obamacare upheld

[74novaman]

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.

[Slowplay]

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 keep hearing the Commerce Clause was strengthened. I also keep hearing twisted statements that Roberts applied extreme judicial restraint by finding a way to let the actions of congress stand. Pure idiocy - He applied extreme activism to redefine the taxing authority of congress.

What was clearly a penalty (punishment for not complying w/ a lawful* requirement) and NOT a tax for the Anti-Injunction Act, was found to be a tax under the taxing authority of congress. What kind of tax is it? Roberts can not tell you. The expansion of power granted by Roberts goes further than just a tax on activity the feds cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control, it grants the authority to require activity where there isn't any - how is that not unlimited regulatory authority on commerce, including regulatory authority in the abcense of commerce? Wickard was very bad, this is worse.

The taxing authority expanded by Roberts makes the commerce clause irrelevant, as a penalty for non-compliance with a government mandate that has the same power as unlimited commerce regulatory authority (including requiring subjects to engage in commerce), can now be viewed as a way to increase income taxes within the taxing authority of congress.

So, those who tell us to take our medicine, be good citizens, and support the expanded welfare state should be pleased - if you don't pay income taxes, it appears this new taxing authority won't punish you (but the road to serfdom will).

*which was deemed not lawful, as the individual mandate exceeded the authority provided under the Commerce Clause.

[74novaman]

The taxing authority expanded by Roberts makes the commerce clause irrelevant, as a penalty for non-compliance with a government mandate that has the same power as unlimited commerce regulatory authority (including requiring subjects to engage in commerce), can now be viewed as a way to increase income taxes within the taxing authority of congress.

This was my interpretation of it as well.

[AEA]

Roberts must have been paid very well by MaoBama for this ruling.

Yes, it looks bad for MaoBama now, but if he can get this done to increase his power, he will find some way to rig the election to keep and exercise his new legalized increased power. Did someone say voter fraud, let illegals vote, let some vote twice (for the dead ones on the rolls) and finally pad the numbers (which MaoBama is a Master at)?

I hope I am wrong. I hope the GOP comes together and hands MaoBama a defeat that is without question by a wide margin. But as slippery as he is, I cannot see him going down without trying some more shenanigans.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG

Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

• Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.

And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

• Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.

Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.

And, from Hillsdale College.....
"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker"
[youtube][/youtube]

[Heartland Patriot]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG

Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

• Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.

And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

• Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.

Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.

And, from Hillsdale College.....
"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker"
[youtube][/youtube]

TAM, my only fear of calling a Constitutional Convention is that the Second Amendment becomes vulnerable to being "adjusted"...and politicians are COMPROMISERS, constantly making deals...what if they, to put through the stuff you are posting here, remove the phrase "shall not be infringed" and replace it with "may be regulated with an eye to public safety" or some such language? I'm not as good at wording things as you are, but I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

[AEA]

Give them keys to the Constitution and we are doomed.

[Dave2]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG

Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

• Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.

And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

• Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.

Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.

I might say, instead of that second one, "Congress shall not levy taxes to fund non-emergency state or local expenses". It'd really cement the "limited government" principle, but it might go too far. Dunno, I'll have to think about it more. I think the first one's great, though.

[karder]

A friend saw this quote on the internet. Some of you have likely already seen it, and I apologize if that is the case, but I think it is appropriate and sums up my personal feelings. I understand many in this nation will disagree.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

[mamabearCali]

I have to agree with you Kardar.....My mom works at a school that services people of varying financial and melanin statuses. There was a certain demographic that yesterday was celebrating because they were getting "free healthcare" and when asked who was going to pay for it "the gov't will." My mom is not of that opinion but the majority of the staff was, so how do you educate people who choose to close their eyes to the truth.

[danpaw]

I don't have a close relationship with any liberals, except my dad, and we can't talk politics. But I would like to ask one if they can explain to me why Obama and others like him believe they can succeed where Lenin, Castro, modern European leaders, LBJ, etc. have always failed. Yeah I know the obvious answer. It's a power grab.

[AEA]

Why don't we grab the power for a change?
How's this:

We elect Romney, remain in control of the House and take control of the Senate.

then.......
#1 Repeal MaoBamacare completely.
#2 Pass and sign a "Democrat Consumption Tax" of 50% of income annually of every Registered Democrat in the Nation!

How would they like them apples?

[BillT]

Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

I'm just going to flat out call shenanigans on your posting. You are trolling, and nothing more. That "think of the children" stuff you're spouting is bunk and you know it. Now, go back to wherever your little friends are and tell them how cool you are for spinning up folks on a gun forum...

Sorry friend, I'm not going away! This is entirely too much fun! As a firearms enthusiast all my life I have had to put up with the right wing extremism that is spouted by 60% of the people I encounter in the sport. I feel the obligation to try and enlighten folks just as you try and do. A bunch of right wing gun nuts aren't going to sway any national election. The issues are a lot bigger than what this forum is about. I'm just trying to give you guys a sporting chance in the next life you live! Take a blood pressure pill and relax, there's a ton of debate to be had between now and November. If I'm trolling, sorry if I snagged one of your nerves! That was not my intent. It would be a waste of my time. If you think there are not children affected by all of this your already living in denial. No one can help you with that. But have a nice day anyway....

[comp73]

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?

[VMI77]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG

Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

• Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.

And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

• Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.

Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.

And, from Hillsdale College.....
"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker"
[youtube][/youtube]

TAM, my only fear of calling a Constitutional Convention is that the Second Amendment becomes vulnerable to being "adjusted"...and politicians are COMPROMISERS, constantly making deals...what if they, to put through the stuff you are posting here, remove the phrase "shall not be infringed" and replace it with "may be regulated with an eye to public safety" or some such language? I'm not as good at wording things as you are, but I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

There is no way they'd change the language like that....it will simply be eliminated. Anyway, what good is a new Constitution going to be....the government disregards the one we have, why would it behave any differently for a new one (unless the new just validates what they want to do anyway)?