Guten Abend From Troisdorf Deutschland Michael!
You know, in all honesty I enjoy you! I enjoy your posts; your commentary and your take on a number of the articles that you post. When I have the time, I try to read most of everything that you do post.....With all due respect, I even read the articles that I consider to be penned by; (and admittedly my term: ) "Wacko Right, Conspiratorialist Crackpots"; or those who would like to think of themselves as proverbially being "Extreme Libertarians".
Nevertheless, a couple of observations:
First, we all see so many things written and said on the web, on a gamut of subject matter, that is so far from accurate or truthful.....No question, the WWW is an amazing phenomena and a truly wonderful resource; but it also has very little checks with regard to regulating and/or prohibiting those who haven't a clue of what they are talking about, getting on the web and posting information that is false and fictitious, but representing such information as the gospel.
Second, with regard to the Supreme Court's June 28, 2012 Opinion which in part upheld the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"; or "ObamaCare"; we have seen a whole lot of commentary written and/or verbally professed from both sides of the aisle....."Talking Heads"; columnists and bloggers, both from the World Wide Web as well as in the mainstream media who have had a whole lot to say in just a few short days.
Many of these individuals that I reference haven't a clue about what they are talking about. It is clear that most of them have not even taken the time to read the Court's Syllabus, much less the actual Opinion, and admittedly it's lengthy; a total of 193 pages.....The Majority's Decision is 59 pages in and of itself.
My goal here is not to sound arrogant; just the opposite. As stated, I enjoy your posts, and our discussions here in PF. I don't like the condescending repartee however. Scratch your head all you want.....Did you read the Opinion? If you did, then you would know, (addressed on Page 40-41 of Judge Roberts' Ruling, that Judge Roberts and the Majority (as well as Judge Scalia and the Dissent) very well considered the issue of whether the purported ObamaCare "Tax" is potentially capitation; a direct tax, or in any way a violation of Article I, §9, clause 4 of our Constitution. See 06.28.2012 Slip Op at 40-42.
I know that most Americans don't have time to read Supreme Court Opinions. This howevever was a monumental Decision, and something that could potentially effect our very way of life, and the direction of our Nation. I probably over-reacted this past Thursday, when the Court rendered its Opinion , but the Court's Decision pissed me off; and I still don't fully understand Judge Roberts' logic; which as stated in my previous posts, centers around his determination (and again, I opine mistakenly) that a "Tax" is analogous to a "Penalty". As Judge Scalia pointed out, this is the first time in our recorded history that the Court has concluded as such.
I think the only way that one could understand the Court's ruling, and what actually happened, is if they take the time to actually read the Opinion. The only way that one would understand my comments, is if they take the time to at least look at my extracted, highlighted pages of the Opinion, that I attached to my previous comments above, and once again here today. when folks make far reaching opinions that are contrary to what the Court said, it doesn't reflect well nor does it add to their credibility.
Keith
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM, MJ
<michaelj@america.net> wrote:
<scratches head>
The Constitution does not matter and is not the 'central issue' on matters Constitutional and Unconstitutional?
Regard$,
--MJ
"In all my years as a judge at every level of the bench, including the Supreme court, at least 85% of all lawyers that practiced before me were either INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, OR BOTH."
-- former supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
At 09:41 AM 6/29/2012, you wrote:
Hey Michael,
I don't see this as being the "central" issue. It boils down to whether the term, "Penalty" can be for the first time construed as a"Tax"; and the definition prior to yesterday, was that a "Penalty" was unlawful. Clearly, as both Justices Scalia and Roberts pointed out, with differing conclusions, is that the Congress never intended for the estimated 4 million Americans who they believe will not subscribe to the individual mandate of health insurance, (and how they come up with 4 million is anyone's guess.....I surmise it will be more like 20 million!) were not to be considered, "criminal".
Therein lies the conundrum, and for the life of me, I don't see how Roberts could have concluded that "Penalty" is a "Tax". He nevertheless did.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM, MJ <
michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- The Court is playing word games in order to justify/affirm this unconstitutional nonsense.
- The Constitution (rather than stare decisis -- simply compounding the errors of past edicts) states:
- AIS2C3
- ... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...
- AIS7C1
- All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
- AIS8C1
- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
- This 'penalty tax' is direct, but NOT apportioned.
- The legislation -- if a tax -- originated in the Senate, not the House.
- The Power to 'tax' is limited to 'raising revenue' in order to accomplish the powers enumerated. To whit: The Congress's power To 'tax' can ONLY be in done in order to pay debts (see AIS8C2), provide common Defence (see AIS8C10-16) or provide for the general well-being (see AIS8C3-9, 17).
- Notably absent is a Power to 'tax' in an effort to 'penalize' or 'punish' as occurs with PPACA in the absurd light the latest decree provided by Bush Justice Roberts and his merry band of usurpers.
- Furthermore, AIS8C3
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- Commerce is the exchange of title. Joe contracting with Doctor A is not with 'foreign Nations' not 'among several States' not 'with Indian Tribes'. Joe is merely WITHIN a State.
- As is typical of 90% of what is foisted upon Americans, Amendment X applies:
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general. welfare of the United States." It has been common with the gentlemen, on this subject, to present as with frightful pictures. We are told of the hosts of tax-gatherers that will swarm through the land; and whenever taxes are mentioned, military force seems to be an attending idea. I think I may venture to predict that the taxes of the general government, if any shall be laid, will be more equitable, and much less expensive, than those imposed by state governments. -- Mr. Wilson 04 December 1787
- At 07:23 AM 6/29/2012, you wrote:
- Good Afternoon from Köln Michael,
-
- I got to my apartment yesterday evening around 18:30 Central European Time, and the American news agencies were just beginning to report the Supreme's Opinion. I was tired, frustrated, (I had sat in traffic for over an hour and a half, just to get less than twelve miles) and hearing the news, I felt literally devastated. I was so frustrated, and felt sold out by my own Nation. What is it that these people could have been thinking? How is it that some of our people could want such a dramatic change in our very way of culture; all in the name of "compassion"? Can they not see how this socialized system is such a miserable failure here in Europe? Why would we want to emulate something (e.g.; socialism and communism) that has never worked through recorded time?
-
- Well, after several cocktails, (and dinner) and after receiving numerous e-mails from individuals and entities that were just as outraged as I was, I did find some solace.
-
- I took the time this morning to read Justice Robert's Majority Opinion; as well as Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion, and the Dissent's Opinion. (That took over two hours to get through!)
-
- I disagree that Justice Roberts has somehow issued a Lennist Opinion.....I am baffled as to how Justice Ginsberg could be even remotely construed as a legal scholar; and I do believe that the Dissent's Opinion, written by Justice Scalia is more aptly correct, with regard to one point, and a point that I think Grigg, like many of the media talking heads, are missing.
-
- It's one, very simple point, and what this whole Decision rests upon: The distinction between the term "Tax" and "Penalty". On Page 39, Justice Roberts makes the following Statement:
-
- "That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word "penalty" to describe the payment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly "[i]mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation." Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislature's enactment."
- Slip Op at 39.
- On the other hand, Justice Scalia frames it as such:
-
- "In answering that question we must, if "fairly possible," Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. " ' "[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- ation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . ." or judicially rewriting it.' " Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. supra."
- "Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: " '[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide forthe support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.' "United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a "tax" imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress' taxing power. "
- Dissent Slip Op at 17-18.
- I have extracted, (and then highlighted) what I found to be the key portions of both Justice Roberts' and Justice Scalia's written Opinions. Again, this just my take, and for my notes; feel free to take as little or as much of them as you wish.
- With regard to Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion in part, and dissenting Opinion in part, I did read it, but found nothing whatsoever worthy of even quoting or adding here. Justice Ginsberg is an embarassment to the Judiciary, period.
- On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- "Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright."
- John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate
- Posted on 28 June 2012
- by William Grigg
- In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court -- the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.
- During a 2009 interview with the obsequious George Stephanopolos, President Obama said that he "absolutely reject[s] the notion" that the federal health care mandate is a tax increase. This morning, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by nominal conservative Chief Justice Roberts, rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Constitution's Commerce Clause permits an individual health care mandate; however, the Court also claimed that it could impose such a directive by means of a direct un-apportioned tax (which is not authorized by the Constitution -- see Article I section 2, clause 3 -- and thus is expressly forbidden by it, as if that mattered anymore).
- "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we've seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
- In the opinion he wrote on behalf of the four dissenting justices, Antonin Scalia described the Obamacare individual mandate, and the powers arrogated by Washington to enforce it, as a "blatant violation of the constitutional structure," irrespective of the conceptual framework used to justify it.
- Scalia pointed out that with respect to the constitutional power "to tax and spend for the general welfare," the High Court "has long since expanded that beyond … taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government's enumerated powers" to the point that it now effectively manages practically every aspect of the lives of U.S. citizens -- and has absorbed all of the powers and functions once reserved to the states. The gravamen of this case, Scalia insists, is not whether the mandate can be justified on grounds other than the Commerce Clause, but whether there are any identifiable limits on the exercise of federal power:
- What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power -- upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.
- The Obamacare statute "exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding," Scalia concludes. "These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act's other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."
- Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.
- In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court's imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain -- and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.
- Read the ruling here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
- http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/john-roberts-constitutional-traitor-chief-justice-approves-obamacare-tax-mandate.html
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
-
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: application/pdf;
name="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl..Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl..Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h416bmg10
Content-Type: application/pdf;
name="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl.Dissent.Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl.Dissent.Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h416bmg51
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="FromBruceMajorsFaceBookPageThisMorning.06.29.2012..jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="FromBruceMajorsFaceBookPageThisMorning.06.29.2012..jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h41b8xni0
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at
http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
WordPress.com
