Obamacare logic

[OKTX]

.

[penguin]

Excellent poster, which brings up a question of what kind of tax that is. I heard a discussion earlier today that there were only two kinds of taxes that the federal government was originally allowed by Constitution to impose:

A. Excise

B. Direct, if apportioned among the states (which have never been tried or used)

To that was added by 16th Amendment, the

C. Income type tax.

CJ Roberts deemed that the ObamaCrapCare funding WAS a tax, but without identifying WHAT KIND of tax it was. If in fact it is NOT any of the three above types of tax, then is it of a type NOT PERMITTED by that Constitution -- and therefore subject to a challenge of being a new type imposed ILLEGALLY without benefit of an enabling Amendment?

Aside from that minor problem of living in a seemingly lawless country where enforcement of anything appears to be highly selective, can anyone point to any other flaws in the above thinking?


.

[mikel]

A charge for something you DON'T do is a fine... You can't tax something if it doesn't exist.

As a related note, if this BS does continue right into implementation... What about the 49% of Americans that don't already pay any federal tax? Or don't even file taxes? Do they simply ALL get free health-care?

You know these people are going to setup some sort of fake health insurance company, pretend to buy it, then file for the "Tax Credit"... You think people scam the government now? Just wait for this POS.

[fegary]

Originally Posted by penguin

...
Aside from that minor problem of living in a seemingly lawless country where enforcement of anything appears to be highly selective, can anyone point to any other flaws in the above thinking?.

It's still premature for me to comment...I've only scanned the decision once and carefully read it twice now. I have a number of questions that I still have to research. What really shocked me is that one of the things that alarms me the most in the decision is actually in the dissent!?!

The decision aside, I'm still wondering about Kagan not recusing herself and if any action will be taken about that...but I very sadly recognize that's not too likely.

Originally Posted by mikel

A charge for something you DON'T do is a fine...

As some fortune cookies say: A tax is a fine for doing well and a fine is a tax for doing wrong.

[penguin]

Sorry I didn't record the poster's name who found the link and excerpts below, because it is ON TARGET:


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kaga...-lawyer-defend

(CNSNews.com) - When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.

A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

Laws? We don’t need no steenkin’ laws!


penguin again: Clearly, this administration and its henchmen assume they can't be held accountable for violating laws of their choosing. That is Soviet style tyranny, period!



.

[OneVoice]

One of the things that really brings me down is the feeling that the 'Supreme' Court is where the buck stops and that their decisions are basically beyond reproach. I know they can be impeached like any other government official, but that seems to be an onerous and highly unlikely pursuit. So what you get is akin to a parent telling their child "Because I told you so... and that's final !" Not liking that at all... especially when the Kagan non-recusal and the Roberts nonsensical legislate from the bench 'rewrite' of the statute concerning the definition of a tax of some new and unknown type are so totally, clearly, and utterly in need of reproach.

Bah. If I trusted our Federal Government at all before this week... I don't in any way shape or form at this point.

[bizguy]

What is the point of having a conservative majority on the court if they are going to get intimidated by name calling lefties into not making correct decisions?

[GoodAg]

[mikel]

So, this debt is going out of control, how long will it take before the entire system accelerates into a brick wall? The worse the taxes get, the more people that will drop out of the work force, especially when the government promises to provide for everybody. When will the makers get fed up with providing to the takers and revolt? Or will just be sheeple and business as usual?

[OneVoice]

Originally Posted by mikel

So, this debt is going out of control, how long will it take before the entire system accelerates into a brick wall? The worse the taxes get, the more people that will drop out of the work force, especially when the government promises to provide for everybody. When will the makers get fed up with providing to the takers and revolt? Or will just be sheeple and business as usual?

Who is John Galt?