How do you describe John Robert’s decision in the Obamacare cases? He goes to the John Boehner School of political courage. He is a living, breathing reminder of a joke among lawyers. What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of your law school class? Your honor.
Fortunately, there can be some benefits to cowardice. The Obamacare decision shows us this.
What are they?
The Obamacare case did some serious damage to the Commerce Clause. Wickard v. Filburn is the really terrible 1942 case that allowed the government to do almost anything it wanted to as long as they put it under the heading of the Commerce Clause. Now with this case, the Commerce Clause is restricted.
Now, despite all of the caterwauling by the Democrats and Obama to the contrary, Obamacare is a tax.
Every Republican should be using the words Obamacare tax. In fact, they should treat that as one word. “Obamacaretax.”
As a tax, Roberts has given Republicans a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes. Even the Party of Treason recognizes that. That is why they lie about their tax hikes.
From a practical point of view, we can repeal the Obamacare tax this year but it will require courage, which is something hard to find in John Boehner.
The Republican House has already scheduled a vote on repeal. It will pass. Then it is on to the Senate. Because Roberts has turned Obamacare into the Obamacare tax, it is not subject to a filibuster and therefore could be repealed with 51 votes.
The obstacle on getting it to the floor is Harry Reid. Reid knows the numbers and he knows that if that bill goes to the floor, there are probably four or more Democrats in tight reelection races that will vote to repeal.
Unless the Republicans are willing to go to the mat on this one to force a vote, nothing will happen. John Boehner must put away his freshly laundered white flag of surrender and pick up a rifle instead. He and the Republican leadership must force this issue.
Assuming that happens, and we get the votes in the Senate, which I am willing to bet we will since the bill could not be filibustered, it would then go to Obama’s desk. He would have the choice of signing off on the repeal of his signature legislation or vetoing it, knowing that while his veto could not be overridden, he would face the wrath of the voters in November for his massive Obamacare tax.
Yesterday, after the Obamacare tax decision, Mitt Romney raised $4.2 million dollars. That should be a clue to the Republican Party and the generally clueless John Boehner.
This is an issue the Republicans can and will win on. That is, if you fight.
If the Republicans do nothing more than another lame symbolic vote, then they will see the wrath of the Tea Party movement on them, every bit as much as we have focused our wrath on the Party of Treason.
Last night, I was a part of the National Tea Party Virtual Town hall. We had several Members of Congress on and one thing I told them last night was we are tired of symbolic actions. We do not want Congress to register a vote so they can go home and say, “See I voted against the Obamacare tax.” We want results.
If all the Republicans in Congress are going to do is simply vote, knowing nothing will happen, they are less than worthless.
We want success on this issue. We want results. To quote Charlie Sheen, on this issue, we must be “Winning!”
Tags: boehner, decision, filibuster, house, john, obamacare, republicans, roberts, senate, tax
Permalink Reply by Liberty on There is something that does seem right with me. I am not a lawyer but I am sure some of my informed fellow conservatives out there could answer this. Obamacare passed using the Commerce Clause. That is what they voted on. SCOTUS tells us the Commerce Clause is unconstitutional and this law cannot remain using the Commerce Clause. At that point should not this law be thrown out? SCOTUS then tells us it is constitutional as a tax. But Congress did not vote on a tax. Can't we argue that it has to go back to the Hill for a vote on a new tax? Also, can't we argue that SCOTUS cannot create a new tax only Congress.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Nope.
One of the good points of the decision is that SCOTUS DID NOT tell us the Commerce Clause is unconstitutional, but that it could not be used to force purchasing. I'm simplifying, of course.
Permalink Reply by Liberty on Yes. The law was passed using the CC to force purchasing. SCOTUS says they cannot use that. Doesn't the law fall apart at that point? SCOTUS went on and changed CC to tax. Does SCOTUS have the authority to change law and create new taxes? I thought only Congress can create new taxes?
Permalink Reply by Juls on This is so convoluted. The government passes this bill based on it's authority under the Commerce Clause. It defends the mandate before the court using the same argument. The court decision is that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but that's okay because the mandate is really a tax! At that point shouldn't it have been thrown back to Congress to vote on again under it's authority to tax, and then if need be brought before the court?
Permalink Reply by Liberty on Exactly. Out of the three branches of government only Congress can create tax. SCOTUS cannot create tax and that is exactly what happened yesterday. Also, Congress never voted on this new tax.
Permalink Reply by Juls on And doesn't the Constitution specifically limit Congress only to enumerated taxation?
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on I do not find that in the Constitution, Jules. Article 1 Section 8 is rather open. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...": somewhat restricted elsewhere.
Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on This comes from an article published by Publius. Congress does NOT have the right to tax anything they want!
http://www.americanclarion.com/9603/2012/07/02/taxing-clause-lawles...
Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:
Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]
Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:
Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:
Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]
Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:
Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.
Will you feel the same if Congress decides that in the interest of Green Green you must purchase a Volt and run your home with solar panels and TAX you if you don/t? It is the same thing.
And, in the Obamacare case, it was SCOTUS, not Congress, that declared it a TAX. SCOTUS definitely does NOT have the right to tax us!
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Ah, SCOTUS did not create a tax! Honestly called it what it is, a tax. Called a spade a spade.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Might be the best approach in the end...Complex, isn't it?
Permalink Reply by Liberty on We all knew it was a tax. Dems did not want to use that word thus Commerce Clause. Congress voted on CC not a new tax. If the word tax does not appear in the law voted upon and now it is deemed a tax why doesn't the law need to go back to Congress to have the word tax written into it and voted upon?
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Liberty has it correct, according to Mr. Levin. The types of taxes permitted under the Constitution are a capitation tax (which is never used), excise taxes (which require an action or activity by the individual), and the income tax (which requires income).
http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364
This new tax does not fit under any of those categories, and the legislation was not written to establish a new tax at the time (it was called a penalty or a fine). A S.C. justice does not have the authority to retroactively label a penalty or a fee as a tax, since only congress has that authority. Also, does not a new tax require a 2/3 majority?
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
