Obamacare is presumptively unconstitutional, says the Court!


#1

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?

JWK

***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 ***


#2

Roberts is a liar and a Traitor, liars and Traitors are not concerned with things like “doing their job with integrity” or “honoring the oath that they swore”.

He knew his ruling was Unconstitutional the moment he made it, so did everyone else who has bothered to read the Constitution and wants it to endure.

Spelling it out over and over again just provides Roberts with cover, it gives the illusion that the issue is debatable.

If the issue is debatable then Roberts merely has a different opinion, the truth is that this issue is not debatable therefore Roberts is a Traitor.


#3

You wont get any argument with me on that, especially when my old and tattered student law dictionary defines tyranny as follows:

***“The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. See DESPOTISM.” ***___ Bouviers Student Law Dictionary, 1925-28

But why are the America People, especially the 26 State AGs, rolling over and bowing down to Obamacare’s legislative tyranny which is backed up by Roberts judicial tyranny?

When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin. ___ SEE: HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS

The America People ought to be in Washington, D.C., surrounding the Supreme Court and demanding those on the Court who upheld Obamacare as being constitutional to resign or face a sever punishment.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.


#4

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?

How is he doing that? Is my “fundamental right” as a consumer impinged because the state levies a sales tax on everything I purchase? The ObamaCare tax is little more than a penalty, or sales tax if you will, on my decision to self-insure my health care costs. It’s preferable to the alternative of permitting hospitals to turn away those who present themselves with emergencies but have no ability to pay. Self-insurance has inevitable sociatal costs; a tax to address such costs is hardly unConstitutional.


#5

I have said this repeatedly over the years and more so in the rein of Obama. I can forsee the Constitution being moved from its current location to the Smithsonian Museum by the time his rein is over.

Obamacare, now the 2nd Amendment, which is the single most important amendment on which all others depend…

The America you know TODAY, 19 Dec 2012, will not exist in 4 years, you will not know it.

Over the past 4 years we have spent $3 for every $2 we were taking in…The REPORT TODAY is we are NOW spending $2.06 for every $1 we are taking in. We will collapse financially in 4 years


#6

We are not talking about a sales tax on things you purchase. You will never make a good stand up comic. Aside from that and in respect to your arguments, there is a prescribed method in our Constitution to grant new powers to Congress and to accommodate changing time. And that method is outlined in Article V, and Constitution’s amendment process, and requires consent of the governed by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof. To avoid the constitutional method for change and surreptitiously impose Obamacare upon the people which in fact impinges upon a fundamental right is an act of tyranny.

My dusty and old student law dictionary defines tyranny as:

***“The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. See DESPOTISM.” ***___ Bouviers Student Law Dictionary, 1925-28

Just for you information, it is settled law that a legislative act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also 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.”

I cannot imagine a cogent argument asserting 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 being free to make one’s own choices and decisions regarding their health care needs an inalienable right exercised by the people prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution? Has this right been explicitly or implicitly made subject to federal regulatory legislation by our Constitution? In fact, is this unalienable right not shielded from federal legislation by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?

All that is needed to bring this challenge before the Court is a group of petitioners [a class action case] and a patriotic legal organization such as the Landmark Legal Foundation dedicated to enforcing the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

But tell me, where in Roberts written opinion did he identify an existing power beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which authorizes Congress to levy a discriminatory tax seeking out only those citizens in the united states who do not have federally approved health insurance, and burdening them with a tax which others are not required to pay? The fact is, no delegation of power is to be found in the subjoined list of particulars beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which authorizes Congress to discriminatorily tax a citizen of Florida, or any state for not having federally approved health insurance___ a subject matter which has been reserved to the States respectively or to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments!

JWK

***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 ***


#7

We are not talking about a sales tax on things you purchase. You will never make a good stand up comic. Aside from that and in respect to your arguments, there is a prescribed method in our Constitution to grant new powers to Congress and to accommodate changing time. And that method is outlined in Article V, and Constitution’s amendment process, and requires consent of the governed by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof. To avoid the constitutional method for change and surreptitiously impose Obamacare upon the people which in fact impinges upon a fundamental right is an act of tyranny.

Sure it’s like a sales tax, or use tax. The marketplace is insurance. You participate in that market by deciding to self insure your medical care. A tax is assessed on your decision, just as surely as the tax you pay when you decide to buy a gallon of gas.

Why is that tax assessed? In the case of the gas tax, it is to help defray some of the costs that drivers impose on government (or, if you will, on the rest of us); e.g., for roads, for infrastructure. In the case of an individual mandate tax, it is to help defray the cost of treating self-insured individuals who, inevitably, are unable to pay for catastrophic expenses.

As for the amendment process, I agree with you that the People should take advantage of it far more often then they do. But reality is that we had a referendum on ObamaCare in this last election, and the President won. We could have been rid of it by now, or by next month. I don’t know how you voted john, but I hope you were part of the solution and not the problem.


#8

Only in your convoluted thinking. Aside from that Congress is not granted power to lay and collect a “sales tax”, nor a “use” tax. See post No. 1 for Congress’ authorized taxing powers.

Our federal Constitution does not permit a referendum process in which a majority vote of the people may then impose its will upon the minority, AKA democracy. We are guaranteed a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” which was specifically designed to protect us from 51 percent of the people using their vote to vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the nation’s population.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

***…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. ***

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy…"

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out*** “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”***

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”. . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying *** “A republic, if you can keep it.”***

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

JWK

***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 ***


#9

So, a fundamental question remains. What part of “presumptively unconstitutional" does Roberts not understand when it comes to Congress meddling in the people‘s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their medical and health care needs?

Additionally, why do so many women who want the government out of their womb, embrace Obamacare which is intended to assume 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?

JWK

***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 ***


#10

It’s not a tax you silly little idiots! The Messiah said, “It’s not a tax”, and the Messiah can’t lie!! (sarcasm)

Seems I can’t type a post without at least one typo. damn…


#11

Well, look at this. Supreme Court Justice Won’t Block HHS Mandate for Hobby Lobby

“After a federal court denied a request to temporarily stop enforcement of the abortion pill mandate against the Christian-operated business Hobby Lobby, it took its HHS mandate lawsuit to the Supreme Court. Late yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied its request to block the mandate and the millions of dollars in fines it will be subjected to starting January 1 for not complying.”

Of course this ongoing attack on Christians and their religious freedoms by our federal government is no big surprise, especially when it comes from Obama’s hand picked henchwoman, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was all too happy to rule in favor of a Muslim prison inmate being denied Ramadan meals and now turns around and attacks Christians to help Obama in fundamentally transforming America.

When will the America People rise up and defend their country and punish public servants for using their office of public trust to constantly subvert and overrule the specific provisions and protections written into our Constitution?

JWK

***“He has erected a multitude of new offices(Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ***___Declaration of Independence


#12

I was going to post this as a separate thread, but since jwk posted the prelude to it:

Hobby Lobby Defies Obama Administration with Civil Disobedience for Religious Liberty
by Ken Klukowski


2012/12/28

Now that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied Hobby Lobby’s application for an emergency injunction protecting them from Obamacare’s HHS Mandate on abortion and birth control, Hobby Lobby has decided to defy the federal government to remain true to their religious beliefs, at enormous risk and financial cost.

Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life. Given Hobby Lobby’s size (it has 572 stores employing more than 13,000 people), by violating the HHS Mandate, it will be subject to over $1.3 million in fines per day. That means over $40 million in fines in January alone. If their case takes another ten months to get before the Supreme Court …

This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. … the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.

Not sure how emergency injunction applications are assigned among USSC Justices, but I suspect the Greens knew what Justice Sotomayor’s decision was likely to be … and began planning for this next step when they heard Justice Sotomayor was handling their application. The Greens are putting their money where their religious beliefs are! And they are likely to be far from alone. The MSM are going to have a huge problem suppressing/spinning this into anything less than a months- or years-long black eye for Pres. Obama. And a fight that he might end up losing.


#13

Amendment XVI: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” – 16th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The “shared responsibility payment” is clearly an income tax authorized by the 16th Amendment. It is even part of the Internal Revenue Code.

(2) Monthly penalty amounts
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the monthly penalty amount with respect to any taxpayer for any month during which any failure described in subsection (b)(1) occurred is an amount equal to 1/12 of the greater of the following amounts:
indent Flat dollar amount
An amount equal to the lesser of—
indent the sum of the applicable dollar amounts for all individuals with respect to whom such failure occurred during such month, or
(ii) 300 percent of the applicable dollar amount (determined without regard to paragraph (3)©) for the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.
(B) Percentage of income
An amount equal to the following percentage of the excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012 (a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer for the taxable year:
(i) 1.0 percent for taxable years beginning in 2014.
(ii) 2.0 percent for taxable years beginning in 2015.
(iii) 2.5 percent for taxable years beginning after 2015.[/indent][/indent]

26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage | LII / Legal Information Institute

cf.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Public Law 111-148 (pdf)


#14

It may be clear in you mind, but not a thinking person’s mind.

With reference to the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, Roberts indicates in his written opinion that the “shared responsibility payment” is paid into the Treasury by taxpayer[s] when they file their tax returns but makes no mention that the shared responsibility payment is a tax upon income without apportionment.

In fact, there would be a very big problem if Roberts identifies the shared responsibility payment as a tax upon incomes because the realization of “income” does not trigger the “shared responsibility payment”. What triggers the shared responsibility payment is not having federally approved health insurance, not a realization of profits, gains or income.

Additionally, since not having federally approved health insurance triggers the shared responsibility payment, what constitutionally delegated power was intended to allow the federal government to tax a person living in Florida, or any State, for not having federally approved health insurance? Are we to forget that the Ninth and Tenth amendments are specifically intended to reserve all powers to the states respectively and to the people which have not been delegated to Congress?

JWK


#15

The good news is, Obamacare is still before the Courts and the fight is still very much alive. SEE: Company Gets Injunction Stopping HHS Mandate Enforcement

LifeNews.com | 12/31/12

In one of the dozens of cases against the pro-abortion HHS mandate under Obamacare, a company has won a court-ordered injunction against enforcement of the mandate, which goes into effect tomorrow.

Just for the record and to clarify what this fight is about, let us recall the Terri Schiavo case in which the Court repeatedly pointed out that it was “presumptively unconstitutional" for the state to step in and interfere with a fundamental right ___ the right of one to make one’s own decisions regarding their medical and health care needs. This was never in dispute during the case. What was in dispute was whether Terri actually made the decision to refuse life support, or did her husband invent that decision for her?

But the point is, it has long been settled law that a legislative act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also 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.”

It seems only too clear that Hobby Lobby being denied a request to have the court temporarily stop enforcement of the abortion pill mandate while the case is being litigated is an assault upon a fundamental right and yet Justice Sotomayor denied that request in spite of the fact that she recently stepped in to protect a fundamental right of a Muslim being denied Ramadan meals in jail. So why did she turn her back on Christians when they chose to exercise a well known and long standing religious belief? Perhaps she, along with her Godless Obama crowd pals were hopping the fine of $ 1.3 million a day would either bankrupt the company or force them to turn their back upon their religious beliefs.

Getting back to the individual mandate, the irrefutable fact is, an act of government which impinges upon the individual’s fundamental right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their medical and health care needs is without question presumptively unconstitutional. So, what part of “presumptively unconstitutional” does Justice Roberts not understand?

Those cherish liberty, do not give up in the fight against Obamacare!We need to give our full support to Hobby Lobby and draw the line in the sand on this one!

JWK

It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operations used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected.


#16

Still have a chance to get rid of it… but it’s a frightfully slim chance.


#17

Well look what I found: Missouri House Votes to Nullify Obamacare in its Entirety

“On April 19, 2012, HB:1534 passed the Missouri House with a vote of 108 to 44! The bill “Declares the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unauthorized by the United States Constitution and creates criminal penalties for persons enforcing or attempting to enforce the act”

We all know Obamacare is unconstitutional and federal employees who dare to enforce this act of tyranny well deserve to be immediately punished for aiding and abetting in an act of sedition.

I suspect there will be many out-of-state volunteers coming to Missouri’s aid if federal employees choose to side with Obama and not our Constitution which they took an oath to support and defend against both foreign and DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

JWK

***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 ***


#18

I’d be interested in seeing if more businesses relocate there…


#19

Of course a little more research would have shown this whole thing is history as the bill died not having Senate approval let alone the governor’s signature.
It is reintroduced again this month in the assembly but no hearings are scheduled.

Of course the bill is unconstitutional but I guess when all you’ve got is a one trick pony…you keep trying the same trick.
The damn liberals at theHeritage Foundation [/sarc] expose the whole fraudulent idea: Nullification—Unlawful and Unconstititional: Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional


#20

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:4, topic:37534”]
It’s preferable to the alternative of permitting hospitals to turn away those who present themselves with emergencies but have no ability to pay.
[/quote]Perhaps a minor point, but here in Arizona (I have no idea what the law is in other states), a hospital ER MUST accept anyone, regardless of their ability to pay or not. Arizona ER’s CANNOT turn someone away, payment or not.

This applies only to the ER, and not the normal hospital admitting procedure for scheduled treatment. PLUS, the ER is only required to treat 'till the condition is “stable” . . . and then can turn the indigent loose on the street and further treatment (the standard ER recommendation for PCP “follow-up”) must be secured by the patient.