TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

Kythas wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Kythas wrote:I would guess it begins like it did in Syria and Libya. Some group would start organizing protests, probably via social media. These protest would become large and begin provoking authorities. Local authorities would begin to use some level of force to counter the protesters. Some of the protest organizers would take video of the authorities' actions and post them online, provoking other people to become angry and join in the protests. At some point, it would become too much for local officials to handle and the national government would step in. Organizers would then provoke the national government, most likely military at this point, who would again respond with force, which would get video taped and spread, causing other people to become angry, etc.

I thought the military couldn't be deployed against americans. Are you talking about the various State & National Guards, or are you implying Obama will try to do it anyway?

The various National Guard units would be the first to be deployed, yes. But if Martial Law were declared, the regular military would then be able to deploy.

The question to consider here is: if any military unit were to receive orders such as this, would the members of the unit and/or the commanders obey the order? How many soldiers, if any, would defect? Would entire units decide to disobey their orders at that point?

steveincowtown wrote:
Job. Killer.

clarionite wrote:

LikesShinyThings wrote:

clarionite wrote:I do believe it's way past time for an amendment to be added to prevent future decisions being based on this one. Something along the lines of not being taxed for breathing. Taxes are based on some action. How can you be taxed for existing?

Ummm.... Congress wrote the law, and the SCOTUS upheld it.
Is it right? No. But that's how it can be.

Ummm... They upheld it as constitutional. Congress can't write any law they want. It has to fit within what's constitutional. If we add an amendment to the constitution, that prevents us from being taxed for being alive, then the law becomes unconstitutional. That's how the system is supposed to work. And did for quite a while.

clarionite wrote:I do believe it's way past time for an amendment to be added to prevent future decisions being based on this one. Something along the lines of not being taxed for breathing. Taxes are based on some action. How can you be taxed for existing?

Kythas wrote:I suppose now the government can eliminate homelessness by mandating all US citizens purchase a house.

mamabearCali wrote:So now if we don't buy our vegetables the govt can impose a tax? Is there any limit to the amount of taxes a gove can impose! How about if we don't wanto buy a certain brand car....can we be taxed for that? What a pandoras box has just been opened.