"... 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...
This is Pearl Harbor for the left. When the bomb drops on them in NOV, they will wonder "what just happened?"
Let's see now, the so called "penalty" is now a tax, but there's no fine or criminal penalty if you don't pay it, heh. The states that do not set up Obamacare exchanges will get Medicaid funding, the fed withholding that funding was struck down. Those Democrat and Republican voters that wanted to see it struck down are now galvanized to have it repealed.
Yep, I like Roberts :-)
This number changed when it became a TAX.
Bad math? Nope it's a CYA that I see right through. Minimize the affected number of newly taxed persons.
They tried to make it disappear by saying "well now it's the law, so we need to get on to the important issues like jobs and the economy."
Hey, idiots!!!! We told you that BEFORE you spent all your time on this crappy bill.
Now it's gonna bite them in the ass and they want us all to look away.
The nothing more to see here won't fly. Now there's a laser focus on this being one of the top issues in the election.
Smooth move exlax!
It's certainly a nice thought you present but unfortunately, it is not accurate.
The ACA was passed as HR3590. It was passed by the House and sent to the Senate where Harry Reid stripped out much of the original language and then inserted language authored by the Senate. Then it was sent back to the House for their concurrence under the reconciliation rules and was finally passed by both houses.
Unfortunately the original bill passed was started in the House.
http://www.govtrack.us/congre...
http://coburn.senate.gov/publ...
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/...
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.
I hope you're right.
now I have extreme allegance to the const, flag , national anthem ,, but no faith /nor use for any in the admin ,supreme court , any more ..unless something big happens ,"we the people are screwd "
and after repeated demands from senators who arent listening to the people any more ..there against the people as is the govt .
http://www.nolanchart.com/art...
http://www.opednews.com/artic...
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2...
http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_b...
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
Original U.S. Constitution
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
[Congress shall have Power ... ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ...;
Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1
[No State shall ...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...
Clever point............
If they can't prosecute you for not paying the tax, what CAN they do? What teeth does the tax have? I thought for sure that Roberts specifying in his opinion that Americans could not be prosecuted criminally for refusing to pay (in the snippet I read) meant that all other civil collection channels were open to the IRS, but here we have on this very news/opinion vlog it being put forward that levies (and I presume garnishments and liens?) are also off the table:
Can they garnish your wages if you owe this tax and refuse to pay? Can they lien your home? If not, what incentive would anybody have to pay it?
that's rich...eh???
this is so not about health care-
And no one ever explained to me, if those two men did not have "standing" to sue on this matter, who *would* have standing.
The problem: even the Florida plaintiff group, and the NFIB, never brought the faulty origination before the Court. Nor did they bring the search and seizure, or the religious-discrimination element, or the differential export product taxation, or anything except the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Somebody should bring all these other things before the Court. Any Court.