Morla, the title is warranted if for no other reason than he was the only one stupid enough to be convinced to be such a grand champion of it.
On paper, if you believe what you were taught in high school, Obama is a very powerful man, as was Bush.. From a social studies textbook foundation I cannot argue with you.
However, in what IMO is the real world, no country could remain a superpower if it actually changed its mind every couple years. Plans are made for the longer term, by people I've probably never heard of. Is the point of the U.S.A. to be free men in a representative democracy or to run the world? It's hard to tell sometimes. Oh well at least we're good at whatever it is we're doing, we sure put the EU further down the drain than ourselves. For the common people a bunch of individual sovereign states might be good about now, both here and in the EU.. The EU won't miss the water til the well runs dry I'm afraid, sovereignty is easy to take for granted until suddenly you're being taxed or otherwise directed without representation.
----------
Fear of govt IS the government.. Statism is a pack of unbacked threats; If govt gets out of control, ignore it and go about life as you see fit. Where's your crown, King Nothing?
Morla, ouch, the video...it's hideous. the hurt! make it go away. I can look past your other ramblings...but linking that video? never
I'm a Beatles fan, but my point is that the PPACA is not the place to dig one's heels in. Forget the bill and forget Obama. We humans are expected to flip out and define ourselves over these people and events, our best bet is not to do so.
----------
Fear of govt IS the government.. Statism is a pack of unbacked threats; If govt gets out of control, ignore it and go about life as you see fit. Where's your crown, King Nothing?
After all before this day you had some kind of hope. now it's gone. Only mathematics are left to happen.
Republicans might be able to overturn this in time with fierce fighting but then you will simply return back to square one where you slow down a bit on the bleeding but still continue to accelerate towards a wall.
Or is there some other outcome scenario i fail to see here?
Jstanley01
Posts: 8182
Incept: 2008-07-30
San Antonio, Texas
The bottom line is that all legal barriers to the state forcing individuals to do whatever it decides on whatever arbitrary basis are now gone, struck down, over with, kaput. From this point forward we are living in a totalitarian state, American style, where "the political process" plays the role of God. The only good news is that it's bankrupt.
"Independence Day"??? **** that ****, IT'S A DAMN LIE...
JStanley, I was sitting outside last night after it cooled down some, watching Old Glory blowing in a breeze on our flagpole with a spotlight shining on it and thinking about how it's always been one of my favorite sights. I've always associated it with our liberties, freedom and opportunity. Fairness.
It still is one of my favorite sights but it's a damn shame I've come to despise the powers that have hijacked what it represents over the years in favor of their own ideals. Power grab after power grab, little by little, one upon the other until they finally get to that totalitarian utopia.
'em all.
----------
The politician's motto: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.
Instead of a boon for the Republicans, this should be a boon for Libertarians. BTW Jstanley, thanks for the Michael Burry post. I am going to show it around. I read that story Lewis wrote about him a 2 years ago and was totally impressed. Hearing this guy was even more impressive. Reading the comments of the blowhards below it was just what it was, reading comments of blowhards. The bull****, I shorted CFC? Yeah, when? 2007%. This guy staked his entire firm on this play, lost his investors and came out. His investors ****ed themselves. But, the points this guy made (Watch the establishment heads of UCLA behind him, as one of them knew what was coming, the guy on the right and the other was just sitting there thinking, what the hell just hit us now?)were precious.
Maybe Roberts did **** the law up and those voting with him were too damn clueless to realize he ****ed it up. What astounds me is the idea they don't know what a direct tax is? It is one you can't pass on to someone else. Income tax is, from what was ruled in Brushaber vs UP Railroad, is an excise measured against income, severed from the source. I'm sure it was meant to be inflationary, as it was meant to be included in the goods and services sold. No tax was meant to apply to everyone and the income tax was drafted to tax incomes, not general paychecks, which are derived directly out of ones labor instead of sources. The point at which the income tax started, well over $100K in todays money, indicated that it was a business tax, which was to be derived from what was to be paid by someone else.
Schiff seems to make the entire ruling absurd and if he is correct, it is absurd. Whether Roberts used this as an entry to block all kinds of Federal nonsense in other directions, who knows? It would be quite funny if in order to get some of the other central statist bullcrap through, the statists would have to seek the overturning of their pet bill?
----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
it makes me feel bad, as it makes most americans feel bad.
how many americans immediately thought how the heck do i just drop out of the system when they heard this ruling?
we understand that the country is going in the wrong direction via our pathetic leaders, but now the supreme court won't even act as a check to congressional actions.
i remember feeling sad about our country after the bailouts, because americans went to a lot of trouble to let their representatives know that they didn't want this to happen, and it happened anyway.
these "public servants" keep giving a big FU to the very people they are supposed to serve.
But it's NOT a tax -- "Hey your stretching it to say it's a tax" --
Can someone please tell me what happens to a low income person when they cannot get the subsidized insurance because their state does not take the funding for this piece of crap TAX Mandate? Hmmm....
Here's what strikes me: Had the "penalty" been originally called a tax, the bill may not have been passed, as taxes are viewed as odious and repugnant. Thus, worded as a "penalty," regardless of its Constitutionallity, it passed both houses and was signed into law. In the bloom of time, it is rightly challenged, and advances to the Supremes. There, the sleight of hand occurrs, and the "penalty" re-emerges as a tax, a power Congress has previously established. Ipso facto, a fraud on the American people, as Roberts has rewritten the law to pass Constitutional muster.
Sad indeed.
----------
The Truth is right here... err, wait. Well, it WAS there just moments ago!
Blueskies, Since there were 4 solid votes on the court to throw the whole thing out. why didn't Roberts join them?
IMHO: Roberts is more loyal to the republican Party than he is to the country or the Constitution.
As are almost all red team and blue team supporters.
Reds didn't care when Bush was deficit spending at (that time) a record pace, because it was their guy and their Party. Blues don't care that Obama is reneging on his election promises because he's their guy. Where;s Code Pink and Cindee Shehann protesting our wars? Simple: it's their guy doing it so that's ok.
:FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKK:
Again, we see how loyalty to Party trumps all. And that is why we are ****ed.
The country means nothing, the Constitution means nothing and the Party means everything to these ignorant sheople.
I'm going TMG's route. Dropping my $600/month 'insurance plan' (which is ****ing joke), paying the penalty of approximately $120/month, then getting insurance as needed.
Mrs 12bolt, upon hearing my plan (she's a former practicing attorney), said "I bet the insurance companies have a provision where there will be a 30 day delay in starting your coverage, so you'll be on the hook for whatever grossly inflated bogus charges they throw on your bill until coverage starts". As a disincentive to game the system to their detriment.
I don't know if that's right or not. But that tidbit of info about when coverage starts (ie my first day in the hospital/the day I sign up or 30 days later) is critically important for those who plan on taking an alternate path.
For some reason I am reminded of the old Woody Allen movie: "Take The Money and Run". In the hilarious recounting of Woody's childhood they recount his efforts to play the cello: "He took the instrument and strangled it." The cello sounded like cats screaming.
Seems like fitting background music for this court decision. The Court is the incompetent thief in training. The Constitution and the American people are the cello.
----------
You know you are in the Dark Ages when Alchemy looks like Destiny.
In the case of Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida , in which the the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was at issue, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the mandate imposed under that law, and also determined the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act to the litigation over the law. The Court held that the individual mandate in that statute (codified in Internal Revenue Code section 5000A as a "penalty") does not fall under the Anti-Injunction Act, and that the nature of the mandate does not preclude the federal courts from hearing the case before a prospective plaintiff has paid such a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service in the year 2015. The Supreme Court decision was rendered in this case in an opinion filed with the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.[4]
This rule is related to the Flora full payment rule, based in part on the United States Supreme Court decision in Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), affirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), essentially requiring that in most cases a person resisting the assessment of a U.S. federal tax must first pay the full amount of tax asserted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and then file a formal administrative claim for refund with the IRS.
As a general rule, the courts will not entertain a suit to enjoin (or stop) the government from assessing the tax but will entertain a suit for a tax refund after the IRS has denied the refund claim, or 6 months have elapsed (120 days in bankruptcy cases) since the filing of the claim, whichever is earlier.[2]
For the exception allowing litigation without first paying the tax in bankruptcy cases, see 11 U.S.C. § 505. For income taxes and certain other taxes, the taxpayer may also litigate the tax in the United States Tax Court prior to assessment without first paying the tax.[
(CNSNews.com) - In his deciding opinion in the cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), Chief Justice John Roberts first says the mandate in the law requiring individuals to buy health insurance is not a tax.
Then he says it is a tax.
He upholds the individual mandate—as a tax, not a penalty—as the law of the land. But then says it would not be "unlawful" for Americans to violate the law's mandate that they "shall" buy health insurance--as long as they are willing to pay the "penalty" for not obeying the law.
Roberts first examines the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits Americans from bringing suit against Obamacare at this time.
“The Anti-Injunction Act provides that ‘no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,’” Roberts explains.
“Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit,” says Roberts.
“The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise,” Roberts continues. "The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’ Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’
“Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes,’” said Roberts.
Roberts thus concludes that because Congress calls the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a “penalty” not a “tax,” the "penalty" therefore is not a "tax."
“The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act,” writes Roberts. “The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”
Got it? The chief justice of the United States says the penalty for not obeying the individual mandate is not a tax, it's a penalty. Therefore, the court can rule on it at this time.
Remember: Roberts says, It's not a tax, it's a penalty.
Roberts then rules that the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, cannot be used to justify a law forcing people to buy health insurance because people who are not buying health insurance are not engaging in commerce that can be regulated.
"The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"
That's pretty straightforward: Commerce is commerce. Not engaging in commerce is not commerce.
But then the chief justice turns to the question of whether the Obama Administration can use the Taxing Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to justify imposing the individual mandate to buy health insurance.
Now, the "penalty" which Roberts says was not a "tax" in the first part of his opinion becomes a "tax" in this part of his decision.
“The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory,” writes Roberts. “In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.”
“The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance,” Roberts says as he begins the process by which he transforms the “penalty” he discussed earlier into the "tax" he will discuss now.
“After all, it states that individuals ‘shall’ maintain health insurance,” Roberts continues. “Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
“Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes,” says Roberts. “That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that 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. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”
Roberts then reflects back on the stubborn fact that the law Congress actually enacted specifically calls the “penalty” a “penalty” and not a "tax."
“It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax,” says Roberts. “But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.”
Roberts then concludes that he while he considered the "penalty' and "penalty" in determining that his court could take up Obamcare and rule on it, he will now consider the “penalty” a “tax” for purposes of allowing Congress to force people to buy health insurance.
“The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty,” he says.
He then further concludes that it would not be “unlawful” for Americans to disobey the law’s declaration that they “shall” buy health insurance, so long as they pay the "penalty"—or, strike that, the "tax"--for disobeying the law's unambiguous mandate.
“While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful,” says Roberts. “Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.
In the end, then, for those who actually have to pay it for exercising their freedom in not buying the health insurance the government says they "shall" buy, it is neither a "penalty" nor a "tax," but merely a required "payment to the IRS."
12bolt: "I don't know if that's right or not. But that tidbit of info about when coverage starts (ie my first day in the hospital/the day I sign up or 30 days later) is critically important for those who plan on taking an alternate path."
Book a cheap flight. Get travel cover from your door. Hopefully don't get ill in the taxi on the way to the airport, or on the plane, or on holiday.
Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
Property Rights start with your body, your Sovereign body is your Sovereign property.
A 'State' is Sovereign. A Sovereign State gets all its Rights, from the Sovereign individual.
What a Sovereign State can do, a Sovereign individual can do.
A tax on inaction is the same as I highlighted from Magna Carta. A knight obliged to do guard duty, can either do it himself, have one of his men do it in his stead, or pay a 'tax' to the Constable so the Constable either then pays someone else to do the guard duty, or does it himself and keeps the money.
So what are the 'do it yourself' or 'my guy here will do it' type other options that would seem to be necessary to be provided, which do not include the necessity of a payment?
As for illegals, "Do you have insurance?" "Have you paid the tax?" "Oh you haven't" "Ok, $2,200 prior to treatment please".
----------
If the State was a Nanny, it would have been fired for incompetence, unreliability, and having its hands in the till, a very long time ago now.
i was thinking of wearing black on the 4th of july, but i wouldn't want to show disrespect for all the people who served this country and have a day meant really for them.
i was thinking of wearing black on the 4th of july, but i wouldn't want to show disrespect for all the people who served this country and have a day meant really for them.
It wouldn't be disrespectful IMHO. They served a country that was just killed. IMO, celebrating "Independence Day" IS disrespectful to all those men and women who fought for this country.
----------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. H. L. Mencken
Ck_dexter
Posts: 3906
Incept: 2007-07-19
the south parlor
The federal government’s primary function — like that of all political governments — has always been to extract as much of the wealth you create as possible from your pocket and deposit it in the bank accounts of the politically connected and the privileged wealthy.
Usually this process of extraction and redistribution is accomplished through complex sleights of hand, with lots of talk about “public goods” and “legitimate government functions” intervening between the taking of the money and the handing over of it to “defense” contractors, private prison corporations, companies with friends in the highway construction and repair bureaucracy, and so forth.
Health care “reform” is the current pinnacle of the “privatization” process. They’ve cut out the middleman! Instead of all the smoke and mirrors, you’ll now just pay part of your taxes directly to Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross Blue Shield. And just as if you had paid those taxes to the government, you’ll get something in return for them … whether you want it or not.
Most people I’ve talked with about CannibalCare … er, ObamaCare … realize that there’s something deeply immoral in the whole concept. But at the same time they despair over ever-increasing health care costs, without ever noticing that those cost increases have been the result of more than a century of successive political interventions, not of anything resembling actual market processes. And more, they don’t realize that those interventions have been created and defended by the “right” as often as by the “left.”
Republican president George W. Bush proposed and signed Medicare Part D. Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Republican president Richard Nixon proposed and signed the Health Maintenance Organizations Act. Scratch a Republican congresscritter and he’ll squeal that he wants to “save” Medicare and “decentralize” Medicaid with “block grants” of your money. Ask him if he’s interested in repealing the laws that give a medieval style guild (the American Medical Association) a monopoly on the provision of medical care, and security will escort you from the premises.
So if you think voting Republican (or any other way) this November is going to get CannibalCare … er, ObamaCare … repealed, think again. Even if the next set of politicians puts on some kind of magic show to convince you otherwise, Democrats and Republicans alike will continue finding ways to move money from your pockets to their friends’ bank accounts. Because that’s what government does. If you want affordable health care, the first step toward it is to abolish the state.
"In other words, that the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure and what is true, could always go on. Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that's the only conversation worth having." Christopher Hitchens.
Floridasandy...go ahead and wear the black if you want to. If you feel guilt about it, put on an American flag lapel pin or something. The veterans will understand.
----------
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”Thomas Jefferson
Now that this penalty has been determined to be a "tax" rather than an exercise of the commerce power, has the door been opened to additional legal challenges aimed at the constitutionality of this new "tax?" The fact that the legislation itself described the individual mandate as imposing a "penalty" or "fine" and not a tax made it impossible to raise and adjudicate in the lower courts the question whether the individual mandate was a constitutional exercise of the federal taxing power. Thus, the appellants were deprived of any meaningful opportunity to mount a legal challenge directed to the constitutionality of the "tax."
Also, what of the 10,000 other "mandates" included in the legislation which could similarly be determined to fall outside Congress' authority to regulate commerce and that have nothing to do with taxation?
Now that this penalty has been determined to be a "tax" rather than an exercise of the commerce power, has the door been opened to additional legal challenges aimed at the constitutionality of this new "tax?"
No. The Supremes have spoken.
Quote:
Also, what of the 10,000 other "mandates" included in the legislation which could similarly be determined to fall outside Congress' authority to regulate commerce and that have nothing to do with taxation?
Again, the Supremes have spoken and said it's all constitutional, so that's the final word on the matter unless Congress changes or repeals it.
RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
'em all.
