"... Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional... "
As much as I've hated seeing 0bama, the Senate, and the House beat the Constitution like a whipped dog, I hate it even more seeing the Supreme Court treating it this way. Despite 0bama's appointments to the SC and Judge Ginsburg, I have always previously had great respect for the SC.
Now I have very little respect for any of them.
Supreme Court INVALIDATES health care law? Say what?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/06/30 18:24:16
|
|
|||||
|
58 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
15% | |||
Nick Purpura, the author of the linked article, filed the most comprehensive anti-Obamacare lawsuit that anyone ever filed, in any court (Purpura v Sibelius, 11-7275). In this piece, he of course excoriates John Roberts, as did the conservative dissenters (Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas JJ, jointly!), for rewriting the law to save it. (And in the process giving the Congress an unlimited taxing power that sets at naught every protection against the arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law. The only thing the government cannot arbitrarily do to you is execute you or confine you.)
Have a look at the Purpura case. It lists nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and monumental inconsistencies with existing law.
The big point that Purpura makes in this piece is: John Roberts said that this is a tax. OK. But this tax originated in the Senate. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
So what really happened here? Well: after Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy, the House simply took an unrelated bill, stripped it of its contents and short title, put in the Senate language (even the "In the Senate of the United States" heading), and then "deemed it passed" in the vote on the House Rule. Classic bait-and-switch.
But Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already said that the bill originated in the Senate. What about that?
That finding stands and is not controverted. So Mr. Purpura says, and I agree with him, that his case deserves a reargument. And more broadly speaking, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional.
Have a look at the Purpura case. It lists nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and monumental inconsistencies with existing law.
The big point that Purpura makes in this piece is: John Roberts said that this is a tax. OK. But this tax originated in the Senate. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
So what really happened here? Well: after Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy, the House simply took an unrelated bill, stripped it of its contents and short title, put in the Senate language (even the "In the Senate of the United States" heading), and then "deemed it passed" in the vote on the House Rule. Classic bait-and-switch.
But Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already said that the bill originated in the Senate. What about that?
That finding stands and is not controverted. So Mr. Purpura says, and I agree with him, that his case deserves a reargument. And more broadly speaking, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/30...
And I use the term "kids" interchangeably with "dependents". That is a semantics thing.
It sounds like there is standing. But these idiots take lessons from Janus.
I can only look at the Constitution. The wording does not seem ambiguous. The Senate and House 'bait and switch' is merely one more legal letter of the law bit of underhandedness that these folks seem to thrive upon.
Too bad Pelosi drained the swamp only to fill it with raw sewage.
Strategically, I'm not sure if it's worth overturning Obamacare. Is it more important to get rid of Obamacare or to get rid of Obama? A second term for that clown is probably going to include an equally overreaching attempt at gun control, and 4 more years of tax-and-spend.
If the end game is repeal, the status of the individual mandate as a tax means Obamacare can be handled as a finance matter, subject to the budget reconciliation process. It won't take 60 votes in the Senate to kill it; a simple majority will do. Considering the creativity in getting the law passed, there is truly no limit as to how much creativity can be exerted in getting it killed.
I think it would be better to force Obama to run on his record -- including Obamacare in its full glory. If Romney wins, Obamacare is gone. If Obama wins, we are stuck with a royal mess. If this issue won't mobilize the anti-socialists in November, nothing will.
it does not matter what political party they belong to, as long as you have a soros, or rothchilds, rockefellers, (the banking elitists) they will tell the congress, senate, us supreme court, and this puppet prez as bush's were also. Do you remember when bush the senior idiot who said," we are entering in a new world order", will here is a tie to that comment, the Georgia Guide Stone, it is exactly what they want to do to all of us, its called elimination of population, the enviromental nazi's only want 500 million on the earth!
I'm no expert, but it seems to me there can also be a challenge to the irrational "the penalty isn't a penalty it's a tax, but it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law" logic that Roberts concoted!