Did Justice Roberts engage in judicial tyranny when upholding Obamacare as a tax?

[georjec2]

Roberts did not engage in any tyranny. He presided on a case before the court. You take your case to the Supremes and take your chances.

If you remember, he stated that he did not judge the wisdom of the law but that as a tax, it would be constitutional but otherwise, he would have taken issue with it. Remember, the Prez and everyone screamed about it not being a tax. I take Roberts word that it walked a duck...etc

If you want to get the law changed, vote out the clowns and get it changed or bring it back through the courts and nail it on some technicality.

But, as established as a tax, it is the law of the land!

Yes Obamacare is the law of the land.

If you're really bother by Obamacare. Don't use it.

[johnwk]

Yes Obamacare is the law of the land.

If you're really bother by Obamacare. Don't use it.

This is not about using Obamacare or not using it. This is about the rule of law and our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language, only those laws which are made in pursuance of our Constitution are considered as being the Supreme law of the land.

Roberts declared Obamacare to be a tax. Which tax? An impost, duty, excise, a tax upon incomes without apportioning it, or a direct tax? This information is vital if the “tax” is to be enforced as each taxing power granted to Congress has specific limitations which must be followed when levying the “tax”. Did Roberts invent a new tax? Does he have the power to invent a new tax? Seems to me his job does not involve the legislative power, nor is he empowered to alter our Constitution and grant new powers to Congress which is governed by an amendment process, Article V of our Constitution, and requires consent of the people via the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof. Did Obamacare get approved by the required number of States? In fact, a majority of the States officially rejected Obamacare by filing suit against it. Now, considering all this, do you still say Obamacare is “the law of the land”, or is our Constitution the law of the land and only those laws made in pursuance thereof carry the legitimacy of being law?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[johnwk]

Roberts turned out to be just another inside the Beltway hypocrite. You can bet your tuccis that if he and his family would be covered by this health care law he would have voted the other way. But he and the rest of the federal government, all three branches are not covered by it.

Exactly! And here is the unanswered questions:

Did Roberts not engage in judicial tyranny and invent a new tax not recognized by our Constitution, and then went on to imagine a power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which allows Congress to enter a state and impose his new tax upon those who do not have federally approved health insurance?


JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[Omaha Beach]

Christ, an other fool (or another liar). The Affordable Care Act is not insurance that you need to be "first in line for"; people who already have insurance do not need to do anything, and since Congress is already covered under Federal program, we'll all just keep what we have.

Please stop spreading lies and misinformation.

Over a thousand unions and companies( campaign contributors to Obama) have asked for and been granted waivers from it. That sound like a good program to you? You are a federal employee right? Not covered by this junk are you?

[johnwk]

Roberts did not engage in any tyranny.

I see 66.67% of those in the poll do not believe Roberts engaged in judicial tyranny. But not one has stepped forward and answered fundamental questions which Roberts failed to provide in his opinion.

Roberts appears to have not only invented a new taxing power not recognized by our Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, or elsewhere in the Constitution, but has apparently imagined an authority exists beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 which authorizes his invented tax to be levied upon people in the united states who do not have federally approved health insurance. But this authority is nowhere to be found in the subjoined list of particulars beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 which grants the alleged power he pretends must exist.

My student law dictionary defines tyranny as:


“The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. See DESPOTISM.” ___ Bouviers Law Dictionary 1925-28



Since you are one of the 66.67% who do not believe Roberts engaged in judicial tyranny, how about stepping up and identifying the tax __ an impost, duty, excise, a tax upon incomes without apportioning it, or a direct tax __ which Roberts identified as the tax to be levied on those who do not have federally approved health insurance, and, which grant of power beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, permit’s the tax to be laid for the purpose so stated ___ not having federally approved health insurance?

JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[Phineas Finn]

Over a thousand unions and companies( campaign contributors to Obama) have asked for and been granted waivers from it. That sound like a good program to you? You are a federal employee right? Not covered by this junk are you?

The waivers have been specifically targeted and temporary. No group has been permanent exemption from the requirement to have health insurance.

And again, it is not an insurance plan. You can't sign up for "Obama Care" the way you buy Blue Cross.

Your comments show that you've bought into all of the lies about the program.

This has all been explained dozens of times.

[Phineas Finn]

You have done nothing but repeat the same egomaniacal post over and over again.

Your opinions are shared by none but fellow malcontents and lunatics.

Practically, it's not possible for the Supreme Court to "engage in judicial tyranny" because they are the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

Disagreeing with a decision and believing in working to have the ruling reversed is one thing, but merely throwing mud at the wall and denying the legitimacy of the process is simply childish.

[johnwk]

I suspect if the 26 State Attorney Generals went back into court and file an injunction directly in the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction in the matter, and claim the individual mandate cannot be enforced without the specific taxing power being identified to enforce the individual mandate ___ an impost, duty, excise, a tax upon incomes without apportioning it, or a direct tax, each of which has its own specific limitations __ which Roberts failed to do, and, also assert in the injunction there is no grant of authority beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 which can be pointed to which authorizes an assumed tax may be levied upon people in the united states who do not have federally approved health insurance, it would re-energize Tea Party Activists to a point where at least a million, perhaps a few million, would converge upon Washington when the injunction is brought before the court for its hearing, which is the kind of outrage necessary if the people want to restore their constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government.


Do the people of America not have a right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

I think the America People may do well to look at the people in Egypt who, at this very moment, have risen against the very assumption of dictatorial power being assumed here in America, and are willing to place their very lives on the line to object to such tyranny.


It is so sad to see the American people submitting to acts of tyranny and allowing their country to be taken over by an enemy from within without a shot being fired. Is liberty not a cause precious enough for the American People to rise against those who now work to extinguish it?


JWK




We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[johnwk]

You have done nothing but repeat the same egomaniacal post over and over again.

And you, like Justice Roberts, have not answered the following questions:


Which tax may be levied by the federal government upon those who do not obtain federally approved health insurance __ an impost, duty, excise, a tax upon incomes without apportioning it, or a direct tax, and be within the limits of the speciifc tax appealed to?

And which grant of authority beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 can be pointed to which authorizes an assumed tax may be levied upon the people of Florida, or any State, who do not have federally approved health insurance?

Additionally, when have the people of the United States debated granting power to Congress to enter their States and regulate their health care needs and choices, and then granted such power under Article V of our Constitution which is the only lawful way to grant new powers to Congress, and requires consent of the governed by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof?

JWK



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

[Terry K]

I found no “legal loophole” in Roberts opinion. In fact, Roberts never identified the specific tax which may be used to tax those who do not have federal approved health insurance. He merely indicated it may be collected with other taxes laid upon incomes.

Congress has power to lay and collect a number of specifically identified taxes: Duties, Imposts, and Excises, all of which must be uniform throughout the United States as stated in the very provision granting this power to Congress. Congress may also lay and collect direct taxes, but “…no Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Additionally, our Constitution declares Congress has power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes …without apportionment.

So, which taxing power is Roberts referring to? Roberts never answered this question but merely indicated the individual mandate tax levied upon those failing to have federally approved health insurance is to be collected along with income taxes.

We can immediately exclude imposts and duties as being the taxing power allowing the individual mandate tax because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.

And in reference to the power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes are taxes levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter. I cannot imagine Roberts hanging his hat on this power of taxation as authorizing Obama’s individual mandate tax.

And with reference to the power to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without apportionment, this taxing power requires a realization of profits or gains which then becomes the subject of taxation. But the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a profit or gain, collectively called “income”. The subject matter being taxed is a failure to have federally approved health insurance and obviously excludes this taxing power as authorizing Obamacare.

But we still have Congress’ power to lay and collect direct taxes, and these taxes by our Constitution, requires an apportioning of the tax which Obamacare’s individual mandate tax fails to do.


Until the specific constitutionally authorized tax is identified which would meet its own taxing limitations when used to tax those who refuse to obtain federally approved health insurance, the individual mandate levy cannot be enforced, i.e., which freaken tax can be levied upon those who do not obtain federally approved health insurance __ an impost, duty, excise, a tax upon incomes without apportioning it, or a direct tax? Which freaken tax is it Mr. Roberts? Are you inventing a new tax?

JWK

[size=4]
Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

There is the Origination Clause of the Constitution that requires all bills for the raising of revenues to originate in the House of Representatives.

The bill that was passed originated in the Senate. The Senate took "House Resolution 3590" regarding housing tax breaks for service members, completely stripped it of any
relevance to military housing, revised the bill in its entirety with language of the Affordable Care Act, and claimed the Bill originated in the House. The only connection that
the Affordable Care Act had to the original House bill was the title "House Resolution 3590"

There is also the issue of severability. In its haste to pass the bill, the Senate failed to include a severability provision stating that if some portion of the law is deemed illegal or unconstitutional, the remaining Constitutional portion of the law will stand. Portions of the Affordable Health Care Act were determined to be Unconstitutional which materially changes the the intent. To date, there has been no challenge to the Courts on the issue of severability.

[johnwk]

There is the Origination Clause of the Constitution that requires all bills for the raising of revenues to originate in the House of Representatives.

The bill that was passed originated in the Senate. The Senate took "House Resolution 3590" regarding housing tax breaks for service members, completely stripped it of any
relevance to military housing, revised the bill in its entirety with language of the Affordable Care Act, and claimed the Bill originated in the House. The only connection that
the Affordable Care Act had to the original House bill was the title "House Resolution 3590"

There is also the issue of severability. In its haste to pass the bill, the Senate failed to include a severability provision stating that if some portion of the law is deemed illegal or unconstitutional, the remaining Constitutional portion of the law will stand. Portions of the Affordable Health Care Act were determined to be Unconstitutional which materially changes the the intent. To date, there has been no challenge to the Courts on the issue of severability.

There are a number of irrefutable reasons for which the Roberts opinion is judicial tyranny. And true patriots ought not share in the cowardice of others or their suggestion of submission to tyranny. I will continue to point to tyranny which is sapping the very foundations of our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, and also point to those willingly and knowingly engaged in the overthrow of our Republic.

When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an
hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always
it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history
of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the
nations ruin. ___ SEE: HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS


JWK


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than “public use”; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[Omaha Beach]

The waivers have been specifically targeted and temporary. No group has been permanent exemption from the requirement to have health insurance.

And again, it is not an insurance plan. You can't sign up for "Obama Care" the way you buy Blue Cross.

Your comments show that you've bought into all of the lies about the program.

This has all been explained dozens of times.

You did not answer the question. Federal employee not covered by it are you? Specifically targeted you bet. To companies and unions who backed Obama for President.

[Contumacious]

Did Justice Roberts engage in judicial tyranny when upholding Obamacare as a tax?

Yes ! If you Love the Constitution (1787) , Individual Liberty , Capitalism, and the Free Market.

No ! If you are state supremacist/fascist/socialist/parasite.

Was that a trick question ?

.

.

[Monte]

Obamacare stems from the conservatives.

Grindelwald, your first lesson of the day is that there is a difference between republicans and conservatives. Both Mitt Romney and Bob Dole are republicans, and neither are conservatives.

The degree to which Obamacare affects all aspects of the economy are profoundly different from Romneycare or in Bob Dole's plan.

[Monte]

What is that supposed to mean?

The Federal government already makes health insurance available to its employees, and Roberts has the same right to buy that insurance as the rest of the federal workforce.

To answer your first question, it means that Omaha Beach is correct and your reply doesn't address what Omaha Beach said, which is that if Justice Roberts' family was insured under the same terms as the Affordable Care Act, he wouldn't have ruled as he did.

Actually, what Roberts gets under The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is a lot better insurance coverage than the what the proletariat gets under the Affordable Care Act.
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20fedhealth.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

In order to make insurance affordable to a greater number of the 47 million who currently have none, experts say, the coverage might have to be much more limited than even the most basic federal employees option, and be designed to protect mainly against catastrophically high doctor or hospital bills.

-emphasis mine

[EmDot]

You did not answer the question. Federal employee not covered by it are you? Specifically targeted you bet. To companies and unions who backed Obama for President.

Do you have a credible link for this statement?

[Monte]

Do you have a credible link for this statement?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-crossroads-/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cong...on-gave-select

http://news.investors.com/061410-537...obamacare.aspx

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_561115.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...tened-scrutiny

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/t...KLwbYtp6Nam7LK

[Phineas Finn]

You did not answer the question. Federal employee not covered by it are you? Specifically targeted you bet. To companies and unions who backed Obama for President.

You continue to make stupid statements about something you clearly don't understand.

The Affordable Care Act is not an insurance plan. No one signs up (or is forced to sign up) for "Obama Care," as if it were Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

The law requires companies over a certain size to offer health insurance to its employees. That insurance must meet certain coverage standards. If the federal government did not already make health insurance available to its employees, the ACA would require it to do so.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...fact-checking/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medic...hamendment.asp

[johnwk]

Yes ! If you Love the Constitution (1787) , Individual Liberty , Capitalism, and the Free Market.

No ! If you are state supremacist/fascist/socialist/parasite.

Was that a trick question ?

.

.

No. But you did answer it well! Aside from that, It is so sad to see how the American People are rolling over to Obamacare tyranny and allowing the very foundations of their constitutionally limited system of government to be sapped of its very foundations. Their silence is almost as if they are willing participants in the overthrow of the Republic.


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[Terry K]

You continue to make stupid statements about something you clearly don't understand.

The Affordable Care Act is not an insurance plan. No one signs up (or is forced to sign up) for "Obama Care," as if it were Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...fact-checking/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medic...hamendment.asp

So, I won't incur a financial penalty if I don't want to participate in purchasing health care coverage?