TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:The liberals that are celebrating this decision aren't thinking this through very clearly. This is far more than just a decision on healthcare. This gives Congress a license to tax anything they want.

CJ Roberts wrote in his opinion "The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control."

So in a few years if there is a Republican POTUS and a Republican Congress, whats to stop them from taxing abortions at $1000 a pop? After all, they're not banning anything, they're merely taxing it.

Anyone who celebrates this massive increase in federal power isn't thinking through the consequences this decision will have for decades to come.

I wonder how the libs would react the next time a Republican administration has the Presidency and both Houses of Congress and decides to pass something I'll call the Federal Self Defense Act.



Anyone 18 or older, who can legally own or purchase a firearm per current federal regulations, must show proof of ownership of a firearm .22 cal or higher. You must also maintain proficiency and keep the firearm in good working order. Failure to do so would result in a $750.00 penalty/tax collected by the IRS.

Same income tax rule for obamacare applies to this as well, meaning those with no income tax liability are exempt from having to show proof of ownership. We will, however, use the penalty/tax money to provide firearms, .22 cal or higher, maintain proficiency, and keep in good working order, to those persons who can legally own a firearm per current federal regulations, do not pay income tax, and cannot afford one on their own.

We'll let Homeland Security have authority over how to implement the act, meaning they can figure out what it means to "maintain proficiency" and "keep in good working order" later, once the act has been implemented.

There is also another 2199 pages of "stuff" that you can read after the act is passed, because we have to pass it in order to know whats in it, but thats the gist of it.

Based on the obamacare opinion, wouldn't this scenario be legal?

link to opinion. p31 and 32 explain the "reasoning" for sustaining it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 93c3a2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From what i am seeing, roberts upheld the act by deeming it constitutional under congress' taxing authority, not via commerce clause. the other 4 on the left deemed it ok under commerce clause

*edited due to typos due to shoulder surgery

per scotusblog, Chief Justice joins the left to uphold obamacare