What is most astonishing about the Roberts‘ opinion is, he made no attempt to identify the constitutionally authorized tax which may be used to levy the “shared responsibility payment” upon those who do not have federally approved health insurance. In effect Roberts assumes one of the taxing powers granted to Congress may be used to collect the “shared responsibility payment” and will be within the limitations of the taxing powers granted to Congress.
And what are some of the limitations of Congress’ specific taxing powers?
(a) Direct taxes must be apportioned among the States;
(b) indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the united States;
© imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the importation or exportation of goods;
(d) excise taxes are taxes levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter and must be uniform throughout the united States;
(e) taxing incomes without apportionment is triggered by the realization of profits or gains which are then taxed, and the tax must be uniform throughout the united States when levied.
So which authorized tax may be used to levy the “shared responsibility payment” upon those who do not have federally approved health insurance, and be within the limitations of the tax pointed to?
It should also be noted that Justice Roberts admits the shared responsibility payment is triggered by not obtaining federally approved health insurance. But he ignores that acts of government which impinge upon fundamental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, e.g., see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”
Is Justice Roberts prepared to assert that Obamacare does not impinge upon the fundamental right of people being free to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs? Is this not an inalienable right exercised by the people prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution and has never explicitly or implicitly been made subject to federal regulatory legislation by our Constitution, but is actually protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments against such tyranny?
And why do so many women who want the government out of their womb, embrace Obamacare which is intended to assume total control over their entire body? Do they not realize what they are embracing when they give thumbs up to Obamacare and Justice Roberts’ judicial tyranny?
***Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote ***