War. We had to enlarge and empower the Federal State to win those wars. Those wars are long gone, but the federal behemoth in DC that was created, is still here. It does not want to die. It is grasping at tyrannical straws as it physically collapses. These are its last days.


94 posted on 06/29/2012 4:05:37 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mkmensinger
"I see your point. But wasn’t the HHS mandate issued as part of Obamacare?"

Yes, but the abortion thing is not codified in the law. Only the HHS department's authority to regulate.

Thus, while their are constitutional challenges to this HHS ruling going on, if successful, they won't invalidate the Obamacare law, only the department's rule.

95 posted on 06/29/2012 4:16:19 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
"Watched the collapse of Detroit, while I was living there. Watched the collapse of California, while I was living there."

Can you stay away from Tennessee?

96 posted on 06/29/2012 4:18:10 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: scram2

We only deserve it if we do nothing and wait, depending on Republicans in DC for regress is fruitless as evidenced by their past behavior.


97 posted on 06/29/2012 4:18:16 PM PDT by roses of sharon ("Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Heart of Georgia
"If I remember correctly, they passed a shell bill in the senate that originated in the house. Trickery."

That defeats the intent of the constitution and should be unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should sue based on that.

98 posted on 06/29/2012 4:21:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Heart of Georgia
"If I remember correctly, they passed a shell bill in the senate that originated in the house. Trickery."

That defeats the intent of the constitution and should be unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should sue based on that.

99 posted on 06/29/2012 4:21:28 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

The Federal Behemoth you mention is a body of persons elected by us citizens.
They were sworn in to abide by the laws of our Republic, the Constitution, to guide us through perilous times. When they endeavor to destroy this country then it is “We The People” who have to act.
I’m not suggesting criminal action, just excising the cysts that exists in our present government(?). Although I agree with the 2nd Amendment!
I’m in Florida and doing what I can to excise the boil on Florida’s a$$, called Bill Nelson!


100 posted on 06/29/2012 4:30:54 PM PDT by GOYAKLA (Recall/ Impeachment Day, November 6, 2012. FUBO, same for RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 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