Thank you, John Roberts! Well, maybe, at least....
Wow, the past day has been a wild ride, hasn't it? We were all prepared for a win, while steeled for a loss.
Then the Chief Justice threw a curve ball, stating ObamaCare was indeed constitutional, but only if funding is a tax!
One of the first reactions, within minutes, was a rather erudite, heavily linked, article here entitled "DID THE SCOTUS CREATE A NEW TAXING AUTHORITY NOT IN THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION?" Go here if you are interested.
Poor Judson Phillips has been hanging out at the Supreme Court for a couple of weeks in anticipation. Wasted money on an unused Football yesterday. Hope it was Chinese, so it didn't cost too much! See The football that was not spiked if you are interested.
I'll not list all the articles published here yesterday. Or the hundreds of emails I received.
Me? I said very little yesterday. I was too flabbergasted to say much.
Now, I've had a bit of time for introspection. Read bunches of articles. A good place to start is the Full text of US Supreme Court decision on health care law (193 pages)... you can find it right here. At a minimum, I'd suggest reading the Syllabus, and the Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J., (pages 50 through 65) He comes across as an irate blogger, IMHO! Attacks Ginsburg successfully, and much more. Entertaining, to say the least.
Nuclear waste(p.40) is on point too, I think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, back to Roberts' options, which were either:
- Strike down ObamaCare with his single vote.
or,
- Find a way that it could be found Constitutional, and agree with the Left!
What would the first option have precipitated?
- The Liberals would have (perhaps correctly) made accusations of a Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Attacks of Right Wingers throwing Granny under the bus (again). The poor, the downtrodden thrown into the streets, to die in misery.
- ObamaCare would off of the table for November! No longer a talking point. Except that Republicans are still mean and nasty.
Roberts chose the second option, allowing ObamaCare to stand for the moment. What does this do?
- Energizes the Tea Parties, as in 2010 again. Remains a core issue!
- Energizes the Republicans, should they so choose to fight. (Something about no new taxes?)
- Correctly identifies a Tax as a Tax. Called a Spade a Spade.
- Obama continues to say it's not a tax. The hypocrisy is obvious to all most certainly.
- Socialists couldn't get enough support to pass as a tax in '09. Hence the subterfuge.
- This ruling disabled the term "Individual Mandate".
- Affirmed that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force purchase of anything.
- Budget Reconciliation: ObamaCare can be repealed with only 51 votes. Dems couldn't get 60 votes in 2009...Perhaps couldn't find even 51 today that would vote favoring a new tax!
So, what was Chief Justice Roberts' best choice? Only history will tell us. He made his choice.
One of the highest stakes poker games ever played!
Was Roberts correct? On balance perhaps so. I hope all here agree with me!
Addendum: when you're done with this one, take a look at
Pennies from heaven...or from John Roberts? END the IRS?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on -
The House should immediately pass a resolution stating that the mandate is a penalty, not a tax. If it were a tax, then the IRS would be involved. What is the tax code for this new tax? There is none because it is a penalty!
Let the Senate take a position one way or the other. We've got to force this thing to a resolution. Letting it languish as it is, is unfinished business. It's an unanswered constitutional issue that MUST be resolved before any other legislation is passed!
-
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on -
"pass a resolution stating that the mandate is a penalty, not a tax."?
Well, that would seem to justify the Leftist position, that it's not a tax. New taxes remain a hot button issue to the uninformed.
The Supremes have already ruled that ObamaCare is Constitutional, that is now History. Don't cry over spilled milk.
Perhaps something can be done in re: punitive taxes? (the word punitive doesn't appear in the Constitution).
Looks like a losing proposition! Nothing to be gained, perhaps something to be lost, going that way!
(IMHO)
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on
-
Some republicans are saying that it is either a tax or an unconstitutional penalty. I submit that it is either an unconstitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Unconstitutional, either way. SCOTUS is wrong!
But to side with the GOP position on unconstitutionality is of necessity to call it a penalty. If the House and Senate differ on what the thing is, then perhaps the SCOTUS should have to clarify it and force the Senate to admit that it is a tax. If so (a tax), then they have to explain why it is not called a tax in the legislation, and why the IRS has not been given authority to collect this tax. Since there is no other tax collection agency within our government, it cannot be collected constitutionally.
On the other hand, if it is a penalty, then it must be applied fairly. If union members, etc. are exempted, then it is again unconstitutional. This is key, Vern. This is how it can be defeated!
If it is a tax, then it cannot be collected. If it is a penalty, then no group can be exempted by fiat.
We can't just let it go as it is! It is either all of one (tax) or all of the other (penalty).
I don't know about you, but I am not prepared to accept this ruling that it is constitutional no matter what it is called!
Spilled milk? Vernon, there is about to be spilled blood!
-
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on
-
"Some Republicans are saying...."?
What do I know?
More critical is, what do they know?
SCOTUS has deemed it to be constitutional! The House cannot now declare the law it passed to be unconstitutional, after the Supremes have now agreed with law the House passed!
At least, I find no such provision.
The "spilled milk" reference could have been several others. Prefer "What's done is done."?
"Crying in your beer" accomplishes nothing, either.
Neither "pie in the sky" solutions, or complaining, will help matters at all. Defeat in both houses, with POTUS concurrence, looks like the only plausible resolution, as Roberts alluded to, Thursday last.
All I can see to do is to fight on, with the available weapons. And the term "New Tax(es)" is one not to be given up for free, in my humble opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on
-
We can sue on the grounds that all tax bills must originate in the House.
ACA originated in the Senate.
And where is the mechanism for the collection of this tax? The IRS?
-
Permalink Reply by Agi Yaeger on -
Obama, fundamentally transformed a country and Roberts transformed her fundamental laws in the Constitution. Is Roberts any different from Obama? Both are globalist progressives who believe in a one world order.
Take out the bugles and play taps or fight for this nation!!!!!.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on
-
SCOTUS has ruled the ACA is a "tax". The Constitution- ALL taxation legislation MUST begin in the House.
The ACA began in the Senate.
The moment they try to collect it, someone will file suit...me, and a million others like me!
Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
The Mandate is invalid as a tax, but since that is where the SCOTUS hung their hat, the case would have to be revisited if the Congress insists on implementing it as anything other than a tax...and being a tax, it must be collected through the IRS. Where is the law allowing that?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
