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"?
---
the same compassion that sends our tax dollars and troops to the
middle east and the rest of the planet.
who has convinced our government that we should 'sell everything we
have and give to the poor?'
On Jun 29, 8:41 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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 <micha...@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 <micha...@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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
> FromBruceMajorsFaceBookPageThisMorning.06.29.2012..jpg
> 37KViewDownload
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment