Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,
John Roberts's art of war
Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist
what roberts effectively said is the congress has the power to make you buy ANYTHING just as long as they call it a tax.
It it was a tax, then the court should have rejected the case and said come back when the tax goes into effect, right?
Ask the judges. I'm just saying that upholding it was the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and that the damage was done 3 1/2 years ago. The blame for this terrible bill lies with the voters and not the SCOTUS.
The only way to fix it is to vote him out. I think this will hurt his chances a lot because many people are unhappy about this oppressive legislation. Legal or not, it's bad for the country.
It doesn't matter what those idiots call it. The question for the SCOTUS is only wether it's constitutional or not.
No, it matters a lot. If it's a tax then Congress maybe has that power. But the case could not have been brought.
If it's not a tax, then they have no power to implement such a thing.
The Dems swore it was not a tax. The legislation does not call it a tax. How can Roberts invent things in a bill and then pass judgment on it?
If it's a tax then it's a tax. It doesn't matter what the Dems called it. It doesn't matter what lies obama told about it, it is what it is.
If you don't buy health insurance, the government taxes (penalizes) you. They don't come to your house with guns and force you ro buy it. Therefor, it's a tax.
Congress already had that power. The difference now is that rather than interpretation being up for grabs, it no longer is. If they say we must by fruits or get penalized with a tax, they could do that. They can not however, simply mandate that we buy fruits.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?
How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?
While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.
And you're ok with this?
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
Yeah, lockstep with them or they'll run you over. Fucking lemmings.
Congress already had that power. The difference now is that rather than interpretation being up for grabs, it no longer is. If they say we must by fruits or get penalized with a tax, they could do that. They can not however, simply mandate that we buy fruits.
This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?
I'm not OK with it, but Roberts' job is to use the tools (laws and Constitution) he has, not invent new ones.They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?
How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?
While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.
And you're ok with this?
No, it matters a lot. If it's a tax then Congress maybe has that power. But the case could not have been brought.
If it's not a tax, then they have no power to implement such a thing.
The Dems swore it was not a tax. The legislation does not call it a tax. How can Roberts invent things in a bill and then pass judgment on it?
If it's a tax then it's a tax. It doesn't matter what the Dems called it. It doesn't matter what lies obama told about it, it is what it is.
If you don't buy health insurance, the government taxes (penalizes) you. They don't come to your house with guns and force you ro buy it. Therefor, it's a tax.
If it's a tax then they couldn't hear the case.
If it's not a tax then it isn't constitutional.
Which one is it?
The bill does not call it a tax. Roberts calls it a tax. Therefore Roberts had to re-write the bill to approve it.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
The proof is in the pudding asswipe. The argument before the court was whether or not the law was constitutional under the commerce clause. He re-defined it as being constitutional under the TAX levying powers of the assine democrat idiots of the congress. so bend over
You are dismissed.
you wish, and don't call yourself a fellow conservative either, no one is buying that bullshit.
Congress already had that power. The difference now is that rather than interpretation being up for grabs, it no longer is. If they say we must by fruits or get penalized with a tax, they could do that. They can not however, simply mandate that we buy fruits.
This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
And you don't feel completely deceived by Obama who insisted this was not a tax?
Yeah, lockstep with them or they'll run you over. Fucking lemmings.
Whether we lockstep with them or not we all get run over.
Those of us who are against statists like Obama and those who support him are equally harmed by Obamacare.
A tax for NOT buying a product, if that's not insanity to you than you're a statist.
The poor will be hurt the most by these tax increases, Big pharma, Big drug companies and big insurance companies who own DC LOVE Obamacare. The burden of cost control is shifting even more from the free market to bought off gov't politicians and bureacrats who are closely tied to the lobbyists of these companies.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,
John Roberts's art of war
Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist
what roberts effectively said is the congress has the power to make you buy ANYTHING just as long as they call it a tax.
They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
I can agree with much that you posted, except for "will ruin the economy and healthcare".
Actually, the cost of healthcare is ruining the country and has been for decades. I've seen/heard many an economist that have stated that the outrageous cost of heathcare in the US will cause huge economic problems form the US in the near future.
Obamacare isn't going to help and any plan the GOP has put on the table wouldn't do much if anything either. This is where Big Money from the healthcare industry towards our elected officials has come into play. Washington has sold out the general population.
In the US we pay about double of what every other country in the world pays! The US is about the only capitalistic developed country that doesn't negotiate with the healthcare industry,the cost of their services and products. It frigen ridiculous! And it wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything!
Secondly, most physicians favor a blend of public and private healthcare,,ala Single Option. it would lower the cost for everyone and offer less regulation regarding procedures/paperwork for the healthcare industry.
Both are win-win for the American people, so naturally, neither will happen because of the fact that Washington in full of political whores and those who profit from lack of leadership, from top-to-bottom, control those whores.
