Friday, June 29, 2012

I Don't get it! Until Obamacare is amended by Congress, isn't it still a mandate under the Commerce Clause?

The Supreme Court ruled that a mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce clause in which the current bill was based and written.

Are you with me?...

Now the court said that as a "Tax" it would be constitutional.

The bill however "AS WRITTEN" implies mandate, not tax. President Obama on numerous occasions has said it's "NOT A TAX"

So What I am asking is, UNTIL the President admits its a tax and not a mandate, and the bill is re-written to imply this, Why can't states refuse to comply on the grounds that the Supreme Court deems that a mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and therefore the CURRENT BILL AS WRITTEN is unconstitutional?

Now I'm not a lawyer...Does this make any sense?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Flagkeeper said...

THis may help-

Roberts may be a Jedi...

Machtyn said...

Just a little help for everybody else:

BOSMAN said...

So the supreme Court can deem the mandate a tax, but under the Constitution, ONLY the House of Representatives can impose it.

Therefore, the bill as written is INVALID.

If The house wants to impose the courts ruling, they would need to amend the bill and pass it as a tax. Because UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, only the House of Representatives can Tax Americans, NOT THE SUPREME COURT!

Lionhead said...

I'm not a lawyer, but I agree with Peter Schiff's legal argument laid out here:

“Well, it’s a horrible decision. The minority (dissenting view) was 100% correct. The whole thing should have been thrown out. In the end, they basically said it was a tax. There wasn’t even an enforcement mechanism in there. There was a tax, but if you didn’t pay it, the government couldn’t come after you for the money.... They essentially said that even though the intent may have been to punish people for not buying insurance, the effect is that they don’t get punished because it’s really just a tax. They basically said it’s constitutional because it’s not going to work. But it’s not a tax because a tax is there to raise revenue. This is not there to raise revenue, it’s there to punish you. It’s there to make you buy health insurance. So even though the Supreme Court said it’s not going to work, it doesn’t mean it’s constitutional just because it’s not going to work.

The intent is to make you do something, but the Supreme Court actually said that Congress doesn’t have the power to force you to buy health insurance. So if they don’t have the power, they don’t have the power. So the first thing they did wrong was to say it was a tax when it’s not a tax. Then, once you accept the idea that it’s a tax, it’s a direct tax and it needs to be apportioned. But the Supreme Court said it’s not a direct tax, and they said it’s not a direct tax because not everybody has to pay it. The reason for that is only people who don’t buy insurance have to pay it. That doesn’t change it from a direct tax to an indirect tax. It’s a direct tax on people who don’t buy insurance. A direct tax doesn’t have to be paid by everybody in order to be a direct tax. The income tax was declared unconstitutional as a direct tax. Not everybody paid it. Only the people who had income paid it, and only if you had income above a certain level. So that is not a criteria over whether something is a direct or an indirect tax. This (health care bill) is a direct tax on people. They are taxing you if you don’t have health insurance, and you have to pay the tax directly to the government.

So it’s not an excise, it’s a direct tax. The Supreme Court is wrong there, and therefore it’s an unconstitutional tax because it’s not being apportioned. So they did two things wrong, they said something was a tax that wasn’t a tax. And then once they said it was a tax, they then identified it as an indirect tax, when it should be a direct tax.

The net of this is it’s going to weaken the economy even further because of the extra burden of higher health care costs. It’s going to damage the insurance industry dramatically because many people are going to opt to pay for the penalty, rather than to buy insurance. So the insurance companies are not going to have the revenue to pay the claims. Basically, everybody who is sick is going to be putting in claims. The people who don’t get sick aren’t going to be paying a premium.”

Whatever anyone thinks in spinning this decision doesn't matter, whether it's positive or negative. Only one thing does; repeal by Congress ASAP & the return to the rule of law in the USA.

Lionhead said...

Looking at the Supreme Court (SC) decision thru the lens of preserving the principles of limited government, separation of powers, federalism, originalist construction of the Constitution & individual rights, all of which are Libertarian ideas, Mark Levin adds structure to Peter Schiff's legal argument. I urge all to listen to the radio link of Levin & read this Brief filed in conjunction with the SC decision by Landmark Legal Foundation which is precisely on point to the tax issues; see pages 25-44 (pdf pages) for the explanation that I'm totally in agreement with:

Audio Link:

Lionhead said...

The Gov't tells us we need to 'reform' health insurance. How about taking a look back at what's brought us obamacare in the Federal Gov't & Romneycare in a state Gov't. Replacing this law is counterproductive; repealing it is the only solution & return to the free market in healthcare. As Murray Rothbard writes:

"And so, our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."

Lionhead said...

I'll put my 2 cents in; this tax issue will be mis-understood by the voters as it's esoteric & a legal fiction. I had to reread Levin's Brief 3 times fully grasp the issues. The MSM will confuse folks & conflate the issues, which we are seeing happen right now, by saying it's a tax increase instead of it's a 'punishment' & the law is defective, hence non enforceable. Add the issues which RW has pointed out re Bush & 'conservative' judge to further disconnect the issues from the truth & how best to repeal this law. That's the real crux, as both sides don't want to kill the law as they only seek political advantage. The Free Stuff Folks will be happy; likely a lot of other voters may be apathetic after hearing tons of propaganda on both sides & may fall into the Stay Home Camp as they're confused.

MR is presidential, but can't address the issues as he's stated his Romneycare 'fees/taxes,' are punishments; ditto obama. They might just avoid this issue, as both are guilty equally in the false packaging of their plans. Both as Progressives want healthcare to survive, so if obama wins, he gets what he wanted originally, plus a boost from Roberts smoke screening the underlying issues for him. If MR wins, he doesn't do an outright repeal, but nibbles at the margins to make it more palatable to the centrists. In the end, healthcare will be won by the Progressive duopoly as Roberts 'smokescreen' saved the day & confused everyone in the electorate.

Bachmann has the only solution; outright repeal, refusal by the States to establish the 'exchanges' required. I would add outright refusal of the States to implement or fund the law, forcing the issue back on Congress to repeal it. If that fails, then the States have to go Jeffersonian & 'nullify' the law on their own as the injured party according to the "Principles of 98." Folks here are missing the draconian nature of the damage done. Stop worrying about the VP pick for MR & defeat this law. It's imperative.

Remember Bachmann, one of my first picks for the primary? The one you guyz ridiculed & trivialized? Yes, now she has the solution: